CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E.
DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
I. ACADEMIC FREEDOM
ARTICLE XIV
SEC. 1 The State shall protect and promote
the right of all citizens to quality education at all
levels and shall take appropriate steps t make such
education accessible to all.
SEC. 5(2) Academic freedom shall be
enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.
In Garcia v. Faculty of Admission, ”Academic
Freedom is the freedom of professionally qualified
persons to inquire, discover, publish and teach the
truth as they see it in the field of their competence. It
is subject to no control or authority except the control
or authority of the rational methods by which truths
or conclusions are sought and established in these
disciplines.”
HIERARCHY OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM
A. Academic Freedom of the Institution of
Higher Learning:
a. Four essential freedoms of a
university to determine for itself on
academic grounds:
1.Who may teach;
2.What may be taught;
3.How it shall be taught; and
4. Who may be admitted to
study
B. Academic Freedom of the Faculty Members:
a. Freedom to teach what they want,
however they deem best to teach it,
whether true or false. It is the
discretion of the teacher to teach
whatever they want, whatever
grading system they want. However,
the academic freedom of teachers is
subject to or limited by the academic
freedom of the institution for which
the teacher is an employee.
C. Academic Freedom of Students:
a. Students have the freedom to choose
what to study.
II. A. BILL OF RIGHTS
See: ARTICLE III, 1987 CONSTITUTION
 Declaration and enumeration of persons’
rights and privileges which the Constitution
is designed to protect against violations by
the government, provided to individuals or
group of individuals.
 Charter of liberties for individuals.
General Rule: The Bill of Rights is a limitation to
the powers of the State. It deals with how the State
will act towards its citizens and inhabitants (includes
aliens and all those who sojourn the Philippines.)
Exception: Certain rights under the BoR are
limitations to the actions of private individuals.
Some provisions of the Constitution, other than the
Bill of Rights, grant rights fundamental rights to
Filipinos and to inhabitants.
Example: Sec. 16, Art. II The State shall protect and
advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and
harmony of nature.
BASIS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS
 The Bill of Rights is the bedrock of a
constitutional government. It is a staple in all
constitutional governments. It does not create
the rights provided in it since rights are
inherent to persons.
 The Bill of Rights is based upon the
importance accorded to the dignity and worth
of an individual.
1
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
 The Bill of Rights serves as a protection
against arbitrary actions of the government
and other members of the society.
The purpose of a Bill of Rights is to preserve the
democratic ideals such as liberty, equality, security,
and respect for basic human rights. This is to
safeguard the fundamental rights of the people,
citizens and inhabitants. The restatement of rights
under the Bill of Rights in the constitution means that
these rights cannot be diminished or abolished by any
government power or action. While government
power expands, it is always limited by a stable and
consistent Bill of Rights.
CLASSES OF RIGHTS
1. Natural Rights – not granted by the state;
belongs to a man by virtue of his nature;
inherent and inalienable; independent of
human authority. Ex., right to life, liberty,
and property.
2. Constitutional Rights – rights granted by the
constitution in its provision; cannot be
changed by any ordinary law.
a. Political – rights by virtue of
citizenship;
b. Civil -
c. Social and Economic
d. Rights of the accused
3. Statutory Rights – rights granted by law.
Chaves v JBC, talks about the evolution of Congress
from unicameral to bicameral. Ininterpret kase dito
ang provision under the 1987 Constitution, section 8,
Article 8, on the creation of the JBC. Isa sa mga ex
officio member ng JBC ay never nag Congress. If
you have learned in Consti 1, 1973 Constitution was
a unitary form of government, iisa lang yung
assembly, walang lower house, walang upper house.
While in the 1987 Constitution, it was already
bicameral, the upper house which is the senate, and
the lower house, congress. But the Provision under
JBC is that the representative, ex officio member is a
member of congress. The interpretation was and
based on the deliberation, it was just really a
representative of congress. Hindi representative na
isa sa senate, isa sa house of representatives. So, the
upper and lower house should make a way kung
paano nila i-ano na isa lang sa kanila mag represent
sa JBC. But I think, in practice now nag tu-turn
sharing sila. Ilang months nasa HOR another one sa
Senate basta isa lang na member of Congress.
FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE
Fundamental means that it is inherent to the state.
These powers come with it. In Consti 1 you have
learned what are the elements of the state. We have
the people, sovereignty, government and you have
the state. Bill of Rights is the limitation of the power
of the State.
