You are on page 1of 22


G.R. No. L-5060 January 26, 1910 THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-
appellee, vs. LUIS TORIBIO, defendant-appellant.
Ruling: The Supreme court Said sections 30 and 33 of the Act
Facts: prohibit and penalize the slaughtering or causing to be slaughtered
for human consumption of large cattle at any place without the
Respondent Toribio is an owner of carabao, residing in the town of
permit provided for in section 30
Carmen in the province of Bohol. The trial court of Bohol found that
the respondent slaughtered or caused to be slaughtered a carabao Where the language of a statute is fairly susceptible of two or more
without a permit from the municipal treasurer of the municipality constructions, that construction should be adopted which will most
wherein it was slaughtered, in violation of Sections 30 and 33 of Act tend to give effect to the manifest intent of the lawmaker and
No. 1147, an Act regulating the registration, branding, and slaughter promote the object for which the statute was enacted, and a
of Large Cattle. The act prohibits the slaughter of large cattle fit for construction should be rejected which would tend to render
agricultural work or other draft purposes for human consumption. abortive other provisions of the statute and to defeat the object
which the legislator sought to attain by its enactment
The respondent counters by stating that what the Act is (1)
prohibiting is the slaughter of large cattle in the municipal slaughter The Supreme Court also said that if they will follow the contention
house without a permit given by the municipal treasurer. of Toribio it will defeat the purpose of the law.
Furthermore, he contends that the municipality of Carmen has no
The police power rests upon necessity and the right of self-
slaughter house and that he slaughtered his carabao in his dwelling,
protection and if ever the invasion of private property by police
(2) the act constitutes a taking of property for public use in the
regulation can be justified, The Supreme Court think that the
exercise of the right of eminent domain without providing for the
reasonable restriction placed upon the use of carabaos by the
compensation of owners, and it is an undue and unauthorized
provision of the law under discussion must be held to be authorized
exercise of police power of the state for it deprives them of the
as a reasonable and proper exercise of that power.
enjoyment of their private property.
The Supreme Court cited events that happen in the Philippines like
Issue: Whether or not Act. No. 1147, regulating the registration,
an epidemic that wiped 70-100% of the population of carabaos.. The
branding and slaughter of large cattle, is an undue and unauthorized
Supreme Court also said that these animals are vested with public
exercise of police power.
interest for they are fundamental use for the production of crops.
These reasons satisfy the requesites of a valid exercise of police
Held: It is a valid exercise of police power of the state.

The Supreme court finally said that article 1147 is not an exercise of violation of the said ordinance for failing to render
the inherent power of eminent domain. The said law does not service on patrol duty required under the same
constitute the taking of caraboes for public purpose; it just serve as
a mere regulation for the consumption of these private properties  defendant argued that the municipal ordinance
for the protection of general welfare and public interest. alleged to be violated is unconstitutional because
it is repugnant to the Organic Act of the
Philippines, which guarantees the liberty of the
G.R. No. L-10255 August 6, 1915
ISSUE: whether or not the ordinance upon which said
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellant, vs.
complaint was based is constitutional.
SILVESTRE POMPEYA, defendant-appellee
 The right or power conferred upon the
municipalities by Act No. 1309 falls within the
 A Municipal Ordinance was enacted by the
police power of the state and the state was fully
Province of Iloilo pursuant to the provisions of Act
authorized and justified in conferring the same
No. 1309, the specific purpose of which is to
upon the municipalities of the Philippine Islands
require each able-bodied male resident of the
and that, therefore, the provisions of said Act are
municipality, between the ages of 18 and 55, as
constitutional and not in violation nor in derogation
well as each householder when so required by the
of the rights of the persons affected thereby
president, to assist in the maintenance of peace
and good order in the community, by
 Police power has been defined as the
apprehending ladrones, etc., as well as by giving
power of the government, inherent in
information of the existence of such persons in the
every sovereign, and cannot be limited.
locality. The amendment contains a punishment
The power vested in the legislature to
for those who may be called upon for such service,
make such laws as they shall judge to
and who refuse to render the same.
be for the good of the state and its
subjects. The power to govern men and
things, extending to the protection of
 A complaint was filed by the prosecuting attorney
the lives, limbs, health, comfort, and
of the Province of Iloilo against Pompeya with
quiet of all persons, and the protection

of all property within the state. The police power of the state includes not only
authority to establish such rules and the public health and safety, but also the
regulations for the conduct of all public welfare, protection against
persons as may be conducive to the impositions, and generally the public's best
public interest. best interest. It so extensive and all
pervading, that the courts refuse to lay down
 Blackstone, in his valuable a general rule defining it, but decide each
commentaries on the common laws, specific case on its merits
defines police power as "the defenses,
regulations, and domestic order of the  It will also be noted that the law authorizing the
country, whereby the inhabitants of a president of the municipality to call upon persons,
state, like members of a well-governed imposes certain conditions as prerequisites: (1) The
family, are bound to conform their person called upon to render such services must be
general behaviour to the rules of an able-bodied male resident of the municipality; (2)
propriety, good neighborhood, and good he must be between the ages of 18 and 55 [50], and
manners, and to be decent, (3) certain conditions must exist requiring the
industrious, and inoffensive in their services of such persons
respective stations."
 It will not contended that a nonresident of
 The police power of the state may be said to the municipality would be liable for his
embrace the whole system of internal refusal to obey the call of the president;
regulation, by which the state seeks not only neither can it be logically contended that one
to preserve public order and to prevent under the age of 18 or over the age of 55 [50]
offenses against the state, but also to would incur the penalty of the law by his
establish, for the intercourse of citizen with refusal to obey the command of the
citizen, those rules of good manners and president. Moreover, the persons liable for
good neighborhood, which are calculated to the service mentioned in the law cannot be
prevent a conflict of rights, and to insure to called upon at the mere whim or caprice of
each the uninterrupted enjoyment of his the president. There must be some just and
own, so far as is reasonably consistent, with reasonable ground, at least sufficient in the
a like enjoyment of the rights of others. The mind of a reasonable man, before the

