Police power o Observance of due process

 Determination of just compensation? – On the date of taking

 With the general welfare clause
o If wala pang taking – Date of filing
 Always for the common good
 After 5 years di pa rin binayaran property owner, what is
 Calalang v. Williams
remedy?
 Only regulation, no prohibition o Reconveyance
o Property owner must give back amount received
o Court may impose damages
Eminent Domain  Ano recourse ni party kung di binayaran? Lozada vs City of
Provision of parking slots in malls Cebu
o Di binayaran yung property. Under the ordinance,
 City of Marikina v. St. Scholastica – City cannot compel school mababa yung budget – 2M lang. Eh ruling, 21M.
to lower down the fences o Paano babayaran yung balance? Mandamus
 White Light Corp v. City of Manila – Reasonable relation must ordering LGU to enact an ordinance
exist between the purposes of the measure and the means  Pwede bang matigil ang expropriation if na file na yung case?
employed for its accomplishment o If the lawful purpose is not there anymore – Heir of
o Motel owners Burgos v. Napocor
 Republic v. Manila Electric Co – Right of way for Meralco  Ireretire na yung generator supply. Nag
posts oppose sina Burbon since sila yung nag
 MMDA v. Trackworks – initiate ng action.
 Bel Air case – Pinapabukas ng MMDA yung village for right of o SC: If wala nang public purpose, dismissal. Please pay
way. Talo MMDA. damages
 Garin v. MMDA – Nag park sa Binondo tapos pag balik niya  DPWH v. Sps Tecson – In 1940, di alam ni sps tecson na
wala na yung kotse niya.Na-tow daw kotse niya. May power kinuha ng dpwh yung property nila. Naalala nila 1995 na.
ba MMDA to confiscate his car? Inverse condemnation
o SC: NO o Cannot set up unjust enrichment if there was laches
o Bakit nanghuhuli MMDA? – Delegation of LGUs (All o What price? – At the time of taking with interest
cities except Makati and Las Pinas) o When do you impose 6% interest? – July 1, 2013
 3 elements: o Pwede ba I charge ang capital gains tax sa just
o Forcible taking compensation? – Seller, burden of the property
o Public purpose owner
o Just compensation o What about inflation? – NO
 May power ba barangay to expropriate? Taxation
o YES
 Imposition by the State on the taxpayer
o Brgy Sindalan v. CA
 To enforce contribution to be able to sustain
 Kailangan ba file agad sa court? – NO. There must be an offer
 Progressive
 Requisites of valid taking – Republic v. De Castellvi
 Money is to support government and for public needs
 Expansive concept of “Public use” – Manosca v. CA
 Double taxation – check essentials
o Binili yung property ni Manalo.
 License fees in the exercise of police power
 Viacrious benefit under eminent domain – yung mga land ng
squatters na inaayos, tumataas yung value  Cannot be subject to compensation
 FMV – 6% per annum
 Consequential damages are allowed
o In Napocor cases – easement of right of way BILL OF RIGHTS
o What to compute? – Space where the foundation will (1)
be erected and yield of the land if bababa yung value.
Kunwari di na makapag tanim. So babayaran ng Two types of due process
government yung loss.  Substantive
 Can it be subject to compromise agreement? – YEH  Procedural
 Period to fix just compensation – Date of filing
o XPN: Where the date of the filing Elements
 CARP
 Notice
o The TC must consider the guidelines of DAR –
 To be heard
Because that is the part of the law
o Pag di nag agree yung parties, Court will determine
the value
(2)
 The right to recover compensation is enshrined in the Bill of
Rights – DPWH v. Sps Tecson Be secured in: persons, houses, papers, and effects
 Where there is delay
o Court may impos einterest  Effects = objects used in the commission of the crime
 Government’s failure to pay within 5 years, Search warrant and warrant of arrest
Court may add additional interest
Stonehill v. Diokno
  American citizen, smuggler. Stonehill was represented by
Marcos.
 Marcos: Search warrant was broad.
 SC: Agree with Marcos. It must be particular. There must be
a distinction between personalities
 Exclusionary rule: At what point may the person object?
o At the time of seizure
o During PI
o Before plea
o During trial but before promulgation of judgment
 Marcos v. COMELEC – Imelda Marcos when Marcos died
returned home. She ran as Congresswoman of Tacloban.
Quintero opoosed, conjugal home nina Marcos sa Ilocos.
She has no right
o SC: In favor of Marcos – When Marcos died,
conjugal residence was dissolved. Malacanang
was not their official residence.
o It is Imelda’s right to return – “internt to return”
 Right to travel – HDO, public safety, public health

(4)
(7)
 Freedom of speech will protect individuals and group of
Right to information
people
 Rappler case  Transparency in government transacrions
o Di raw sila covered nung definition ng mass  Ople v. Torres – National ID system
media kasi wala silang print. o It is the people’s right to know
o SEC said they communicate and dahil sa media, o Nag object si Ople kasi encroachment of
kasali sila dapat. legislative power
o CA sustained SEC o Dapat alam ng mga tao what will affect their
o Case now pending with SC. right
 Peaceably assemble = Lagi grievance  Sereno v. NEDA
(5) (8) USA

