The Bill of Rights and the Fundamental Powers

Mirasol v. Department of Public Works and Highways

 The Court taking into consideration the evolution of the DPWC, the Court
held that, it is the DOTC, not the DPWH, which assumes the authority to
regulate, restrict, or prohibit access to limited access facilities by virtue of
EO 546. Thus, DPWH DO No. 74 and DO No. 215 are void, it follows
that the rules implementing them are likewise void, because the
DPWH has no authority to declare certain expressways as limited access
facilities. Under the law, it is the DOTC which is authorized to administer
and enforce all laws, rules and regulations in the field of transportation and
to regulate related activities
 Reasonableness of the police power is the sole standard in measuring it
exercise. What is reasonable is not subject to exact definition or
scientific formulation. Otherwise, no government will be able to act in
situations demanding the exercise of its residual powers because it will be
tied up conducting studies.
 Petitioners’ contention that AO 1 unreasonable singles out motorcycles is
specious. To begin with, classification by itself is not prohibited.
 The principle is that equal protection and security shall be given to
every person under circumstances, which if not identical is
analogous. If law be looked upon in terms of burden or charges,
those that fall within a class be treated in the same fashion,
whatever restrictions cast on some in the group equally binding the
rest.
 Real and substantial differences exist between a motorcycle and
other forms of transport sufficient to justify its classification among
those prohibited from plying the toll ways.
 The right to travel does not mean the right to choose any vehicle in
traversing a toll way. The right to travel refers to the right to move from
one place to another. Petitioners can traverse the toll way any time they
choose using private-public four-wheeled vehicles. Petitioners are not
denied the right to move from Point A to Point B along the toll way.
Petitioners are free to access the toll way, a subject that can be validly
limited by regulation.
 Petitioners are not deprived of their right to use limited access facility.
They are merely being required, just like the rest of the public, to adhere
to the rules on how to use the facility.
 AO 1 does not infringe upon petitioners’ right to travel but merely bars
motorcycle, bicycle, tricycles, pedicabs, and any non-motorized vehicles.
Several cheap, accessible and practical modes of transport are open to
petitioners to access limited access facility. There is nothing oppressive
in being required to take a bus or drive a car instead of one’s scoter,
bicycle, calesa, or motorcycle upon using a toll way. The right to travel
 does not entitle a person to the best form of transport or the most
convenient route to his destination.
 Vehicle registration in the LTO merely signifies the roadworthiness of a
vehicle. This does not preclude the government from prescribing which
roads are accessible to certain vehicle.
 The government may not allow for the genereal welfare to avoid
accidents. It’s discretionary on the part of the government

Aquino v. Municipality of Malay Aklan

 NUISANCE – any act, omission, establishment, business, condition, or anything else that:

(1) injures or endangers the health or safety of others;

(2) annoys or offends the senses;
(3) shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality;
(4) obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water;
or
(5) hinders or impairs the use of property.

Nuisance per se vs. Nuisance per accidens

Nuisance per se- an act, occupation, or structure, which is a nuisance at all times and under any
circumstances, regardless of location or surrounding.
Nuisance per accidens - depends upon certain conditions and circumstances, and its existence being a
question of fact, it cannot be abated without due hearing thereon in a tribunal authorized to decide
whether such a thing does in law constitute a nuisance.

Here, the hotel is not a nuisance per se. It is merely the hotel’s particular accident – its location – and
not its inherent qualities that rendered it nuisance

Property valuation is not the litmus test. More controlling is the property’s nature and conditions,
which should be evaluated to see if it qualifies as a nuisance as defined under the law.

 Whether the building constituted a nuisance per se or a nuisance per accidens becomes
immaterial. The hotel was demolished not exactly because it is a nuisance but because it
failed to comply with the legal requirements prior to construction. Under the premises, and
in line with a court order that is required under normal circumstances is dispensed with.
 General welfare clause authorizes the LGUs to enact ordinances, not only to carry into effect
and discharge such duties as are conferred upon them by law, but also those for the general
welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants Personal liberty, property and lawful
businesses and occupations may be interfered with by the government, through legislation,
to promote general welfare and to fulfill the objectives of the government.