president can call upon the the persons for Ichong vs Hernandez
the service mentioned in the law. The law
does not apply to all persons. The law does FACTS:
not apply to every condition. The law applies The Legislature passed R.A. 1180 (An Act to Regulate
to special persons and special conditions the Retail Business). Its purpose was to prevent persons
who are not citizens of the Phil. from having a
stranglehold upon the people’s economic life.
 A complaint based upon such a law, in order
to be free from objection under a demurrer,  a prohibition against aliens and against
must show that the person charged belongs associations, partnerships, or corporations the
to the class of persons to which the law is capital of which are not wholly owned by
applicable Filipinos, from engaging directly or indirectly in
the retail trade
 Even admitting all of the facts in the complaint in  aliens actually engaged in the retail business on
the present case, the court would be unable to May 15, 1954 are allowed to continue their
impose the punishment provided for by law, business, unless their licenses are forfeited in
because it does not show (a) that the defendant was accordance with law, until their death or
a male citizen of the municipality; (b) that he was voluntary retirement. In case of juridical persons,
an able-bodied citizen; (c) that he was not under 18 ten years after the approval of the Act or until the
years of age nor over 55 [50]; nor (d) that conditions expiration of term.
existed which justified the president of the
Citizens and juridical entities of the United States were
municipality in calling upon him for the services exempted from this Act.
mentioned in the law
 provision for the forfeiture of licenses to engage in
the retail business for violation of the laws on
nationalization, economic control weights and
measures and labor and other laws relating to
trade, commerce and industry.

 provision against the establishment or opening by

aliens actually engaged in the retail business of
additional stores or branches of retail business

Lao Ichong, in his own behalf and behalf of other alien persons of one class are treated alike.
residents, corporations and partnerships affected by the
Act, filed an action to declare it unconstitutional for the The difference in status between citizens and aliens
ff: reasons: constitutes a basis for reasonable classification in the
exercise of police power.
1. it denies to alien residents the equal protection of
the laws and deprives them of their liberty and
Official statistics point out to the ever-increasing
property without due process
dominance and control by alien of the retail trade. It is
2. the subject of the Act is not expressed in the title this domination and control that is the legislature’s
target in the enactment of the Act.
3. the Act violates international and treaty
obligations The mere fact of alienage is the root cause of the
4. the provisions of the Act against the transmission distinction between the alien and the national as a
by aliens of their retail business thru hereditary trader. The alien is naturally lacking in that spirit of
succession loyalty and enthusiasm for the Phil. where he
temporarily stays and makes his living. The alien owes
ISSUE: WON the Act deprives the aliens of the equal no allegiance or loyalty to the State, and the State
protection of the laws. cannot rely on him/her in times of crisis or emergency.

HELD: The law is a valid exercise of police power and it While the citizen holds his life, his person and his
does not deny the aliens the equal protection of the property subject to the needs of the country, the alien
laws. There are real and actual, positive and may become the potential enemy of the State.
fundamental differences between an alien and a citizen,
which fully justify the legislative classification adopted. The alien retailer has shown such utter disregard for his
customers and the people on whom he makes his profit.
RATIO: Through the illegitimate use of pernicious designs and
The equal protection clause does not demand absolute practices, the alien now enjoys a monopolistic control on
equality among residents. It merely requires that all the nation’s economy endangering the national security
persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances in times of crisis and emergency.
and conditions both as to privileges conferred and
liabilities enforced.

The classification is actual, real and reasonable, and all

Lutz vs. Araneta [December 22, 1955, (98 The funds raised under the Act should be exclusively
spent in aid of the sugar industry, since it is that very
Phil 148)]
enterprise that is being protected. It may be that other
Facts: Commonwealth Act No. 567, otherwise known as industries are also in need of similar protection; but the
SugarAdjustment Act was promulgated in 1940 “to legislature is not required by the Constitution
stabilize the sugar industry so as to prepare it for the toadhere to a policy of “all or none.”
eventuality of the loss of its preferential position in the
United States market and the imposition of export Agustin v Edu (1979) 88 SCRA 195
taxes.” Plaintiff, Walter Lutz, in his capacity as Judicial Facts:
Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Antonio Jayme
Ledesma, seeks to recover from the Collector of Internal Leovillo Agustin, the owner of a Beetle, challenged the
Revenue the sum of P14,666.40 paid by the estate as constitutionality of Letter of Instruction 229 and its
taxes, under Sec.3 of the Act, alleging that such tax is implementing order No. 1 issued by LTO Commissioner
unconstitutional and void, being levied for the aid and Romeo Edu. His car already had warning lights and did
support of the sugar industry exclusively, which in not want to use this.
plaintiff’s opinion is not a public purpose for which a tax
The letter was promulgation for the requirement of an
may be constitutionally levied. The action has been
early warning device installed on a vehicle to
dismissed by the Court of First Instance.
reduce accidentsbetween moving vehicles and parked
Issue: Whether or not the tax imposed is constitutional. cars.

Held: Yes. The act is primarily an exercise of the police The LTO was the issuer of the device at the rate of not
power. It is shown in the Act that the tax is levied with a more than 15% of the acquisition cost.
regulatory purpose, to provide means for the
The triangular reflector plates were set when the car
rehabilitation and stabilization of the threatened sugar
parked on any street or highway for 30 minutes. It was
It is inherent in the power to tax that a state
Petitioner: 1. LOI violated the provisions and delegation
be free to select thesubjects of taxation, and it has been
of police power, equal protection, and due process/
repeatedly held that “inequalities which result from a
singling out of one particular class for taxation or 2. It was oppressive because the make manufacturers
exemption infringe no constitutional limitation.” and car dealers millionaires at the expense f car owners
at 56-72 pesos per set.
Hence the petition.