1. Police power
2. Power of Eminent Domain
3. Taxation
POLICE POWER
- A plenary power of the state to enact such
laws and regulations in relation to persons and
property, to promote public health, public morals,
public safety and general welfare. They are specific.
- A power to prohibit all things hurtful
- It is the most essential, insistent and least
limitable power extending as it does to all great
public needs.
- The first basis of police power is the welfare
of the people because it is the supreme law. It is
embodied in the latin phrase salus populi suprema es
lex. The welfare of the people is the supreme law.
2
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
- Second is to use your own as not to injure
another’s property. We have this concept of
Constitutional law that the right of one ends when the
right of the others begins. Meaning, subordination of
individual interest for the greater good of a greater
number, general welfare. (may latin phrase di
masabtan. Di nya nasulat bc wala marker)
- The function of police power is the
protection of the general welfare. It is restrained by
due process.
- Its scope is that it is co-extensive with self-
protection and extends to all great public needs, over-
expanding to meet the needs of the time. It embraces
the whole system of regulation of the government
and it co-exists with constitutional guarantees. While
it is the least limitable, it is still limitable.
The 2 tests of reasonability.
Lawful subject or object and lawful means or
method.
- It is validly exercised if the interest of the
public generally as extinguished form those of
particular class requires the interference of the state
and the means employed are reasonably necessary to
the attainment of the object sought to be
accomplished and not duly brought oppressive upon
an individual.
The First part looks and the general interest of the
public as compared to a particular class and that
classifies that law created for the general public is
reasonably important that it requires state
intervention or state interference. Meaning, the
police power is rightfully to be exercised over that
kind of public interest. And second, the means
employed are reasonably necessary for the
attainment of the purpose kung ano man yung lawful
subject na iyon.
- Police power is generally exercised by the
legislative. It is somehow exercised by executive
when it is delegated the power to implement the law.
Meaning it creates an implementing rules and
regulation, but that should be in relation to the law.
There must be an existing law and then for the
implementation na dineligate ng legislative power to
create implementing rules and regulation.
- The legislative, executive and judiciary
cannot be delegated. Can be delegated however to
other branches of government like the police power
as generally vested in the legislature because they
have the power to make laws and regulations that
govern the Philippines. But the creation of IRR may
be delegated to the executive branch like the
administrative agencies and other offices under the
executive branch. That will be, in the same way, part
of the exercise of police power because it will define
how the substance of the law is to be implemented by
the government arm which is tasked to implement
that law.
In the exercise of police power in the
administrative and executive, it is when we subject
to the check of the judiciary whether there have been
grave abuse of discretion, or whether the actions of
the government are in violation of the Constitution.
The Constitution does not really define the
scope of police power because again it’s inherent, but
it actually sets out the limitations on the police
power.
When there is a government activity, when
there is a law, or when there is a regulation, it is
considered as an act of government – police power,
eminent domain, and taxation, when there is that
exercise, because it is inherent power of the State, it
is considered in line with the Constitution, but
because there are limitations such as due process and
equal protection, if one person – a citizen or
3
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
inhabitant, is aggrieved, then he can seek the redress
of the court, to see if they are in violation of the
limitations under the Constitution on the exercise of
the government of that inherent power.
In due process in relation to police power,
take note of lawful subject and lawful means or
method.
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
It is the right, authority, or power of the State as
a sovereign for those to whom the power has been
lawfully delegated to take private property for public
use upon observance of due process of law in paying
to the owner a just compensation to be ascertained
according to law.
1. The power of eminent domain is the power of
sovereign.
Generally, inherent power of
the State are exercised by the
government but in the case of eminent
domain, certain municipal
corporations or certain private entities
especially public utilities are given or
delegated the power to exercise
eminent domain.
In that sense, they are also
covered by the rules of due process
and equal protection as regards
eminent domain.
General rule is the bill of
rights are limitations only to the State,
against the government action, but in
cases of eminent domain, with the
inherent power of the State of
eminent domain delegated to public
utilities like NAPOCOR, Maynilad,
or Davao Light, when it is given to
them, the rules or limitations on
exercise of eminent domain also
applies to them.
2. The power of eminent domain is the power to
take property for public use upon observance
of due process and payment of just
compensation.
Elements
Substantive
1. Taking
2. Private property
3. Public use
Procedural
4. Due process
5. Just compensation
In due process in relation to eminent domain,
take note of that five elements.
