3. JUDICIAL REVIEW
Q: How are decisions of the commissions reviewed by the SC?
A:
1. COA: Judgments or final orders of the Commission on Audit may be brought by an aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65. Only when COA acts without or excess in jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, may the SC entertain a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
2. CSC: In the case of decisions of the CSC, Administrative Circular 1‐95538 which took effect on June 1, 1995, provides that final resolutions of the CSC shall be appealable by certiorari to the CA within 15 days from receipt of a copy thereof.
From the decision of the CA, the party adversely affected thereby shall file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
3. COMELEC: only decision en banc may be brought to the Court by certiorari since Article IX‐
C, says that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc. (Reyes v. Mindoro, G.R. No. 108886, May 5, 1995)
Q: When certiorari to the Supreme Court is chosen, what is required?
A: Rule 65, Section 1 says that certiorari may be resorted to when there is no other plain or speedy and adequate remedy. But reconsideration is a speedy and adequate remedy. Hence, a case may be brought to the Supreme Court only after reconsideration.
4. QUASI‐JUDICIAL FUNCTION
Q; Does the CSC have the power to hear and decide administrative cases?
A: Yes, Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the CSC has the power to hear and decide administrative cases instituted before it directly or on appeal, including contested appointments.
Q: Which body has the jurisdiction on personnel actions, covered by the civil service?
A: The CSC. It is the intent of the Civil Service Law, in requiring the establishment of a grievance procedure, that decisions of lower officials (in cases involving personnel actions) be appealed to the agency head, then to the CSC. The RTC does not have jurisdiction over such personal actions.
(G. R. No. 140917. October 10, 2003)
Q: Which body has the exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections?
A: It is the COMELEC.
Note: The COMELEC also have the exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials.
The COMELEC also have the appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
Q: What is the difference between the jurisdiction of the COMELEC before the proclamation and its jurisdiction after proclamation?
A: The difference lies in the due process implications.
OVER PRE‐
PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
OVER CONTESTS (AFTER PROCLAMATION) COMELEC’s jurisdiction
is administrative or quasi‐judicial and is governed by the less stringent requirements of administrative due process (although the SC has insisted that
question on
“qualifications” should be decided only after a full‐dress hearing).
COMELEC’s jurisdiction is judicial and is governed by the requirements of judicial process.
Note: Hence, even in the case of regional or provincial or city offices, it does make a difference whether the COMELEC will treat it as a pre‐
proclamation controversy or as a contest.
70
PAHOLITICAL DVISERERAZEUS : ALCAW TTYHRISTINE .T EEAMDWIN :Y. R UEY Y;S MANDOVALEMBERS:; SLUBJECT AWRENCE HEADPAULO : RACHEL H. AQUINOMARIE , LL.EANDRO FELICESR; AODEL SST.V. SUBJECT ATIENZAHEADS, MARINETH : WIVINO EASTER E. BRACERO AN D. IIA YOS& ,Q: What are the fundamental powers of the State?
A:
1. Police Power
2. Power of Eminent Domain 3. Power of Taxation
Q: What are the similarities among the fundamental powers of the State?
A:
1. They are inherent in the State and may be exercised by it without need of express constitutional grant.
2. They are not only necessary but indispensable. The State cannot continue or be effective unless it is able to exercise them.
3. They are methods by which the State interferes with private rights.
4. They all presuppose an equivalent compensation for the private rights interfered with.
5. They are exercised primarily by the legislature.
Q: What are the common limitations of these powers?
A:
1. May not be exercised arbitrarily to the prejudice of the Bill of Rights
2. Subject at all times to the limitations and requirements of the Constitution and may in proper cases be annulled by the courts, i.e. when there is grave abuse of discretion.
Q: How do these powers differ from one another?
A:
Police Power Taxation Eminent Domain
Q: What are the characteristics of police power as compared to the powers of taxation and eminent domain?
A: Police power easily outpaces the other two powers. It regulates not only property, but also the liberty of persons. Police power is considered the most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most demanding of the three powers. It may be exercised as long as the activity or property sought to be regulated has some relevance to the public needs. However, its particular aspects are the following:
1. Public health 2. Public morals 3. Public safety 4. Public welfare
Q: Who exercises police power?
A:
GR: Police power is lodged primarily in the national legislature.