The OSG denied the allegations in par X and XI of the Ermita Malate Hotel-The presumption of
petition with regard to the unconstitutionality and constitutionality must prevail in the absence of factual
undue delegation of police power to such acts. record in over throwing the statute.
The Philippines was also a member of the 1968 Vienna Brandeis- constitutionality must prevail in
convention of UN on road signs as a regulation. To the the absence of some factual foundation in overthrowing
petitioner, this was still an unlawful delegation of police the statute.
Even if the car had blinking lights, he must still buy
Issue: reflectors. His claims that the statute was oppressive
was fantastic because the reflectors were not expensive.
Is the LOI constitutional? If it is, is it a valid delegation
of police power? SC- blinking lights may lead to confusion whether the
nature and purpose of the driver is concerned.
Held: Yes on both. Petition dismissed.
Unlike the triangular reflectors, whose nature is evident
because it’s installed when parked for 30 minutes and
Police power, according to the case of Edu v Ericta, placed from 400 meters from the car allowing drivers to
which cited J. Taney, is nothing more or less than the see clearly.
power of government inherent in every sovereignty.
There was no constitutional basis for petitioner because
The case also says that police power is state authority to the law doesn’t violate any constitutional provision.
enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty
LOI 229 doesn’t force motor vehicle owners to purchase
or property to promote the general welfare.
the reflector from the LTO. It only prescribes rge
Primicias v Fulgoso- It is the power to describe requirement from any source.
regulations to promote the health, morals, peace,
The objective is public safety.
education, good order, and general welfare of the people.
The Vienna convention on road rights and PD 207 both
J. Carazo- government limitations to protect
recommended enforcement for installation of ewd’s.
constitutional rights did not also intend to enable a
Bother possess relevance in applying rules with the
citizen to obstruct unreasonable the enactment of
decvlaration of principles in the Constitution.
measures calculated to insure communal peace.
On the unlawful delegation of legislative power, the
There was no factual foundation on petitioner to refute
petitioners have no settled legal doctrines.

effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred by
this Act and such as it shall deem necessary and proper
G.R. No. L-3491 June 24, 1983
to provide for the health and safety, promote the
prosperity, improve the morals, peace, good order,
comfort and convenience of the city and the inhabitants
thereof, and for the protection of property therein.”
Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City, Branch On the otherhand, respondent Himlayang Pilipino, Inc.
XVIII; HIMLAYANG PILIPINO, INC., respondents. contended that the taking or confiscation of property
was obvious because the questioned ordinance
permanently restricts the use of the property such that
Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64 provides that at it cannot be used for any reasonable purpose and
least 6% of the total area of the memorial park cemetery deprives the owner of all beneficial use of his property.
shall be set aside for the charity burial of deceased
persons who are paupers and have been residents of
Is Section 9 of the ordinance in question a valid exercise
Quezon City for at least 5 years prior to their death. As
of the police power?
such, the Quezon City engineer required the respondent,
Himlayang Pilipino Inc, to stop any further selling Held:
and/or transaction of memorial park lots in Quezon City
No. The Sec. 9 of the ordinance is not a valid exercise of
where the owners thereof have failed to donate the
the police power.
required 6% space intended for paupers burial.
Occupying the forefront in the bill of rights is the
The then Court of First Instance and its judge, Hon.
provision which states that ‘no person shall be deprived
Ericta, declared Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64
of life, liberty or property without due process of law’
null and void.
(Art. Ill, Section 1 subparagraph 1, Constitution). On the
Petitioners argued that the taking of the respondent’s other hand, there are three inherent powers of
property is a valid and reasonable exercise of police government by which the state interferes with the
power and that the land is taken for a public use as it is property rights, namely-. (1) police power, (2) eminent
intended for the burial ground of paupers. They further domain, (3) taxation. These are said to exist
argued that the Quezon City Council is authorized independently of the Constitution as necessary
under its charter, in the exercise of local police power, ” attributes of sovereignty.
to make such further ordinances and resolutions not
An examination of the Charter of Quezon City (Rep. Act
repugnant to law as may be necessary to carry into
No. 537), does not reveal any provision that would

justify the ordinance in question except the provision conventional rights, are subject to such reasonable
granting police power to the City. Section 9 cannot be limitations in their enjoyment as shall prevent them
justified under the power granted to Quezon City to tax, from being injurious, and to such reasonable restraints
fix the license fee, and regulate such other business, and regulations, established by law, as the legislature,
trades, and occupation as may be established or under the governing and controlling power vested in
practised in the City. The power to regulate does not them by the constitution, may think necessary and
include the power to prohibit or confiscate. The expedient. The state, under the police power, is
ordinance in question not only confiscates but also possessed with plenary power to deal with all matters
prohibits the operation of a memorial park cemetery. relating to the general health, morals, and safety of the
people, so long as it does not contravene any positive
Police power is defined by Freund as ‘the power of
inhibition of the organic law and providing that such
promoting the public welfare by restraining and
power is not exercised in such a manner as to justify the
regulating the use of liberty and property’. It is usually
interference of the courts to prevent positive wrong and
exerted in order to merely regulate the use and
enjoyment of property of the owner. If he is deprived of
his property outright, it is not taken for public use but However, in the case at hand, there is no reasonable
rather to destroy in order to promote the general welfare. relation between the setting aside of at least six (6)
In police power, the owner does not recover from the percent of the total area of an private cemeteries for
government for injury sustained in consequence thereof. charity burial grounds of deceased paupers and the
promotion of health, morals, good order, safety, or the
Under the provisions of municipal charters which are
general welfare of the people. The ordinance is actually a
known as the general welfare clauses, a city, by virtue of
taking without compensation of a certain area from a
its police power, may adopt ordinances to the peace,
private cemetery to benefit paupers who are charges of
safety, health, morals and the best and highest interests
the municipal corporation. Instead of building or
of the municipality. It is a well-settled principle, growing
maintaining a public cemetery for this purpose, the city
out of the nature of well-ordered and society, that every
passes the burden to private cemeteries.
holder of property, however absolute and may be his
title, holds it under the implied liability that his use of it The expropriation without compensation of a portion of
shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others private cemeteries is not covered by Section 12(t) of
having an equal right to the enjoyment of their property, Republic Act 537, the Revised Charter of Quezon City
nor injurious to the rights of the community. A property which empowers the city council to prohibit the burial of
in the state is held subject to its general regulations, the dead within the center of population of the city and
which are necessary to the common good and general to provide for their burial in a proper place subject to
welfare. Rights of property, like all other social and the provisions of general law regulating burial grounds

