List of Cases for Constitutional Law II and Human Rights

For Thursday (November 13)

A. Police Power: Characteristics
1. Ichong vs. Hernandez: GR No. L-7995
Facts: Republic Act No. 1180 is entitled "An Act to Regulate the Retail Business." In effect it
nationalizes the retail trade business.
Petitioner attacks the constitutionality of the Act, contending that: (1) it denies to alien residents
the equal protection of the laws and deprives of their liberty and property without due process of
law ; (2) the subject of the Act is not expressed or comprehended in the title thereof; (3) the Act
violates international and treaty obligations of theRepublic of the Philippines; (4) the provisions of
the Act against the transmission by aliens of their retail business thru hereditary succession, and
those requiring 100% Filipino capitalization for a corporation or entity to entitle it to engage in the
retail business, violate the spirit of Sections 1 and 5, Article XIII and Section 8 of Article XIV of the
Constitution.
In answer, the Solicitor-General and the Fiscal of the City of Manila contend that: (1) the Act was
passed in the valid exercise of the police power of the State, which exercise is authorized in the
Constitution in the interest of national economic survival; (2) the Act has only one subject
embraced in the title; (3) no treaty or international obligations are infringed; (4) as regards
hereditary succession, only the form is affected but the value of the property is not impaired, and
the institution of inheritance is only of statutory origin.
Issue: Whether the conditions which the disputed law purports to remedy really or actually exist.
Held: Yes. We hold that the disputed law was enacted to remedy a real actual threat and danger
to national economy posed by alien dominance and control of the retail business and free citizens
and country from dominance and control. Such enactment clearly falls within the scope of the
police power of the State, thru which and by which it protects its own personality and insures its
security and future. Furthermore, the law does not violate the equal protectionclause of the
Constitution because sufficient grounds exist for the distinction between alien and citizen in the
exercise of the occupation regulated, nor the due process of law clause, because the law is
prospective in operation and recognizes the privilege of aliens already engaged in the occupation
and reasonably protects their privilege. The wisdom and efficacy of the law to carry out
itsobjectives appear to us to be plainly evident as a matter of fact it seems not only appropriate
but actually necessary and that in any case such matter falls within the prerogative of the
Legislature, with whose power and discretion the Judicial department of the Government may not
interfere. Moreover, the provisions of the law are clearly embraced in the title, and this suffers
from no duplicity and has not misled the legislators or the segment of the population affected; and
that it cannot be said to be void for supposed conflict with treaty obligations because no treaty
has actually been entered into on the subject and the police power may not be curtailed or
surrendered by any treaty or any other conventional agreement.

2. Association of Small Landowners in the Phils vs DAR Secretary: GR No.

78742

3. Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board: 151 SCRA 208

4. Lutz vs Araneta: GR No. L-7859
5. Gaston vs Republic Planters Bank: GR No. 77194
B. Police Power: Test 1
1. Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila vs Board of Transportation: GR No. L59234
2. Velasco vs Villegas: GR No. L-24153
3. Bautista vs Juinio: 127 SCRA 329
4. Lozano vs Martinez: 146 SCRA 323
5. DepEd vs San Diego: 180 SCRA 533
6. Sangalang vs IAC:176 SCRA 719
7. Del Rosario vs Bengzon: GR No 88265
8. TELEBAP vs COMELEC: 289 SCRA 337
9. Ople vs Torres: 293 SCRA 141
10. PRC vs De Guzman: GR No. 144681
11. Chavez vs Romulo: GR No. 157036
12. MMDA vs Garin: GR No. 130230
13. Carlos Superdrug Corp vs DSWD: GR No. 166494
14. Lim vs Pacquing: 240 SCRA 649
For Tuesday (November 18)
A. Police Power: Test 2
1. Ynot vs IAC: 148 SCRA 659
2. City of Quezon City vs Ericta: 122 SCRA 759
3. PPI vs COMELEC: 224 SCRA 272
B. Police Power: Limitations
1. Solicitor General vs Metropolitan Manila Authority: 204 SCRA 837
2. City of Manila vs Laguio: GR No. 118127
3. Dela Cruz vs Paras: 123 SCRA 569
CASE LIST FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Requisites for the Exercise of Eminent Domain
A. Necessity
1. Republic vs. La Orden de PP. Benedictos de Filipinas: 1 SCRA 646
2. Lagcao vs. Labra: GR No. 155746
B. Private Property
1. City of Manila vs. Chinese Community of Manila: GR No. L-14355
2. Republic vs PLDT: 26 SCRA 620
C. Requisite 3
1. Carmen Ayala de Roxas, et al. vs. City of Manila: 9 PR 215
2. People vs Fajardo: 104 PR 443
3. NPC vs Aguirre-Paderanga: 464 SCRA 481

D. Public Use
1. Reyes vs National Housing Authority: GR No. 147511
2. Province of Camarines Sur vs Court of Appeals: 222 SCRA 173
E. Just Compensation
1. Eslaban, Jr vs Onorio: GR No. 146062
2. Commissioner of Public Highways vs Burgos: 96 SCRA 831
3. Epza vs Dulay: 148 SCRA 305
Association of Small Landowners vs Secretary of Agrarian Reform: 175 SCRA 343
Case List for Constitutional Law and Human Rights
TAXATION AND DUE PROCESS
A. Taxation
1. Manila Gas Corp vs. Collector of Internal Revenue: GR No. L-42780
2. Pascual vs. Secretary of Public Works: 110 Phil 331
3. Punsalan vs. Municipal Board of the City of Manila: GR No. L-4817
4. Lladoc vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue: 14 SCRA 292
5. Mactan Cebu International Airport v. Marcos: 261 SCRA 667
i. COMPARE: GR No. 155650 (Year 2006)
6. Gerochi vs DOE: GR No. 159796
B. Due Process
1. Trustees of Dartmouth Coll vs. Woodward: 17 US 518
2. Ermita Malate vs. City of Manila: 20 SCRA 849
C. Aspects of Due Process
1. Kwong Sing vs City of Manila: 41 Phil 103
i. COMPARE: Yu Cong Eng vs Trinidad 271 US 500
2. Deloso vs. Sandiganbayan: 173 SCRA 409
3. GSIS vs. Montesclaros: 434 SCRA 41
4. Javier vs. COMELEC: 144 SCRA 194
5. Galman vs. Sandiganbayan: 144 SCRA 43
D. Requisites of Due Process
1. Villegas vs. Hiu Chiong: 86 SCRA 270
2. Smith vs. Natividad: 40 Phil 163
3. Buck vs. Bell: 274 US 200
4. Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro: 39 Phil 660
5. Crespo vs. Provincial Board: 160 SCRA 66
6. Libanan vs. Sandiganbayan: 233 SCRA 163
7. GSIS vs. Montesclaros: 443 SCRA 41
8. Pedro vs. Provincial Board of Rizal: 53 Phil 123
9. Javier vs. COMELEC: 144 SCRA 194
10. Mariveles Shipyard Corp. vs. Court of Appeals: GR No. 144134
11. David vs. Aguilizan: 94 SCRA 707

12. Lorenzana vs. Cayetano: 78 SCRA 485

13. Lim vs. Court of Appeals: GR No. 111397
14. Zambales Chromite Mining vs. CA: 94 SCRA 261
15. Anzaldo vs. Clave: 119 SCRA 353