DUE PROCESS LIST OF CASES CASE TITLE

1. Ermita Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Associatio n v City of Manila 20 SCRA 849 (1967)

FACTS/ISSUES
Validity of the enacted Ordinance No. 4760, by the City of Manila, conferring power to the Municipal Board of Manila to regulate hotels and motels. Compelling the hotels and motels, among others, to make their premises and facilities and lodging houses for inspection by the City mayor or Chief of Police, or their duly authorized representative.

RATIO
There is a presumption that the laws enacted by legislative (Municipal Board) is valid. Without a showing or a strong foundation of invalidity, the presumption stays. The due process contention is untenable; due process has no exact definition but has reason as a standard. In this case, the precise reason why the ordinance was enacted was to curb down prostitution in the city which is reason enough and cannot be defeated by mere singling out of the provisions of the said ordinance alleged to be vague. The local legislative by enacting the the prdinance, has in effect given notice that the regulations are essential to the well being of the people. The Judiciary should not lightly set aside ;egislative action when there is no clear invasion of personal or property rights under the guise of police regulation. The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is mandated by law. The clear object of the law is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws w/c are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. W/o such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim "ignorantialegis non excusat." It would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of w/c he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one. It is needless to say that the publication of presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents.

2. Tanada v Tuvera 136 SCRA 27 (1985); 146 SCRA 446 (1986)

3. Serran o v NLRC 323 SCRA 445 (1940)

Invoking the people's right to be informed on matters of public concern, as well as the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the OG or otherwise effectively promulgated, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish, and/or cause the publication in the OG of various PDs, LOIs, general orders, proclamations, EOs, letters of implementation and administrative orders. Respondents contend, among others that publication in the OG is not a sine qua non requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates. What is the effect of violation of the notice requirement when termination is based on an authorized cause? Petitioner was hired by the Respondent Isetann Department Store as a security checker to apprehend shoplifters. As a cost-cutting measure, private respondent decided to phase out its security section engage the services of an independent security agency. Petitioner was then terminated prompting him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal.

In termination of employment under Art. 283 (Closure of Establishment and reduction of Personnel), the employers failure to comply with the notice requirement does not constitute a denial of due process as the purpose of this provision is not to afford the employee an opportunity to be heard on any charge against him for there is none. Rather, it is a mere failure to observe a procedure for the termination of employment which makes the termination of employment merely ineffectual. The remedy was to order the payment to the employees of full back wages from the time of his dismissal until the court finds that the dismissal was for a just cause.

4. Ang Tibay v CIR

The NLU (labor union of Ang Tibay employees) alleged that

CIR is not narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure and but does not mean that it can in

69 SCRA 635 (1989)

the supposed lack of leather material claimed by Toribio Teodoro was but a scheme adopted to systematically discharge all the members of the NLU, from work, favoring the other Labor union, NWB. The CIR, decided the case and elevated it to the Supreme Court, but a motion for new trial was raised by the NLU

justiciable cases coming before it, entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character. There cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character. The rights of parties in administrative proceedings are not violated as long as the constitutional requirement of due process has been satisfied. The cardinal rights of parties in administrative proceedings, as follows: 1) The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present ones case and submit evidence in support thereof. 2) The tribunal presented. must consider the evidence

3) The decision must have something to support itself. 4) The evidence must be substantial. 5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. 6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision. 7) The board or body should, in all controversial question, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered. 5. Non v Dames 185 SCRA 523 (1990) Petitioners, students in private respondent Mabini Colleges, Inc. were not allowed to reenroll by the school for the academic year 1988-1989 for leading or participating in student mass actions against the school in the preceding semester. Issue: Whether or Not the students right to freedom of speech and assembly infringed. 6. Lumiqu ed v Exevea 282 SCRA 125 (1997) Lumiqued was the Regional Director of DAR-CAR. He was charged with malversation through falsification. The issue was referred to the DOJ. Committee hearings on the complaints were conducted but Lumiqued was not assisted by counsel. He moved for its resetting, to enable him to employ the services of counsel. The committee granted the motion, but neither Lumiqued nor his counsel appeared. President Ramos issued AO 52 Yes. The protection to the cognate rights of speech and assembly guaranteed by the Constitution is similarly available to students is well-settled in our jurisdiction. However there are limitations. The permissible limitation on Student Exercise of Constitutional Rights within the school presupposes that conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior should not materially disrupt classwork or must not involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.