XPN: By virtue of a valid delegation of legislative power, it may be exercised by the:
1. President
2. Administrative bodies
3. Lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels, including the barangay.
Municipal governments exercise this power under the general welfare clause. (Gorospe, Constitutional Law:
Notes and Readings on the Bill of Rights,
A:
1. Express grant by law 2. Must not be contrary to law 3. GR: Within territorial limits of LGUs
XPN: When exercised to protect water supply (Wilson v. City of Mountain Lake Terraces, 417 P.2d 632, 1966)
Q: Can anyone compel the government to exercise police power?
A: No. The exercise of police power lies in the discretion of the legislative department. The only remedy against legislative inaction is a resort to the bar of public opinion, a refusal of the electorate to turn to the legislative members who, in their view, have been remiss in the discharge of their duties.
Q: Can the courts interfere with the exercise of police power?
A: No. If the legislature decides to act, the choice of measures or remedies lies within its exclusive discretion, as long as the requisites for a valid exercise of police power have been complied with.
Q: What are the tests to determine the validity of a police measure?
A:
1. Lawful subject – The interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the exercise of the police power
2. Lawful means – The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals
71
U S T
A C :L J A E.F II
2. EMINENT DOMAIN
Q: What are the conditions for the exercise of the power of eminent domain?
A:
1. Taking of private property 2. For public use
3. Just compensation 4. Observance of due process
Q: Who exercises the power of eminent domain?
A: Congress. However, the following may exercise this power by virtue of a valid delegation:
1. The President of the Philippines 2. Various local legislative bodies
3. Certain public corporations like the Land Authority and National Housing Authority
4. Quasi‐public corporations like the Philippine National Railways
Q: Distinguish the between the power of expropriation as exercised by Congress and the power of expropriation as exercised by delegates.
A: When exercised by Congress, the power is pervasive and all‐encompassing but when exercised by delegates, it can only be broad as the enabling law and the conferring authorities want it to be.
As to the question of necessity, the same is a political question when the power is exercised by Congress. On the other hand, it is a judicial question when exercised by delegates. The courts can determine whether there is genuine necessity for its exercise, as well as the value of the property.
Q: What are the requisites for a valid taking?
A: PMAPO
1. The expropriator must enter a Private property
2. Entry must be for more than a Momentary period
3. Entry must be under warrant or color of legal Authority
4. Property must be devoted to Public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected
5. Utilization of property must be in such a way as to Oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property (Republic v. vda. De Castellvi, G.R. No. L‐20620, Aug. 15, 1974)
Q: What properties can be taken?
A: All private property capable of ownership, including services.
Q: What properties cannot be taken?
A: Money and choses in action, personal right not reduced in possession but recoverable by a suit at law, right to receive, demand or recover debt, demand or damages on a cause of action ex contractu or for a tort or omission of duty.
Q: Distinguish eminent domain from destruction from necessity.
A:
72
PAHOLITICAL DVISERERAZEUS : ALCAW TTYHRISTINE .T EEAMDWIN :Y. R UEY Y;S MANDOVALEMBERS:; SLUBJECT AWRENCE HEADPAULO : RACHEL H. AQUINOMARIE , LL.EANDRO FELICESR; AODEL SST.V. SUBJECT ATIENZAHEADS, MARINETH : WIVINO EASTER E. BRACERO AN D. IIA YOS& ,CARLO R. BALA, WILFREDO T. BONILLA, JR., KEEL ACHERNAR R. DINOY, APRIL V. ENRILE, KENNETH JAMES CARLO C. HIZON, JOSE MARIA G. MENDOZA, ROGER CHRISTOPHER R. REYES, ROMILINDA C. SIBAL, JASMIN M. SISON, ZARAH PATRICIA T. SUAREZ, RALPH JULIOUS L.
Eminent domain Destruction from necessity Who can exercise Only authorized
public entities or public officials
May be validly undertaken by private
individuals Kind of right
Public right
Right of self‐defense, self‐preservation, whether applied to persons or to property Requirement
Conversion of property taken for public use; payment of just compensation
No need for conversion;
no just compensation but payment in the form
of damages when applicable Beneficiary
State/public Private
(Gorospe, Constitutional Law: Notes and Readings on the Bill of Rights, Citizenship and Suffrage, Vol.
2)
Q: Does the requisite of public use mean “use by the public at large?