City of Government vs. Ericta

No. The Sec. 9 of the ordinance is not a valid exercise of the police power. There is no
reasonable relation between the setting aside of at least six (6) percent of the total area of all
private cemeteries for charity burial grounds of deceased paupers and the promotion of health,
morals, good order, safety, or the general welfare of the people. The ordinance is actually a
taking without compensation of a certain area from a private cemetery to benefit paupers who are
charges of the municipal corporation. The power to regulate does not include the power to
prohibit or confiscate. The ordinance in question not only confiscates but also prohibits the
operation of a memorial park cemetery. Instead of building or maintaining a public cemetery for
this purpose, the city passes the burden to private cemeteries.

Office of the Solicitor General v. Ayala Land, Incorporated

o The Court finds, however, that in totally prohibiting respondents from collecting
parking fees from the public for the use of the mall parking facilities, the State would
be acting beyond the bounds of police power.
o When there is a taking or confiscation of private property for public use, the State is
no longer exercising police power, but another of its inherent powers, namely,
eminent domain. Eminent domain enables the State to forcibly acquire private lands
intended for public use upon payment of just compensation to the owner.
o In the present case, title to and/or possession of the parking facilities remain/s with
respondents, the prohibition against their collection of parking fees from the public,
for the use of said facilities, is already tantamount to a taking or confiscation of their
properties. The State is not only requiring that respondents devote a portion of the
latter’s properties for use as parking spaces, but is also mandating that they give the
public access to said parking spaces for free. Such is already an excessive intrusion
into the property rights of respondents. Not only are they being deprived of the right
to use a portion of their properties as they wish, they are further prohibited from
profiting from its use or even just recovering therefrom the expenses for the
maintenance and operation of the required parking facilities.

FERRER v. BAUTISTA

Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association

The mantle of protection associated with the due process guaranty does not cover petitioners.
This particular manifestation of a police power measure being specifically aimed to safeguard
public morals is immune from such imputation of nullity resting purely on conjecture and
unsupported by anything of substance. To hold otherwise would be to unduly restrict and narrow
the scope of police power which has been properly characterized as the most essential, insistent
and the least limitable of powers, extending as it does "to all the great public needs." It would be,
to paraphrase another leading decision, to destroy the very purpose of the state if it could be
deprived or allowed itself to be deprived of its competence to promote public health, public
morals, public safety and the general welfare. Negatively put, police power is "that inherent and
plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all that is hurt full to the comfort, safety,
and welfare of society.

There is no question but that the challenged ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize certain
practices hurtful to public morals. Moreover, the increase in the licensed fees was intended to
discourage "establishments of the kind from operating for purpose other than legal" and at the
same time, to increase "the income of the city government." It would appear therefore that the
stipulation of facts, far from sustaining any attack against the validity of the ordinance, argues
eloquently for it.
People v. Marti

Issue: WON the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures and privacy of
communication may be imposed against private individuals.

Ruling: No. In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution
cannot be invoked against the State. The Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not meant to be
invoked against acts of private individuals finds support in the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission. True, the liberties guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land must always be subject to
protection. But protection against whom? Commissioner Bernas in his sponsorship speech in the Bill of
Rights answers the query which he himself posed, as follows:

First, the general reflections. The protection of fundamental liberties in the essence of constitutional
democracy. Protection against whom? Protection against the state. The Bill of Rights governs the
relationship between the individual and the state. Its concern is not the relation between individuals,
between a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to declare some
forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder.

The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint
directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it
could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise
of power is imposed.

Corolarilly, alleged violations against unreasonable search and seizure may only be invoked against the
State by an individual unjustly traduced by the exercise of sovereign authority. To agree with appellant
that an act of a private individual in violation of the Bill of Rights should also be construed as an act of
the State would result in serious legal complications and an absurd interpretation of the constitution.

Due Process Clause

Republic v. Cagandahan

Whether or not the trial court erred in ordering the correction of entries in the birth certificate of
respondent to change her sex or gender, from female to male, on the ground of her medical condition
known as CAH, and her name from Jennifer to Jeff

What is Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH)?