The right to counsel which cannot be waived unless the wavier is in writing is a right afforded to an accused during custodial investigation and may not be invoked in administrative cases because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine the facts which merit the dismissal measures against the erring officer/employee with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of the government service. In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to explain ones side. Whatever irregularity attended the proceedings conducted by the committee was cured by Lumiqueds appeal and his subsequent filing of motions for reconsideration.

dismissing Lumiqued. ISSUE: Does the due process clause encompass the right to be assisted by counsel during an administrative inquiry? 7. PHILCO MSAT v Alcuaz 180 SCRA 218 Petitioner seeks to annual an Order issued by Commissioner Alcuaz of NTC which directs the reduction of telecommunication rates which may be charged by petitioner for certain specific lines of its service by 15% with the reservation to make further reduction for being violative of the constitutional prohibition against undue delegation of legislative power and a denial of due process. The rates were ordered to be reduced due to Executive Order No. 546 which granted the NTC the power to fix rates. Said order was issued without prior notice and hearing. Carmelita Mateo, a waitress in the cafeteria of Cervini Hall inside the university campus charged Juan Ramon Guanzon, son of private respondents Romeo Guanzon and Teresita Regalado, and a boarder and first year student of the university with unbecoming conduct.The university conducted an investigation of the slapping incident. On the basis of the investigation results, Juan Ramon was dismissed from the university. T Appellees are New York City residents receiving financial aid under the federally assisted Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, allege that officials administering these programs terminated, or were about to terminate, such aid without prior notice and hearing. The right to counsel is not indispensable to due process unless required by the constitution or law.

Even if respondents insist that notice of hearing are not necessary since the assailed order is merely incidental to the entire proceedings and therefore temporary in nature, it is still not exempt from the statutory procedural requirements of notice and hearing as well as the requirement of reasonableness. (See Sec. 16 (c ) Public Service Act). It is thus clear that with regard to rate-fixing, respondent has no authority to make such order without first giving petitioner a hearing, whether the order be temporary or permanent, and it is immaterial whether the same is made upon a complaint, a summary investigation, or upon the commissions own motion.

8. Atene o v CA 145 SCRA 106

Moreover, notwithstanding the non-participation of the private respondents, the university, as stated earlier, undertook a fair and objective investigation of the slapping incident. Due process in administrative proceedings also requires consideration of the evidence presented and the existence of evidence to support the decision. True, an institution of learning has a contractual obligation to afford its students a fair opportunity to complete the course they seek to pursue. However, when a student commits a serious breach of discipline or fails to maintain the required academic standard, he forfeits his contractual right; and the court should not review the discretion of university authorities. 6

9. Goldb erg v Kelly 297 US 254 (1970)

The procedure in New York City for the termination of

welfare payments required sevenday notice and gave the welfare recipient the right to submit a written statement of protest. It did not, however, afford an evidentiary hearing before termination of benefits.

The Court held that procedural due process under

the Fourteenth Amendment required that welfare recipients be afforded an evidentiary hearing before termination of benefits. The individual losing benefits is not entitled to a trial, but is entitled to an oral hearing before an impartial decision-maker, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and the right to a written opinion setting out the evidence relied upon and the legal basis for the decision.