and cemeteries. When the Local Government Code, an offense, the statute being unconstitutional. The motions were
Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 provides in Section 177 (q) denied by the respondent trial courts, except in one case, wherein
that a Sangguniang panlungsod may “provide for the the trial court declared the law unconstitutional and dismissed the
case. The parties adversely affected thus appealed.
burial of the dead in such place and in such manner as
prescribed by law or ordinance” it simply authorizes the Issue:
city to provide its own city owned land or to buy or
expropriate private properties to construct public 1. Whether or not BP 22 is violative of the constitutional provision
cemeteries. This has been the law and practise in the on non-imprisonment due to debt
past. It continues to the present. Expropriation, 2. Whether it impairs freedom of contract
3. Whether it contravenes the equal protection clause
however, requires payment of just compensation. The
questioned ordinance is different from laws and Held:
regulations requiring owners of subdivisions to set aside
certain areas for streets, parks, playgrounds, and other 1. The enactment of BP 22 is a valid exercise of the police power
public facilities from the land they sell to buyers of and is not repugnant to the constitutional inhibition against
subdivision lots. The necessities of public safety, health, imprisonment for debt. The gravamen of the offense punished by
and convenience are very clear from said requirements BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or
which are intended to insure the development of a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It
communities with salubrious and wholesome is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes.
The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his
environments. The beneficiaries of the regulation, in
debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal
turn, are made to pay by the subdivision developer when sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in
individual lots are sold to home-owners. circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest,
the practice is proscribed by the law. The law punishes the act not
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby as an offense against property, but an offense against public order.
DISMISSED. The decision of the respondent court is
affirmed. Unlike a promissory note, a check is not a mere undertaking to pay
an amount of money. It is an order addressed to a bank and
partakes of a representation that the drawer has funds on deposit
against which the check is drawn, sufficient to ensure payment
Lozano Vs Martinez upon its presentation to the bank. There is therefore an element of
certainty or assurance that the instrument will be paid upon
Facts: presentation. For this reason, checks have become
widely accepted as a medium of payment in trade and commerce.
Petitioners were charged with violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang Although not legal tender, checks have come to be perceived as
22 (Bouncing Check Law). They moved seasonably to quash the convenient substitutes for currency in commercial and financial
informations on the ground that the acts charged did not constitute transactions. The basis or foundation of such perception is

confidence. If such confidence is shaken, the usefulness of checks classification is not unreasonable or arbitrary. (Lozano vs
as currency substitutes would be greatly diminished or may Martinez, G.R. No. L-63419, December 18, 1986)
become nil. Any practice therefore tending to destroy that
confidence should be deterred for the proliferation of worthless
checks can only create havoc in trade circles and
the banking community. CASE DIGEST : Restituto Ynot Vs IAC

The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the G.R. No. 74457 March 20, 1987 RESTITUTO YNOT,
private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT,
and touches the interests of the community at large. The mischief THE STATION COMMANDER, INTEGRATED NATIONAL
it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an POLICE, BAROTAC NUEVO, ILOILO and THE
injury to the public. The harmful practice of putting valueless
commercial papers in circulation, multiplied a thousand fold, can
very wen pollute the channels of trade and INDUSTRY, REGION IV, ILOILO CITY, respondents.
commerce, injure the banking system and eventually hurt the
welfare of society and the public interest. On January 13, 1984, the petitioner transported six
carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo when
2. The freedom of contract which is constitutionally protected is the same was confiscated by the police station
freedom to enter into “lawful” contracts. Contracts which
commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo for the violation of
contravene public policy are not lawful. Besides, we must bear in
mind that checks can not be categorized as mere contracts. It is a E.O. 626-A. A case was filed by the petitioner
commercial instrument which, in this modem day and age, has questioning the constitutionality of executive order and
become a convenient substitute for money; it forms part of the recovery of the carabaos. After considering the
the banking system and therefore not entirely freefrom the merits of the case, the confiscation was sustained and
regulatory power of the state. the court declined to rule on the constitutionality issue.
The petitioner appealed the decision to the Intermediate
3. There is no substance in the claim that the statute in question
Appellate Court but it also upheld the ruling of RTC.
denies equal protection of the laws or is discriminatory, since it
penalizes the drawer of the check, but not the payee. It is Issue:
contended that the payee is just as responsible for the crime as the
drawer of the check, since without the indispensable participation Is E.O. 626-A unconstitutional?
of the payee by his acceptance of the check there would be no
crime. This argument is tantamount to saying that, to give equal Ruling:
protection, the law should punish both the swindler and the
swindled. The petitioners’ posture ignores the well- The Respondent contends that it is a valid exercise of
accepted meaning of the clause “equal protection of the laws.” The police power to justify EO 626-A amending EO 626 in
clause does not preclude classification of individuals, who may be asic rule prohibiting the slaughter of carabaos except
accorded different treatment under the law as long as the under certain conditions. The supreme court said that