 Freedom to believe Unions

 Practice what you believe
Societies

Associations not contrary to law

(6)
 Victorian v. Elizadle Rope Workers
Freedom of abode and travel
(9) Eminent domain
(10) Non-impairment clause
Government cannot impair contractual obligations
 Government cannot enact a law that will change the
condition of the contracts
 A bought property payable in 10 years. In 3rd year,
congress enacted legislature that impairs the buyer
o Paano raw hahatiin ni A? – NO kasi there is a
constitutional guarantee. Basta may vested right
di na pwede pasukin ng government.
 Look at the intent of the law
 Vivas on behalf of SH of Eurocredit bank v. Monetary
Board – Pinasarado Eurocredit Bank. Vivas contends they
were denied due process.
o SC: Close now, ask later policy. Monetary Board
may suspend operations of a bank
(11)
Free access to the courts
(12)
Pp v. Lucero – barangay tanod is a public officer
 No miranda rights if voluntary
(13)
XPN to XPN: Enrile case
 Look into personal circumstances of the accused
 It is within the discretion of the court
(14)
Due process
Service of subpoenas
(15)
Habeas corpus
(16)
Inordinate delay – Not a physical measure of time. Will look on the
substantive delay.
 People v. Sandigan – Filed by Nani Perez, was alleged to have
extorted money from Mark Jimenez. OB investigated –
Extortion, qualified bribery. In 7 years.
o SC: Agreed with Nani Perez. There was inordinate
delay so I should be dismissed.
 National law
 Twice on trial on acts committed under an ordinance
 Tried an ordinance under the national law
People v. Relova
 Apolencia may ari ng ice plant. Nagnanakaw ng kuryente.He
was tried under an ordinance. He moved for dismissal kasi
prescribed na yung action. So court dismissed.
  Prosecutor charged him theft of power under RPC. This is a
separate offense
 SC: A ruling based on prescription is based on merit
Ivler v. San Pedro
 Invoking illegal dismissal – equal protection clause, because
he was singled out
 SC: Valid dismissal. May policy mga airline companies
worldwide.

 Ivler nagddrive. Bumagsak yung SUV. 2 info was filed.

 Yung una muna ni try. GR: Facial challenge is not available to penal statutes
 Dapat 1 information lang ang ni-file. Mali yung prosecution.
Overbreadth is applicable to freedom of expression cases
Lejano v. People
Disini v. SOJ
 Vizconde massacre
 XPN – If the party is able to show that a penal law or statute,
 SC: acquit.
a specific provision will impair his right.
 Offended party may not appeal
 As applied doctrine
Bangayan Jr v. Bangayan  Cyber libel – under cybercrime law
 SC: Disini was able to show a specific provision under the
 Respondent is wife. Mother in law is distributing properties. cybercrime law which impaired his right.
Wife filed bigamy against bangayan
 RTC – Dismissed. Evidence was marriage contract na iba yung
name na ginamit ni Bangayan.
Judicial Standards of Review
 Offended party has no right to appeal
Deferential Review – Rational Basis Review

People v. Marti – Nagpadala ng marijuana sa Switzerland. Invoked Intermediate Review

right against unreasonable seizure. Courier yung nagpa inspect.
 What government interest is being considered by law
Dinala sa NBI. He was put under surveillance. Was caught in the post
office. Upon conviction, dinala sa SC. Sabi niya dapat present siya Strict scrutiny law
nung examination.
 Clear and present danger test
 SC: Wala na violate. Yung courier yung nag open
 Extraordinary diligence

Yrasuegi v. PAL – Matabang flight attendant. Na dismiss ng PAL.

Board of medicine v. Ota – Japanese studied medicine in Bicol. PRC  May karapatan ba si Chan na pumunta dun sa residence ni
allowed her to take board. Pero di pinag oath. This was ruled based Mayor Gamboa.
on reciprocity – PH doctors are allowed to practice in Japan.  Privte armies must be dismantled.
 Doctrine of auto limitation. SC: Ota may practice

Kuwait Airways v. PAL

Government of HKG v. Olalia

 Munoz PH citizen in HKG was found guilty of fraud. Hinihingi

ng HKG na ma extradite siya.
 May right to bail ba sa extradition proceedings?
o YES
 Effective pa ba extradition treaty with HKG?
o Special administrative region ang HKG
o Mukhang waley na raw effect kasi HKG was already
turned over to China. Eh yung agreement noon pa
with UK

US v. Puruggana and Jimenez

 Mark Jimines asked for due process. Wag muna raw siya
padala sa amerika.
o Consti right ang due process so ibigay mo.
Postponement lang yung pagbigay ng obligation.

Republic vs. Cagandahan

Gamboa v. Chan