Welfare benefits are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them and procedural due process is applicable to their

termination. 10. UP v Hon LigotTelan 227 SCRA 342 THE UP Board of Regents imposed on Nadal the penalties of suspension for one year, nonissuance of any certificate of good moral character without notice. The disciplinary action is meted after finally rendering a guilty verdict on Nadals alleged willful withholding of the following information in his application for scholarship tantamount to acts of dishonesty, viz: (1) that he has and maintains a car and (2) the income of his mother in the USA in support of the studies of his brothers. Petitioner advances the highly stretched theory that Sec. 4 of the Plunder Law circumvents the immutable obligation of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the predicate acts constituting the crime of plunder when it requires only proof of a pattern of overt or criminal acts showing unlawful scheme or conspiracy.

University rules do not require the attendance in BOR meetings of individuals whose cases are included as items on the agenda of the Board. At no time did respondent complain of lack of notice given to him to attend any of the regular and special BOR meetings where his case was up for deliberation. Unlike in criminal cases which require proof beyond reasonable doubt as basis for a judgment, in administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings, only substantial evidence is required, that which means a reasonable mind might accept a relevant evidence as adequate to support a conclusion.

11. Estrad av Sandigan bayan 369 SCRA 394 (2001)

RA 7080 is CONSTITUTIONAL. In a criminal prosecution for plunder, as in all other crimes, the accused always has in his favor the presumption of innocence which is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and unless the State succeeds in demonstrating by proof beyond reasonable doubt that culpability lies, the accused is entitled to an acquittal. What the prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt is only a number of acts sufficient to form a combination or series which would constitute a pattern and involving an amount of at least P50,000,000.00. There is no need to prove each and every other act alleged in the Information to have been committed by the accused in furtherance of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill- gotten wealth. It is not ex post facto. Ordinance 4 was enacted in 1955 so it cant be that the amendment under Ordinance 12 is being made to apply retroactively. Also, the act of non-payment has been made punishable since 1955 so it means Ordinance 12 is not imposing a retroactive penalty. The coverage of the ordinance covers him as the actual operator of the fishpond thus he comes with the term Manager. He was the one who spent money in developing and maintaining it, so despite only leasing it from the national government, the latter does not get any profit as it goes only to Nazario.

12. People v Nazario 165 SCRA 186

Eusebio Nazario was charged in violation of refusal and failure to pay his municipal taxes because of his fishpond operation which he leases with the Philippine Fisheries Commission.

13. Agusti n v Edu 88 SCRA 195

Letter of Instruction No. required every motor vehicle owner to procure and use one pair of a reflectorized triangular early warning device whenever any vehicle is stalled or disabled or is parked for thirty (30) minutes or more on any street, or highway, including expressways or limited access roads.

LOI is constitutional. It was issued in the exercise of police power. Persons and property could 'be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health and prosperity of the state. It is in this sense that police power is the greatest and most powerful attribute of government. In fact, the letter of instruction is based on the constitutional provision of adopting to the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. The letter of instruction mentions, as its premise and basis, the resolutions of the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the discussions on traffic safety by the United Nations - that

such letter was issued in consideration of a growing number of road accidents due to stalled or parked vehicles on the streets and highways.

14. Olmst
ead v US (Brandeis dissent) 227 US 438

Roy Olmstead, who was a suspected bootlegger, challenged their convictions, arguing that the use of evidence of wiretapped private telephone conversations amounted to a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