The reasonable connection between the means employed are a 9-hectare and 5 hectare Riceland worked by four
and the purpose sought to be achieved by the tenants. Tenants were declared full owners by EO 228
questioned measure is missing the Supreme Court do as qualified farmers under PD 27. The petitioners now
not see how the prohibition of the inter-provincial contend that PresidentAquino usurped the legislature’s
transport of carabaos can prevent their indiscriminate power.
slaughter, considering that they can be killed anywhere,
with no less difficulty in one province than in another. b. A petition by landowners and sugarplanters in
Obviously, retaining the carabaos in one province will Victoria’s Mill Negros Occidental
not prevent their slaughter there, any more than moving against Proclamation 131 and EO
them to another province will make it easier to kill them 229. Proclamation 131 is the creation of Agrarian
there Reform Fund with initial fund of P50Billion.
The Supreme Court found E.O. 626-A unconstitutional.
c. A petition by owners of land which was placed by the
The executive act defined the prohibition, convicted the
DAR under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer.
petitioner and immediately imposed punishment, which
was carried out forthright. Due process was not properly
d. A petition invoking the right of retention under PD 27
observed. In the instant case, the carabaos were
to owners of rice and corn lands not exceeding seven
arbitrarily confiscated by the police station commander,
were returned to the petitioner only after he had filed a
complaint for recovery and given a supersedeas bond of
P12,000.00. The measure struck at once and pounced
Issue: Whether or Not the aforementioned EO’s, PD, and
upon the petitioner without giving him a chance to be
RA wereconstitutional.
heard, thus denying due process.

Held: The promulgation of PD 27 by President Marcos

ASSO. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. SEC. OF DAR was valid in exercise of Police power and eminent
[175 SCRA 343; G.R. NO. L-78742; 14 JUL 1989] domain.

The power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc. 131

Facts: Several petitions are the root of the case: and EO 228 and 229 was authorized under Sec. 6 of the
Transitory Provisions of the 1987Constitution. Therefore
a. A petition alleging the constitutionality of PD No. 27, it is a valid exercise of Police Power and Eminent
EO 228 and 229 and RA 6657. Subjects of the petition Domain.

student shall not be allowed to take NMAT the 4th time.
RA 6657 is likewise valid. The carrying out of the Respondent invoke his constitutional rights on academic
regulation under CARPbecomes necessary to deprive freedom and quality education in his petition for
owners of whatever lands they may own in excess of the mandamus before the court. Respondent judge rendered
maximum area allowed, there is definitely a taking decision citing the admission rule of the petitioner as an
under the power of eminent domain for which payment arbitrary exercise of police power, depriving respondent
of just compensation is imperative. The taking of his right to pursue medical education thus this
contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the petition for review before the higher court.
land. What is required is the surrender of the title and
the physical possession of said excess and
all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favour of Issue: Whether or not the admission rule implemented
the farmer. by petitioner an arbitrary exercise of police power.

A statute may be sustained under the police power only Held: The court held that police power is validly
if there isconcurrence of the lawful subject and the exercised if (a) the interests of the public generally, as
method. distinguished from those of a particular class, require
the interference of the State, and (b) the means
Subject and purpose of the Agrarian Reform Law is employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment of
valid, however what is to be determined is the method the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly
employed to achieve it. oppressive upon individuals. The proper exercise of the
police power requires the concurrence of a lawful
subject and a lawful method. The subject of the
challenged regulation is certainly within the ambit of the
DECS VS SAN DIEGO police power. It is the right and indeed the responsibility
of the State to insure that the medical profession is not
DECS v San Diego 180 SCRA infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may
unwarily entrust their lives and health. The method
533 (December 21, 1989) employed by the challenged regulation is not irrelevant
to the purpose of the law nor is it arbitrary or
Facts: The respondent failed to pass the National
Medical Admission Test (NMAT) 3 times and he was oppressive. The three-flunk rule is intended to insulate
the medical schools and ultimately the medical
denied admission to take the test for another time by the
petitioner under its rule that a student is allowed only to profession from the intrusion of those not qualified to be
take the NMAT 3 times and after 3 consecutive failures a doctors. The State needs to implement decisive steps to

regulate system of education by directing students to with penalties or without, not repugnant to the
the course where he is best suited through initial tests constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and
and evaluation. The decision of the respondent judge welfare of the commonwealth, and of thesubjects of the
was reversed. same.”

For this reason, when the conditions so demand as

determined by the legislature, property rights must bow
Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. DSWD, to the primacy of police power because property rights,
though sheltered by due process, must yield to general
526 SCRA 130 (2007)
Facts: Petitioners are domestic corporations and
proprietors operating drugstores in the Philippines.
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Section 4(a) of
RA 9257, otherwise known as the “Expanded Senior
Citizens Act of 2003.” Section 4(a) of RA 9257 grants G.R. No. 122846 January 20, 2009
twenty percent (20%) discount as privileges for the WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION, TITANIUM
Senior Citizens. Petitioner contends that said law is CORPORATION and STA. MESA TOURIST &
unconstitutional because it constitutes deprivation of DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners,
private property. vs.
CITY OF MANILA, represented by DE CASTRO,
Issue: Whether or not RA 9257 is unconstitutional MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, Respondent.

Held: Petition is dismissed. The law is a legitimate On December 3, 1992, City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim signed
exercise of police power which, similar to the power of into law Manila City Ordinance No. 7774 entitled “An
eminent domain, has general welfare for its object. Ordinance Prohibiting Short-Time Admission, Short-
Time Admission Rates, and Wash-Up Rate Schemes in
Accordingly, it has been described as “the most Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses, Pension Houses,
essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, and Similar Establishments in the City of Manila” (the
extending as it does to all the great public needs.” It is Ordinance).” The ordinance sanctions any person or
the power vested in the legislature by the constitution to corporation who will allow the admission and charging
make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome of room rates for less than 12 hours or the renting of
and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either rooms more than twice a day.