A: No. Whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement.
Moreover, that only few people benefits from the expropriation does not diminish its public‐use character because the notion of public use now includes the broader notion of indirect public benefit or advantage.(Manosca v. CA, G.R.
166440, Jan. 29, 1996).
Q: What is just compensation?
A: It is the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from the private owner (owner’s loss) by the expropriator. It is usually the fair market value (FMV) of the property and must include consequential damages (damages to the other interest of the owner attributed to the expropriation) minus consequential benefits (increase in the value of other interests attributed to new use of the former property).
Note: FMV is the price fixed by the parties willing but not compelled to enter into a contract of sale.
Q: Does compensation have to be paid in money?
A:
GR: Yes.
XPN: In cases involving CARP, compensation may be in bonds or stocks, for it has been held as a non‐traditional exercise of the power of eminent domain. It is not an ordinary expropriation where only a specific property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the State from its owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose. It is rather a revolutionary kind of expropriation (Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742, 14 July 1989).
Q: When should assessment of the value of the property be determined?
A: The value of the property must be determined either at the time of taking or filing of the complaint, whichever comes first.(EPZA v. Dulay, G.R. No. 59603, April 29, 1987).
Q: Does non‐payment of just compensation entitle the private owner to recover possession of the expropriated property?
A:
GR: Non‐payment by the government does not entitle private owners to recover possession of the property because expropriation is an in rem proceeding, not an ordinary sale, but only entitle them to demand payment of the fair market value of the property.
XPNS:
1. When there is deliberate refusal to pay just compensation
2. Government’s failure to pay compensation within 5 years from the finality of the judgment in the expropriation proceedings. This is in connection with the principle that the government cannot keep the property and dishonor the judgment. (Republic v.
Lim, G.R. No. 161656, June 29, 2005)
Q: Is the owner entitled to the payment of interest? How about reimbursement of taxes paid on the property?
A: Yes, the owner is entitled to the payment of interest from the time of taking until just compensation is actually paid to him. Taxes paid by him from the time of the taking until the transfer of title (which can only be done after actual payment of just compensation), during which he did not enjoy any beneficial use of the property, are reimbursable by the expropriator.
Q: What legal interest should be used in the computation of interest on just compensation?
A: An interest of 12% per annum on the just compensation due the landowner. (LBP v.
Wycoco G.R. No. 140160, January 13, 2004)
73
U S T
A C :L J A E.F II
3. TAXATION
Q: What are taxes and what is taxation?
A: Taxes are:
1. Enforced proportional contributions from persons and property
2. Levied by the State by virtue of its sovereignty
3. For the support of the government 4. For public needs
Taxation is the method by which these contributions are exacted. (Gorospe, Constitutional Law: Notes and Readings on the Bill of Rights, Citizenship and Suffrage, Vol. 2)
Q: What is the source of the obligation to pay taxes?
A: Payment of taxes is an obligation based on law, and not on contract. It is a duty imposed upon the individual by the mere fact of his membership in the body politic and his enjoyment of the benefits available from such membership.
Note: Except only in the case of poll (community) taxes, non‐payment of a tax may be the subject of criminal prosecution and punishment. The accused cannot invoke the prohibition against imprisonment for debt as taxes are not considered debts.
Q: What are the matters left to the discretion of the legislature?
A:
1. Whether to tax in the first place 2. Whom or what to tax
3. For what public purpose 4. Amount or rate of the tax
Q: What are the limitations, in general, on the power of taxation?
A: Inherent and Constitutional limitations.
Q: What are inherent limitations?
A:
1. Public purpose
2. Non‐delegability of power
3. Territoriality or situs of taxation 4. Exemption of government from taxation 5. International comity
Q: What are Constitutional limitations?
A:
1. Due process of law (Art. III, Sec.1) 2. Equal protection clause (Art. III, Sec.1) 3. Uniformity, equitability and progressive
system of taxation (Art. VI, Sec 28) 4. Non‐impairment of contracts (Art. III,
Sec. 10)
5. Non‐imprisonment for non‐payment of poll tax (Art. III, Sec. 20)
6. Revenue and tariff bills must originate in the House of Representatives (Art I, Sec. 7)
7. Non‐infringement of religious freedom (Art. III, Sec.4)
8. Delegation of legislative authority to the President to fix tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues
9. Tax exemption of properties actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable and educational purposes (NIRC, Sec 30)
10. Majority vote of all the members of Congress required in case of legislative grant of tax exemptions
11. Non‐impairment of SC’s jurisdiction in tax cases
12. Tax exemption of revenues and assets of, including grants, endowments, donations or contributions to educational institutions
Q: Do local government units have the power of taxation?