The use of wiretapped conversations as incriminating evidence did not violate their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination because they were not forcibly or illegally made to conduct those conversations. Instead, the conversations were voluntarily made between the parties and their associates. No laws were violated in installing the wiretapping equipment, as the officers did not trespass upon either the homes or the offices of the defendants; instead, the equipment was placed in the streets near the houses and in the basement of the large office building. (Brandeis dissent) With the technological advances, the government has received the ability to invade privacy in more subtle ways; further, there is no reason to think that the rate of such technological advance will slow down. can it be that the constitution affords no protection against such invasion of individual security? Brandeis answers in negative. The mail is a public service furnished by the government, and the telephone conversation is a public service furnished by its authority. he concludes that there is no difference between a telephone private conversations and a sealed letter. The evil incident of invasion of the privacy of telephone conversation is far greater than that involved in tampering with the mails. Unjustified searches and seizure violate the fourth amendments, and it does not matter what type of papers were seized, whether the papers were in an office or in a home, whether the papers were seized by force, etc. the protection guaranteed are broad in scope. The framers of the constitution sought to : protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts their emotions and their sensations. It is for this reason that they established as against the government, the right to be LET ALONE as the most comprehensive of rights and the rights most valued by civilized men.. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of individual, whatever the means employed must be deemed a violation of fourth amendment. And the use as evidence in a criminal proceeding of facts ascertained by such intrusion must be deemed a violation of the fifth. Wiretapping is a crime, and a federal court should not permit a prosecution that makes use of such crime to continue. The principle of unclean hands is relevant in this case, whereby a court will not redress a wrong when he who has requested its aid has unclean hands. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds a contempt for law, it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of criminal law, the end justifies the means to declare that the government may commit

15. Griswo ld v Connectic ut 381 US 479 (1965)

Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut which gives medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counseling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception. Griswold, together with Dr Buxton of Yale university, were arrested and found guilty as accessories in providing illegal contraception. ISSUE: WON the state law making it a crime to use contraceptives is a violation of the right to privacy. YES! Roe a pregnant woman challenging the Texas Law criminalizing most abortions. ISSUE: constitutionality of the State (TEXAS) law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother.

crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine, this court should resolutely set its face. The question of enforcement would mandate government inquiry into "marital bedrooms." These statutes directly affected sexual relations between a married couple and the role of a physician in the medical aspects of such a relationship. Such a relationship is protected from intrusion by the government under the theory of a right to privacy. This right, while not specifically guaranteed by the Constitution, exists because it may be reasonably construed from certain amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. Right to privacy, in addition to being fundamental, is Substantive.

16. Roe v Wade 410 US 113 (1973)

HELD: Unconstitutional as it violates ROES constitutional right to privacy. The Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy or to have an abortion. The abortion lie within a pregnant womans Zone of Privacy, the abortion decision and its effectuation are fundamental rights that are protected by the constitution from regulations by the states, so laws regulating abortion must be sufficiently important.

But that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother's health. In the first trimester, a State interest in regulating abortions can never be found important enough. Such abortion are thus exclusively for the patient and the to govern. The Court ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only enact abortion regulations reasonably related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and could enact abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus only in the third trimester. Even then, an exception had to be made to protect the life of the mother.

17. Ople

v. Torres 141 SCRA 293

President Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order (A.O.) 308 commonly known as National ID System. Senator Blas F.

It violates the right to privacy. AO 308 is so vague. It is not arguable that the broadness, the vagueness, the overbreadth of A.O. 308, if implemented, will put our peoples right to privacy (Sec 3 (1) Bill of Rights) in

Ople argued that it is impermissibly intrudes on our citizen's protected zone of privacy. A.O. 308 is predicated on two considerations: (1) the need to provide our citizens and foreigners with the facility to conveniently transact business with basic service and social security providers and other government instrumentalities and (2) the need to reduce, if not totally eradicate, fraudulent transactions and misrepresentations by persons seeking basic services. The municipal council stating that construction of a building, which will destroy the view of the public plaza, shall not be allowed and therefore be destroyed at the expense of the owner, enacted an ordinance. Appellants proceeded with the construction of the building without a permit, because they needed a place of residence very badly. Thus, the appellants were subsequently charged and convicted under the said ordinance. There had been an existing law which prohibited the slaughtering of carabaos (EO 626). To strengthen the law, Marcos issued EO 626-A which not only banned the movement of carabaos from interprovincial but as well as the movement of carabeef. Petitioner Restituto Ynot was caught transporting six carabaos from Masbate to Iloilo. He was then charged in violation of EO 626-A. Ynot averred EO 626-A as unconstitutional for it violated his right to be heard or his right to due process. He said that the authority provided by EO 626-A to outrightly confiscate carabaos even without being heard is unconstitutional. Whether the general public has right to Jupiter street is supposedly for exclusive use of Bel-Air Residents. Ayala Corp. executed a donation covering Jupiter and Orbit streets effectively

clear and present safeguards.

danger.