It is sometimes referred to or called as
expropriation or condemnation but the power really
is eminent domain. The power is eminent domain;
the expropriation or condemnation is the process of
exercising the power of eminent domain.
Scope of Eminent Domain
Every form of private property,
 Real (immovable, which cannot be move –
land, house, building, trees)
 Personal (movable – books, car, chairs)
 Tangible (susceptible of touch)
 Intangible (rights pertinent to real property
such as ownership of land, usufructuary and
leasehold rights over the land; one cannot see
it; the paper is just a representation of the
right, but it is not the right itself)
4
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
Except
1. Money
2. Right in action (intangible right but right to
initiate an action against another is personal
to the person who has cause of action or right
of action)
Money cannot be expropriated. Right of action/right
in action cannot be expropriated.
POWER OF TAXATION
 Taxation – a power of the State to impose a charge
or a burden upon persons, property, or property
rights, for the use and support of the government
and to make imminent discharge in its appropriate
functions.
 This power of taxation is the power of the state to
levy, create a law, ask for taxes or tariffs, or
anything that will put a financial burden or charge
on its citizen for the citizen to participate indirectly
in the government in its government functions.
Because in the existence of the state, it needs to
extend money for the services, for its governmental
functions it is tasked to do. How will it be able to
do that if it doesn’t have any source of income?
That’s why taxation became an inherent power of
the state because it is a necessity.
 It connotes a reciprocal relationship between the
inhabitants and the state. Because the state has the
duty to protect and to provide the public needs. But
inhabitants also have the responsibility to share in
the burden of government. Meaning, to share a
portion of their income so that the government may
have the means to give back public services and it
is in conjunction with the other powers.
In police power, taxation will be able to provide in
the implementation of the laws or regulations of
public safety, public morals, public health, and
general welfare.
 Taxes - are enforced proportional contributions or
financial burdens or charges from persons and
property levied by the lawmaking body of the state
for the support of the government and all public
needs to raise revenue for public purpose or
purposes.
 The theory of taxation: The government’s
existence is a necessity and it cannot continue to
exist and perform its functions without the means
to pay for its expenses, and that for these means it
has the right to compel all its citizens and property
within its limits to contribute.
 Taxes are not only imposed on people but also on
property and property rights. And it is the people
who will pay it because it is the people who enjoy
the property and the property rights.
PURPOSES OF TAXATION
1. To raise revenue for the purpose of sharing
in the burden of the government;
2. To be a tool for regulations. There are
certain tax measures to address certain ails of
the society. For example, higher sin taxes on
cigarettes and alcohol;
3. For protection/the power to keep alive. It is
a necessity for the existence of the
government and for the services of the
Filipino people;
SIMILARITIES OF INHERENT POWERS
Essential or inherent powers of government:
5
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
1. They all rest upon necessity because there
can be no effective government without
them;
2. They are inherent in sovereignty; hence, they
can be exercised even without being
expressly granted in the Constitution
although the conditions for their exercise
may be regulated and limited by the
Constitution and by law;
3. They are ways by which the State interferes
with private rights and property;
4. They are all legislative in character; and
5. They all presuppose an equivalent
compensation received, directly or indirectly,
by the person affected by the exercise of these
powers by the government.
DISTINCTIONS AMONG THE THREE
POWERS:
They are, among others, the following:
1. As to authority which exercises the power.
– Taxation and police power are exercised
only by the government, while the exercise of
the power of eminent domain may be granted
to public service companies;
2. As to purpose. – In taxation, the property
(generally in the form of money) is taken for
the support of the government; in eminent
domain, for public use; and in police power,
the property is taken or destroyed for the
purpose of promoting the general welfare;
3. As to effect. - In taxation, the money
contributed becomes part of public funds; in
eminent domain, there is a transfer of the
right to property whether it be ownership or a
lesser right; and in police power, there is no
such transfer; at most, there is a restraint in
the injurious use of property;
4. As to persons affected. - Taxation and
(usually) police power operate upon a
community or a class of individuals, while
eminent domain operates on an individual. as
the owner of a particular property; and
5. As to benefits received. -In taxation, it is
assumed that the individual receives the
equivalent of the tax in the form of benefits
and protection he receives from the
government; in eminent domain, he receives
just compensation for the property
expropriated; and in police power, the
compensation of the individual is not
immediate and usually annoyance and
financial loss are caused to him leaving the
reward to be reaped through his altruistic
recognition that the restraint is for the public
good.