CAH is one of many conditions that involve intersex anatomy. During the twentieth century, medicine
adopted the term “intersexuality” to apply to human beings who cannot be classified as either male or
female. The term is now of widespread use. According to Wikipedia, intersexuality “is the state of a
living thing of a gonochoristic species whose sex chromosomes, genitalia, and/or secondary sex
characteristics are determined to be neither exclusively male nor female. An organism with intersex may
have biological characteristics of both male and female sexes.”

In the absence of a law on the matter, the Court will not dictate on respondent concerning a matter
so innately private as one’s sexuality and lifestyle preferences, much less on whether or not to
undergo medical treatment to reverse the male tendency due to CAH
In the absence of evidence that respondent is an “incompetent” and in the absence of evidence to
show that classifying respondent as a male will harm other members of society who are equally
entitled to protection under the law, the Court affirms as valid and justified the respondent's
position and his personal judgment of being a male.

Life is already difficult for the ordinary person. We cannot but respect how respondent deals with
his unordinary state and thus help make his life easier, considering the unique circumstances in this
case.

-Right to life, right to purpose, right to pursuit of happiness

ESTRADA V. SANDIGANBAYAN

That Congress intended the words "combination" and "series" to be understood in their popular
meanings is pristinely evident from the legislative deliberations on the bill which eventually
became RA 7080 or the Plunder Law.

The use of the "reasonable doubt" standard is indispensable to command the respect and
confidence of the community in the application of criminal law. It is critical that the moral force
of criminal law be not diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt whether
innocent men are being condemned. It is also important in our free society that every individual
going about his ordinary affairs has confidence that his government cannot adjudge him guilty of
a criminal offense without convincing a proper factfinder of his guilt with utmost certainty. This
"reasonable doubt" standard has acquired such exalted stature in the realm of constitutional law
as it gives life to the Due Process Clause which protects the accused against conviction except
upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which
he is charged. 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.

. As regards the third issue, the court agree with Justice Mendoza that plunder is a malum in se
which requires proof of criminal intent. Thus, he says, in his Concurring Opinion -
x x x Precisely because the constitutive crimes are mala in se the element of
mens rea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. It is noteworthy that the
amended information alleges that the crime of plunder was committed
"willfully, unlawfully and criminally." It thus alleges guilty knowledge on the
part of petitioner.

The application of mitigating and extenuating circumstances in the Revised Penal Code
to prosecutions under the Anti-Plunder Law indicates quite clearly that mens rea is an
element of plunder since the degree of responsibility of the offender is determined by his
criminal intent.
The legislative declaration in R.A. No. 7659 that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is a
malum in se. It would be absurd to treat prosecutions for plunder as though they are mere
prosecutions for violations of the Bouncing Check Law (B.P. Blg. 22) or of an ordinance against
jaywalking, without regard to the inherent wrongness of the acts.

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE V. LANTION

EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission

-Investigate and find out the truth concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption during the
previous administration only. The intent to single out the previous administration is plain, patent, and
manifest. It must be borne in mind that the Arroyo Administration is but just a member of a class, that is
a class of past administrations. It is not a class of its own Not to include past administrations similarly
situated constitutes arbitrariness which the equal protections clause cannot sanctions.

Kabataan Party-List COMELEC

Garcia v. Drilon

-It did not violate equal protection clause by favoring women over men s victims of violence and abuse
to whome the State extends its protections” because the “unequal power relationships between women
and men; the fact that women are more likely than men to be victims of violence; and the widespread
gender bias and prejudice against women all make for real differences justifying the classification.

-Not limited to the existing conditions but to future conditions as well, for as long as the safety and
security of women and their children are theathened by violence.[[

Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas

“A provision of law, initially valid can become subsequently unconstitutional, on the ground that it is
continued operation would violate the equal protection of the law.

Under Theory of Relative Constitutionality, constitutionality of a statute cannot, in every instance, be

determined by a mere comparison of its provisions with applicable provisions of the Constitution, since
the statute may be constitutionally valid as applied to one set of facts and invalid in its application to
another. A statue valid at one time may become void at another time because of altered circumstances.

Thus, if a statute in its practical operation becomes arbitrary or confiscatory, its validit, even though
affirmed by a former adjudication, is open to inquiry and investigation in the light of changed conditions.