There

are

no

vital

In striking down A.O. 308, the SC emphasized that the court is not per se against the use of computers to accumulate, store, process, retrieve and transmit data to improve our bureaucracy. Further, that the right to privacy does not bar all incursions into the right to individual privacy. This right merely requires that the law be narrowly focused and a compelling interest justifies such intrusions. Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by proper safeguards and well-defined standards to prevent unconstitutional invasions. The right to privacy is a constitutional right, granted recognition independently of its identification with liberty. It is not a valid exercise of police power. The ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive, in that it operates to permanently deprive appellants of the right to use their own property; hence, it oversteps the bounds of police power, and amounts to a taking of appellants property without just compensation. Every structure that may be erected on appellants' land, regardless of its own beauty, stands condemned under the ordinance in question, because it would interfere with the view of the public plaza from the highway. The appellant would be constrained to let their land remain idle and unused for the obvious purpose for which it is best suited, being urban in character. To legally achieve that result, the municipality must give appellants just compensation and opportunity to be heard. EO 626 violated the right to due process. Ynot should be given opportunity to defend himself and explain why the carabaos are being transferred before they can be confiscated. The SC found that the challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the police power because the method employed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the purpose of the law and, worse, is unduly oppressive. The owner of the property is denied the opportunity to be heard and the property is immediately confiscated and distributed. Due process is violated because the owner of the property confiscated is denied the right to be heard in his defense and is immediately condemned and punished. The conferment on the administrative authorities of the power to adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender is a clear encroachment on judicial functions and militates against the doctrine of separation of powers. There is, finally, also an invalid delegation of legislative powers to the officers mentioned therein who are granted unlimited discretion in the distribution of the properties arbitrarily taken. Yes it is warranted by the demands of the common good and is a valid exercise of police power. The Deed of Donation executed by the Ayala Corporation covering Jupiter and Orbit Streets effectively required both passageways open to the general public. The donation gave the general public equal right to it. The opening of Jupiter Street was warranted by the demands of the

18. People v Fajardo 10 PHIL 443

19. Ynot v CA 148 SCRA 659

20. Bel-Air
Associatio n v IAC 176 SCRA 719

required both passageways open to the general public. The Mayor caused the destruction of the gate which opened Orbit street. ISSUES: 1. whether the allowing acccess or use of Jupiter and Orbit streets in Bel-Air Village to the General Public amounts to deprivation of property 2. Whether the demolition of the gates in said streets was valid or lawful. 21. EPZA v Dulay 149 SCRA 305 Private respondent San Antonio corp., the owner of 4 parcels lands where the Mactan Export Processing Zone Authority in Cebu (EPZA) is to be constructed claimed that the lands were expropriated to the government without them reaching the agreement as to the compensation. Respondent Judge Dulay then issued an order for the appointment of the commissioners to determine the just compensation. San Antonio contended that under PD 1533, the basis of just compensation shall be fair and according to the fair market value declared by the owner of the property sought to be expropriated, or by the assessor, whichever is lower. The plan to extend EDSA to Roxas Boulevard to be ultimately linked to the Cavite Coastal Road Project, originally called for the expropriation of properties along Cuneta Avenue. The Ministry of Public Highways decided to make the proposed extension pass through Fernando Rein and Del Pan Streets. Residents of the latter protested.

common good, in terms of traffic decongestion and public convenience. The demolition of the gates at Orbit and Jupiter Streets does not amount to deprivation of property without due process of law or expropriation without just compensation, as there is no taking of property involved in the case. The Mayor notified BAVA of the demolition of the Orbit Gate and the opening of Jupiter and Orbit Street to reduce traffic. The said destruction has the character of public nuisance in the sense that it hinders and impairs the use of property.