The petitioners White Light Corporation (WLC), Titanium its inhabitants and to fix penalties for the violation of
Corporation (TC), and Sta. Mesa Tourist and ordinances.
Development Corporation (STDC), who own and operate
Petitioners argued that the ordinance is
several hotels and motels in Metro Manila, filed a motion
unconstitutional and void since it violates the right to
to intervene and to admit attached complaint-in-
privacy and freedom of movement; it is an invalid
intervention on the ground that the ordinance will affect
exercise of police power; and it is unreasonable and
their business interests as operators. The respondents,
oppressive interference in their business.
in turn, alleged that the ordinance is a legitimate
CA, in turn, reversed the decision of RTC and affirmed
exercise of police power.
the constitutionality of the ordinance. First, it held that
RTC declared Ordinance No. 7774 null and void as it the ordinance did not violate the right to privacy or the
“strikes at the personal liberty of the individual freedom of movement, as it only penalizes the owners or
guaranteed and jealously guarded by the Constitution.” operators of establishments that admit individuals for
Reference was made to the provisions of the short time stays. Second, the virtually limitless reach of
Constitution encouraging private enterprises and the police power is only constrained by having a lawful
incentive to needed investment, as well as the right to object obtained through a lawful method. The lawful
operate economic enterprises. Finally, from the objective of the ordinance is satisfied since it aims to
observation that the illicit relationships the Ordinance curb immoral activities. There is a lawful method since
sought to dissuade could nonetheless be consummated the establishments are still allowed to operate. Third,
by simply paying for a 12-hour stay, the adverse effect on the establishments is justified by
When elevated to CA, the respondents asserted that the the well-being of its constituents in general.
ordinance is a valid exercise of police power pursuant to
Hence, the petitioners appeared before the SC.
Section 458 (4)(iv) of the Local Government Code which
confers on cities the power to regulate the Issue:
establishment, operation and maintenance of cafes,
restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension Whether Ordinance No. 7774 is a valid exercise of police
houses, lodging houses and other similar power of the State.
establishments, including tourist guides and transports. Held:
Also, they contended that under Art III Sec 18 of Revised
Manila Charter, they have the power to enact all No. Ordinance No. 7774 cannot be considered as a valid
ordinances it may deem necessary and proper for the exercise of police power, and as such, it is
sanitation and safety, the furtherance of the prosperity unconstitutional.
and the promotion of the morality, peace, good order,
comfort, convenience and general welfare of the city and

The facts of this case will recall to mind not only the police power as conferred on local government units by
recent City of Manila v Laguio Jr ruling, but the 1967 the Local Government Code through such implements
decision in Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operations as the general welfare clause.
Association, Inc., v. Hon. City Mayor of Manila. The
Police power is based upon the concept of necessity of
common thread that runs through those decisions and
the State and its corresponding right to protect itself
the case at bar goes beyond the singularity of the
and its people. Police power has been used as
localities covered under the respective ordinances. All
justification for numerous and varied actions by the
three ordinances were enacted with a view of regulating
public morals including particular illicit activity in
transient lodging establishments. This could be The apparent goal of the ordinance is to minimize if not
described as the middle case, wherein there is no eliminate the use of the covered establishments for illicit
wholesale ban on motels and hotels but the services sex, prostitution, drug use and alike. These goals, by
offered by these establishments have been severely themselves, are unimpeachable and certainly fall within
restricted. At its core, this is another case about the the ambit of the police power of the State. Yet the
extent to which the State can intrude into and regulate desirability of these ends do not sanctify any and all
the lives of its citizens means for their achievement. Those means must align
with the Constitution.
The test of a valid ordinance is well established. A long
line of decisions including City of Manila has held that SC contended that if they were to take the myopic view
for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within that an ordinance should be analyzed strictly as to its
the corporate powers of the local government unit to effect only on the petitioners at bar, then it would seem
enact and pass according to the procedure prescribed by that the only restraint imposed by the law that they
law, it must also conform to the following substantive were capacitated to act upon is the injury to property
requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution sustained by the petitioners. Yet, they also recognized
or any statute; (2) must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) the capacity of the petitioners to invoke as well the
must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must not constitutional rights of their patrons – those persons
prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and who would be deprived of availing short time access or
consistent with public policy; and (6) must not be wash-up rates to the lodging establishments in question.
unreasonable. The rights at stake herein fell within the same
fundamental rights to liberty. Liberty as guaranteed by
The ordinance in this case prohibits two specific and
the Constitution was defined by Justice Malcolm to
distinct business practices, namely wash rate
include “the right to exist and the right to be free from
admissions and renting out a room more than twice a
arbitrary restraint or servitude. The term cannot be
day. The ban is evidently sought to be rooted in the

dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint of the Lacking a concurrence of these requisites, the police
person of the citizen, but is deemed to embrace the right measure shall be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion
of man to enjoy the facilities with which he has been into private rights.
endowed by his Creator, subject only to such restraint The behavior which the ordinance seeks to curtail is in
as are necessary for the common welfare, fact already prohibited and could in fact be diminished
simply by applying existing laws. Less intrusive
Indeed, the right to privacy as a constitutional right
measures such as curbing the proliferation of
must be recognized and the invasion of it should be
prostitutes and drug dealers through active police work
justified by a compelling state interest. Jurisprudence
would be more effective in easing the situation. So would
accorded recognition to the right to privacy
the strict enforcement of existing laws and regulations
independently of its identification with liberty; in itself it
penalizing prostitution and drug use. These measures
is fully deserving of constitutional protection.
would have minimal intrusion on the businesses of the
Governmental powers should stop short of certain
petitioners and other legitimate merchants. Further, it is
intrusions into the personal life of the citizen.
apparent that the ordinance can easily be circumvented
An ordinance which prevents the lawful uses of a wash by merely paying the whole day rate without any
rate depriving patrons of a product and the petitioners hindrance to those engaged in illicit activities. Moreover,
of lucrative business ties in with another constitutional drug dealers and prostitutes can in fact collect “wash
requisite for the legitimacy of the ordinance as a police rates” from their clientele by charging their customers a
power measure. It must appear that the interests of the portion of the rent for motel rooms and even
public generally, as distinguished from those of a apartments.
particular class, require an interference with private
SC reiterated that individual rights may be adversely
rights and the means must be reasonably necessary for
affected only to the extent that may fairly be required by
the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly
the legitimate demands of public interest or public
oppressive of private rights. It must also be evident that
welfare. The State is a leviathan that must be restrained
no other alternative for the accomplishment of the
from needlessly intruding into the lives of its citizens.
purpose less intrusive of private rights can work. More
However well¬-intentioned the ordinance may be, it is in
importantly, a reasonable relation must exist between
effect an arbitrary and whimsical intrusion into the
the purposes of the measure and the means employed
rights of the establishments as well as their patrons.
for its accomplishment, for even under the guise of
The ordinance needlessly restrains the operation of the
protecting the public interest, personal rights and those
businesses of the petitioners as well as restricting the
pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be
rights of their patrons without sufficient justification.
arbitrarily invaded.
The ordinance rashly equates wash rates and renting

out a room more than twice a day with immorality On August 23, 1993, Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 0294 was
without accommodating innocuous intentions. issued to implement RA 7432. Sections 2(i) and 4 of RR No. 0294
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of
the Court of Appeals is REVERSED, and the Decision of Sec. 2. DEFINITIONS. – For purposes of these regulations: i. Tax
the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 9, is Credit – refers to the amount representing the 20% discount
REINSTATED. Ordinance No. 7774 is hereby declared granted to a qualified senior citizen by all establishments relative
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. No pronouncement as to costs. to their utilization of transportation services, hotels and similar
lodging establishments, restaurants, drugstores, recreation
centers, theaters, cinema houses, concert halls, circuses, carnivals
and other similar places of culture, leisure and amusement, which
discount shall be deducted by the said establishments from their
gross income for income tax purposes and from their gross sales
Manila Memorial Park vs. DSWD for valueadded tax or other percentage tax purposes.
GR. 175356
On February 26, 2004, RA 92578 amended certain provisions of
Facts: RA 7432, to wit:
SECTION 4. Privileges for the Senior Citizens. –
On April 23, 1992, RA 7432 was passed into law, granting senior The senior citizens shall be entitled to the following:
(a) the grant
citizens the following privileges: SECTION 4. Privileges for the of twenty percent (20%) discount from all establishments relative
Senior Citizens. – The senior citizens shall be entitled to the to the utilization of services in hotels and similar lodging
following: establishments, restaurants and recreation centers, and purchase
a) the grant of twenty percent (20%) discount from all of medicines in all establishments for the exclusive use or
establishments relative to utilization of transportation services, enjoyment of senior citizens, including funeral and burial services
hotels and similar lodging establishment[s], restaurants and for the death of senior citizens;
recreation centers and purchase of medicine anywhere in the
country: Provided, That private establishments may claim the cost xxxx
as tax credit;
b) a minimum of twenty percent (20%) discount on admission The establishment may claim the discounts granted under (a), (f),
fees charged by theaters, cinema houses and concert halls, (g) and (h) as tax deduction based on the net cost of the goods sold
circuses, carnivals and other similar places of culture, leisure, and or services rendered: Provided, That the cost of the discount shall
amusement; be allowed as deduction from gross income for the same taxable
year that the discount is granted. Provided, further, That the total
xxx amount of the claimed tax deduction net of value added tax if
applicable, shall be included in their gross sales receipts for tax
purposes and shall be subject to proper documentation and to the
provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended.

To implement the tax provisions of RA 9257, the Secretary of Issue:
Finance issued RR No. 42006, the pertinent provision of which WHETHER SECTION 4 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9257 AND ITS
enumerated in subparagraph (6) hereunder granting sales UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
discounts to senior citizens on the sale of goods and/or services
specified thereunder are entitled to deduct the said discount from Ruling:
gross income subject to the following conditions: No. Based on the afore-stated DOF Opinion, the tax deduction
scheme does not fully reimburse petitioners for the discount
Xxx privilege accorded to senior citizens. This is because the discount
is treated as a deduction, a tax-deductible expense that is
To implement the tax provisions of RA 9257, the Secretary of subtracted from the gross income and results in a lower taxable
Finance issued RR No. 42006, the pertinent provision of which income. Being a tax deduction, the discount does not reduce taxes
provides: owed on a peso for peso basis but merely offers a fractional
reduction in taxes owed. Theoretically, the treatment of the
SEC. 8. AVAILMENT BY ESTABLISHMENTS OF SALES DISCOUNTS discount as a deduction reduces the net income of the private
AS DEDUCTION FROM GROSS INCOME. – Establishments establishments concerned. The discounts given would have
enumerated in subparagraph (6) hereunder granting sales entered the coffers and formed part of the gross sales of the
discounts to senior citizens on the sale of goods and/or services private establishments, were it not for R.A. No. 9257. The
specified thereunder are entitled to deduct the said discount from permanent reduction in their total revenues is a forced subsidy
gross income subject to the following conditions: corresponding to the taking of private property for public use or
Xxx benefit. This constitutes compensable taking for which petitioners
would ordinarily become entitled to a just compensation. Just
Feeling aggrieved by the tax deduction scheme, petitioners filed compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the
the present recourse, praying that Section 4 of RA 7432, as property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The measure
amended by RA 9257, and the implementing rules and regulations is not the takers gain but the owners loss. The word just is used to
issued by the DSWD and the DOF be declared unconstitutional intensify the meaning of the word compensation, and to convey
insofar as these allow business establishments to claim the 20% the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be
discount given to senior citizens as a tax deduction; that the DSWD taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample.
and the DOF be prohibited from enforcing the same; and that the
tax credit treatment of the 20% discount under the former Section A tax deduction does not offer full reimbursement of the senior
4 (a) of RA 7432 be reinstated. citizen discount. As such, it would not meet the definition of just
compensation. Having said that, this raises the question of