A: Yes. Each LGU shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments (Sec.
5, Art. X).
Q: Should there be notice and hearing for the enactment of tax laws?
A: From the procedural viewpoint, due process does not require previous notice and hearing before a law prescribing fixed or specific taxes on certain articles may be enacted. But where the tax to be collected is to be based on the value of
taxable property, the taxpayer is entitled to be notified of the assessment proceedings and to be heard therein on the correct valuation to be given the property.
74
PAHOLITICAL DVISERERAZEUS : ALCAW TTYHRISTINE .T EEAMDWIN :Y. R UEY Y;S MANDOVALEMBERS:; SLUBJECT AWRENCE HEADPAULO : RACHEL H. AQUINOMARIE , LL.EANDRO FELICESR; AODEL SST.V. SUBJECT ATIENZAHEADS, MARINETH : WIVINO EASTER E. BRACERO AN D. IIA YOS& ,CARLO R. BALA, WILFREDO T. BONILLA, JR., KEEL ACHERNAR R. DINOY, APRIL V. ENRILE, KENNETH JAMES CARLO C. HIZON, JOSE MARIA G. MENDOZA, ROGER CHRISTOPHER R. REYES, ROMILINDA C. SIBAL, JASMIN M. SISON, ZARAH PATRICIA T. SUAREZ, RALPH JULIOUS L.
Q: What is the meaning of uniformity in taxation?
A: It refers to geographical uniformity, meaning it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found.
Q: What is a progressive system of taxation?
A: This means that the tax rate increases as the tax base increases.
Q: What is double taxation?
A: It occurs when:
1. Taxes are laid on the same subject 2. By the same authority
3. During the same taxing period 4. For the same purpose
Note: There is no provision in the Constitution specifically prohibiting double taxation, but it will not be allowed if it violates equal protection.
(Gorospe, Constitutional Law: Notes and Readings on the Bill of Rights, Citizenship and Suffrage, Vol.
2)
Q: What are the kinds of tax exemptions?
A: Tax exemptions may either be:
1. Constitutional 2. Statutory
Q: Once an exemption is granted by the legislature, may such exemption be revoked at will?
A:
1. If exemption is granted gratuitously – revocable
2. If exemption is granted for valuable consideration (non‐impairment of contracts) – irrevocable
Q: What is the nature of a license fee?
A: Ordinarily, license fees are in the nature of the exercise of police power because they are in the form of regulation by the State and considered as a manner of paying off administration costs.
However, if the license fee is higher than the cost of regulating, then it becomes a form of taxation (Ermita‐Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Assoc.,
Inc. vs. City Mayor of Manila, G.R. No. L‐24693, Oct. 23, 1967).
b. PRIVATE ACTS AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Q: What is the Bill of Rights?
A: It is the set of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of the individual, and imposing limitations on the powers of government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights.
Q: When can the Bill of Rights be invoked?
A: In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State. The Bill of Rights guarantee governs the relationship between the individual and the State. Its concern is not the relation between private individuals.
What it does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder. (People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561, Jan. 18, 1991)
Q: Can the Bill of Rights be invoked against private individuals?
A: No. In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked. Put differently, the Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals. (Yrasegui vs.
PAL, G.R. No. 168081, Oct. 17, 2008)
Note: However, the Supreme Court in Zulueta v. CA, G.R. No. 107383, Feb. 20 1996, where the husband invoked his right to privacy of communication and correspondence against a private individual, his wife, who had forcibly taken from his cabinet and presented as evidence against him documents and private correspondence, held these papers inadmissible in evidence, upholding the husband’s
Note: However, the Supreme Court in Zulueta v. CA, G.R. No. 107383, Feb. 20 1996, where the husband invoked his right to privacy of communication and correspondence against a private individual, his wife, who had forcibly taken from his cabinet and presented as evidence against him documents and private correspondence, held these papers inadmissible in evidence, upholding the husband’s