PD 1533, in so far as to the mode of determination of just compensation, is unconstitutional. Just compensation means the equivalent for the value of the property at the time of taking. It is the fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained which is the measure of indemnity, not whatever gain would accrue to the expropriating entity. The fair market value at the time of taking plus consequential damages and attorneys fees minus the consequential benefits with interest at legal rate is entitled to the owner. The determination of just compensation is a judicial function. The executive department or the legislature may make the initial determination but when a party claims a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that the private party may not be taken for public use without just compensation, no statute, decree, or executive order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the courts findings. Article IV Sec 2 of the constitution provides that private properties shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The government may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose what private property should be taken. The choice of Fernando Rein and Del Pan streets is arbitrary and should not receive judicial approval. The factor of functionality strongly militates against the choice of Fernando Rein and Del Pan streets, while the factor of social and economic impact bears grievously on the residents of Cuneta Avenue. While the issue would seem to boil down to a choice between people, on one hand, and progress and development, on the other, it is to be remembered that progress and development are carried out for the benefit of the people. The challenged decrees are unfair in the procedures adopted and powers given to the NHA. In order for the taking to be valid the following rules must be observed: 1. The taking must be for public use 2. There must be just compensation before the taking. 3. Due process must be observed.

22. De Knecht v Bautista 100 SCRA 660

23. Manot ok v NHA 150 SCRA 89

Petitioners are the owners of two large estates known as the Tambunting Estate and SunogApog in Tondo, Manila, both of which were declared expropriated in 2 decrees. The petitioners contend that the decrees violate their constitutional right to due

process and equal protection since they were immediately deprived of the ownership and possession thereof without being given the chance to oppose such expropriation. The government contends that the power of eminent domain is inherent in the State and when the legislature or the President through his law-making powers exercises this power, the public use and public necessity of the expropriation and the fixing of the just compensation become political in nature and the courts must respect the decision. 24. Sumul ong v Guerero 154 SCRA 461 National Housing Authority filed a complaint for the expropriation of 25 hectares of land in Antipolo, Rizal pursuant to PD 1224 authorizing the expropriation of private lands for socialized housing. The owners contest the validity of PD 1224.

The expropriation is instant and automatic to take effect immediately upon the signing of the decree. No deposit before the taking is required. The owners are given absolutely no opportunity to contest the expropriation, or question the amount of payments fixed by the decree, but the decision of NHA are expressly declared beyond judicial review. There is not provision for any interest to be paid upon unpaid installments. Such singling out of properties does not foreclose judicial scrutiny as to whether such expropriation by legislative act transgresses the due process and equal protection and just compensation guarantees of the Constitution

The immediate taking of the property, possession, control and disposal, without notice and hearing is violative of due process. The public use requisite for a valid expropriation is a flexible and evolving concept influenced by changing conditions. Whatever may be the beneficial importance for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. The public character does not change because the units in the housing project cannot be occupied by all. The right to use, enjoyment and disposal of private property is tempered by and has to yield to the common good. Sec 11 which include private agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising in the definition of commercial farms is invalid.

25. Luz Famrs v Secretary 192 SCRA 51

The President approved RA 6657 includes raising of livestock. The Secretary promulgated the guidelines. Luz Farm, a corporation engaged in livestock industry, prayed for the nullification of the guidelines. FPA is a non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of safeguarding the residents of Forbes Park Subdivision. Cariday is one of the owners. FPA advised Cariday not to lease the house to 2 tenants under the one single family resident restriction

26. Carida
y v CA (Gutierrez dissent) 176 SCRA 31

The policy is valid. The purpose is to avoid overcrowding. The leasing of the house to 2 or more tenant families not related to the owner or to each other would be impermissible is valid. The restriction defines not only the type and number of structure of built on each lot but also the number of families that may use it as a resident.