whether the State, in promoting the health and welfare of a special When we ruled that petitioners in Carlos Superdrug case failed to
group of citizens, can impose upon private establishments the prove that the 20% discount is arbitrary, oppressive or
burden of partly subsidizing a government program. The Court confiscatory. We noted that no evidence, such as a financial report,
believes so. to establish the impact of the 20% discount on the overall
profitability of petitioners was presented in order to show that
The Senior Citizens Act was enacted primarily to maximize the they would be operating at a loss due to the subject regulation or
contribution of senior citizens to nation-building, and to grant that the continued implementation of the law would be
benefits and privileges to them for their improvement and well- unconscionably detrimental to the business operations of
being as the State considers them an integral part of our society. petitioners.

The priority given to senior citizens finds its basis in the In the case at bar, petitioners proceeded with a hypothetical
Constitution as set forth in the law itself. computation of the alleged loss that they will suffer similar to
what the petitioners in Carlos Superdrug Corporationdid.
As a form of reimbursement, the law provides that business
establishments extending the twenty percent discount to senior We, thus, found that the 20% discount as well as the tax deduction
citizens may claim the discount as a tax deduction. The law is a scheme is a valid exercise of the police power of the State. Thus, it
legitimate exercise of police power which, similar to the power of is constitutional.
eminent domain, has general welfare for its object.

While the Constitution protects property rights, petitioners must

accept the realities of business and the State, in the exercise of
police power, can intervene in the operations of a business which
may result in an impairment of property rights in the process.

Undeniably, the success of the senior citizens program rests

largely on the support imparted by petitioners and the other
private establishments concerned. This being the case, the means
employed in invoking the active participation of the private
sector, in order to achieve the purpose or objective of the law, is
reasonably and directly related. Without sufficient proof that
Section 4 (a) of R.A. No. 9257 is arbitrary, and that the continued
implementation of the same would be unconscionably
detrimental to petitioners, the Court will refrain from quashing a
legislative act. Carlos Superdrug Corp v. DSWD, 553 Phil. 120

more instances followed wherein respondents demolished the
G.R. No. 211356, September 29, 2014 improvements introduced by Boracay West Cove.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for injunctive relief
MUNICIPALITY OF MALAY, AKLAN with the CA Alleging that the order was issued and executed with
G.R. No. 211356, September 29, 2014 grave abuse of discretion
v. Contentions of West Cove:
MUNICIPALITY OF MALAY, AKLAN, Respondent. 1) The hotel cannot summarily be abated because it is not a
VELASCO JR., J.: nuisance per se, given the hundred million peso-worth of capital
infused in the venture.
NATURE: 2) Municipality of Malay, Aklan should have first secured a court
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the order before proceeding with the demolition.
Decision1 and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The assailed
rulings denied Crisostomo Aquino’s Petition for Certiorari for not Contention of the Mayor: The demolition needed no court order
being the proper remedy to question the issuance and because the municipal mayor has the express power under the Local
implementation of Executive Order No. 10, Series of 2011 (EO 10), Government Code (LGC) to order the removal of illegally constructed
ordering the demolition of his hotel establishment. buildings

FACTS: The CA dismissed the petition solely on procedural ground, i.e., the
Boracay Island West Cove Management Philippines, Inc. applied for special writ of certiorari can only be directed against a tribunal,
a building permit covering the construction of a three-storey hotel board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions and
over a parcel of land in Malay, Aklan, which is covered by a Forest since the issuance of EO 10 was done in the exercise of executive
Land Use Agreement for Tourism Purposes (FLAgT) issued by the functions, and not of judicial or quasi-judicial functions, certiorari will
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The not lie.
Municipal Zoning Administrator denied petitioner’s application on the
ground that the proposed construction site was within the “no build ISSUE:
zone” demarcated in Municipal Ordinance 2000-131. Whether the judicial proceedings should first be conducted before
the LGU can order the closure and demolition of the property in
Petitioner appealed the denial action to the Office of the Mayor but question.
despite follow up, no action was ever taken by the respondent
mayor. HELD:
The Court ruled that the property involved cannot be classified as
A Cease and Desist Order was issued by the municipal government, a nuisance per sewhich can therefore be summarily abated. Here, it
enjoining the expansion of the resort, and on June 7, 2011, the is merely the hotel’s particular incident, its location and not its
Office of the Mayor of Malay, Aklan issued the assailed EO 10, inherent qualities that rendered it a nuisance. Otherwise stated, had
ordering the closure and demolition of Boracay West Cove’s hotel. it not been constructed in the no build zone, Boracay West Cove
could have secured the necessary permits without issue. As such,
EO 10 was partially implemented on June 10, 2011. Thereafter, two even if the hotel is not a nuisance per se, it is still a nuisance per

Generally, LGUs have no power to declare a particular thing as a
nuisance unless such a thing is a nuisance per se. Despite the hotel’s
classification as a nuisance per accidens, however, the LGU may
nevertheless properly order the hotel’s demolition. This is because,
in the exercise ofpolice power and the general welfare clause,
property rights of individuals may be subjected to restraints and
burdens in order to fulfill the objectives of the government. Moreover,
the Local Government Code authorizes city and municipal
governments, acting through their local chief executives, to issue
demolition orders. The office of the mayor has quasi-judicial powers
to order the closing and demolition of establishments.


Petition is denied