Carlos Superdrug Corp.

v Department of Social Welfare and Development

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 twenty
percent (20%) discount as privileges for the Senior
Citizens. Petitioner contends that said law is
unconstitutional because it constitutes deprivation of
private property.

Issue: Whether or not RA 9257 is unconstitutional

Held: Petition is dismissed. The law is
a legitimate exercise of police power which, similar to the
power of eminent domain, has general welfare for its
object.

Accordingly, it has been described as “the most essential,

insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending as it
does to all the great public needs.” It is the power vested
in the legislature by the constitution to make, ordain, and
establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws,
statutes, and ordinances, either with penaltiesor without,
not repugnant to the constitution, as they shall judge to be
for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the
subjects of the same.”

For this reason, when the conditions so demand as

determined by the legislature, property rights must bow to
the primacy of police power because property rights,
though sheltered by due process, must yield to general
welfare.

Fernando vs St. Scholastica’s College

GR 1611107, 12 March 2013

Facts: Respondent SSC’s property is enclosed by a tall concrete perimeter fence. Marikina City
enacted an ordinance which provides that walls and fences shall not be built within a five-meter
allowance between the front monument line and the building line of an establishment.
The City Government of Marikina sent a letter to the respondents ordering them to
demolish, replace, and move back the fence. As a response, the respondents filed a petition for
prohibition with an application for a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
order before the Regional Trial Court of Marikina. The RTC granted the petition and the CA
affirmed. Hence, this certiorari.

Issue: Is Marikina Ordinance No. 192, imposing a five-meter setback, a valid exercise of police
power?

Ruling: No. “Police power is the plenary power vested in the legislature to make statutes and
ordinances to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general
welfare of the people.” Two tests have been used by the Court – the rational relationship test and
the strict scrutiny test:
Under the rational relationship test, an ordinance must pass the following requisites:
(1) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require its
exercise; and (2) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
The real intent of the setback requirement was to make the parking space free for use by
the public and not for the exclusive use of respondents. This would be tantamount to a taking of
private property for public use without just compensation. Anent the objectives of prevention of
concealment of unlawful acts and “un-neighborliness” due to the walls and fences, the parking area
is not reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of these goals. The Court, thus, finds Section 5
of the Ordinance to be unreasonable and oppressive. Hence, the exercise of police power is not
valid.
Reyes v Almanzor

FACTS: Petitioners JBL Reyes et al. owned a parcel of land in Tondo which are leased and occupied as
dwelling
units by tenants who were paying monthly rentals of not exceeding P300. Sometimes in 1971 the Rental
Freezing Law was passed prohibiting for one year from its effectivity, an increase in monthly rentals of
dwelling
units where rentals do not exceed three hundred pesos (P300.00), so that the Reyeses were precluded from
raising the rents and from ejecting the tenants. In 1973, respondent City Assessor of Manila re-classified and
reassessed the value of the subject properties based on the schedule of market values, which entailed an
increase in the corresponding tax rates prompting petitioners to file a Memorandum of Disagreement averring
that the reassessments made were "excessive, unwarranted, inequitable, confiscatory and unconstitutional"
considering that the taxes imposed upon them greatly exceeded the annual income derived from their
properties. They argued that the income approach should have been used in determining the land values instead
of the comparable sales approach which the City Assessor adopted.

ISSUE: Is the approach on tax assessment used by the City Assessor reasonable?

HELD: No. The taxing power has the authority to make a reasonable and natural classification for purposes of
taxation but the government's act must not be prompted by a spirit of hostility, or at the very least
discrimination
that finds no support in reason. It suffices then that the laws operate equally and uniformly on all persons under
similar circumstances or that all persons must be treated in the same manner, the conditions not being different
both in the privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed.
Consequently, it stands to reason that petitioners who are burdened by the government by its Rental Freezing
Laws (then R.A. No. 6359 and P.D. 20) under the principle of social justice should not now be penalized by
the
same government by the imposition of excessive taxes petitioners can ill afford and eventually result in the
forfeiture of their properties.

People v Marti

FACTS:

August 14, 1957, the appellant and his common-law wife, Sherly Reyes, went to the booth of the
“Manila Packing and Export Forwarders” carrying Four (4) wrapped packages. The appellant
informed Anita Reyes that he was sending the packages to a friend in Zurich, Switzerland. Anita
Reyes asked if she could examine and inspect the packages. She refused and assures her that the
packages simply contained books, cigars, and gloves.

Before the delivery of appellant’s box to the Bureau of Customs and Bureau of Posts, Mr. Job Reyes
(Proprietor), following the standard operating procedure, opened the boxes for final inspection. A
peculiar odor emitted from the box and that the gloves contain dried leaves. He prepared a letter and
reported to the NBI and requesting a laboratory examinations. The dried marijuana leaves were
found to have contained inside the cellophane wrappers.
The accused – appellant assigns the following errors: The lower court erred in admitting in evidence
the illegality of search and seized objects contained in the four (4) parcels.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the seizing of illegal objects is legal?

HELD:

Yes, appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

RATIONALE:

Article III, Sections 2 and 3, 1987 Constitution

Mapp vs Ohio, exclusionary rule

Stonehill vs Diokno, declared as inadmissible any evidence obtained by virtue of a defective

search warrant, abandoning in the process the ruling earlier adopted in Mercado vs People’s Court.

The case at the bar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence sought to be excluded was
primarily discovered and obtained by a private person, acting in a private capacity and without the
intervention and participation of state authorities. Under the circumstances, can accused / appellant
validly claim that his constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.

The contraband in this case at bar having come into possession of the government without the latter
transgressing appellants rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the Court sees no cogent
reason whty the same should not be admitted.

FACTUAL CONSIDERATIONS – Readily foreclose the proportion that NBI agents conducted an
illegal search and seizure of the prohibited merchandise, clearly that the NBI agents made no search
and seizure much less an illegal one, contrary to the postulate of accused / appellant.
CHADWICK vs STATE, having observed that which is open, where no trespass has been
committed in aid thereof

BILL OF RIGHTS

The protection of fundamental liberties in the essence of constitutional democracy, protection

against whom, protection against the STATE.