6. As to the amount of imposition. – In
taxation, no limit as to the amount of tax that
may be imposed however it should not be
confiscatory. In eminent domain, there is no
amount imposed but rather the owners pay
the market value of the property taken. In
police power, the amount imposed should not
be more than sufficient to cover the cost of
the license and the necessary expenses of
police surveillance and inspection,
examination, or regulation as merely as the
same can be estimated.
7. As to the relationship to the Constitution.
– The taxing power is subject to certain
Constitutional limitation including
prescription against impairment of the
obligation of contracts. In eminent domain, it
is also inferior to the prescription against the
impairment of obligation of contracts. And
police power is relatively free from
Constitutional limitations and is superior to
the impairment provisions. In appropriate
cases, the Constitutional injunction against
impairment of the obligation of contracts
cannot be invoked as against the right of the
6
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
State to exercise its police power. The police
power is the most powerful and the least
limitable.
Police power – is the most powerful. It may or not
be appropriated for public use because of the four
reasons mentioned earlier.
Coverage of police power :
1. Life
2. Liberty
3. Property.
Eminent domain - Should be for public use
Taxation – for legitimate government functions or
in short, public use.
Coverage of Eminent domain and Taxation :
1. Property
2. Property rights
For delegation:
Police power, eminent domain, taxation – all are
inherently the power of the legislature.
Police power may be delegated to the executive and
under the LGC, as regards the general welfare, the
portion of police power is delegated to local
government units.
Eminent domain – exercised by municipal
corporations and public utility.
Taxation – can be delegated to local legislative
bodies (Sanggunian, etc.) provided under the LGC
Art. 6, Sec. 23 (2) – In times of war or
other national emergency, the Congress
may, by law, authorize the President, for a
limited period and subject to such
restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise
powers necessary and proper to carry out
a declared national policy. Unless sooner
withdrawn by resolution of the Congress,
such powers shall cease upon the next
The legislature can actually delegate that power so
long as the conditions under the law are present.
Due Process of Law
Due process of law does not have an exact
definition, because it applies to a lot of proceedings;
whether it be judicial, administrative, quasi-judicial.
It applies, for example in the termination of
employees; in proceedings of discipline of students,
employees, etc. So, the concept of due process of law
is not given by the courts an exact definition, because
it may apply to different settings, which call for
different characterizations of due process for that
setting. For example, in a criminal case, due process
involves a different substantive law and a different
procedural law in comparison to civil cases. In
disciplining public officers, students, employees;
they also involve a different character of due process
of law.
So, there is no exact definition. This has been
left to the best judgement of the judiciary considering
the peculiarity and circumstance of each case.
Requirements in one particular proceeding may be
present in another proceeding. When you reach 3rd
year or 4th year, you will know the different standards
of proof per proceeding. So, each case is dealt with
by the Court differently, although there is a common
thread for due process. Take note, how the court
defines due process in one case is only applicable to
that case; for example, due process in criminal cases,
civil cases and administrative cases.
What are the commonalities in the definition?
1. Fair play;
2. Respect for justice; and
3. Respect for the better rights of others.
7
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
In short, the common thread is:
1. Law (respect for justice);
2. Reason (respect for the better rights of
others); and
3. Fairness (fair play).
Because in due process, that is what we ask for. Who
has the better right; better claim to that right? I think
the most famous characterization or general
description of due process of law is:
‘A law which hears before it condemns, which
proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgement only
after trial or proceedings.’
Take note of that simple phrase. When you are asked
what is due process of law. First, answer, ‘there is no
exact definition; it may apply to different cases. But
in general, it is a law which hears before it condemns,
which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgement
only after fair trial or proceedings.’
Substantive Due Process
It is under the authority of a valid law. It is either not
contrary to the constitution or it is the constitution
itself being enforced. Whatever action of the
government, it is based on the constitution. The law
itself, the basis is fair, reasonable and just. There is
additive reason or sufficient justification for the
governmental action of either taking away or
interfering with the right of a person of his life,
liberty, property. The question of a substantive due
process is whether or not that law or act is a valid
exercise of legislative power.
Requirements which laws must comply with
substantive due process.
1. There is valid law upon which it is based.
2. That the law must have been passed or
approved to accomplish a valid governmental
objective.
3. The law must also have a valid governmental
objective in making or enforcing that law.
4. The constraint of the legislature in passing
law or the number one concern is that the law
they passed will not trample upon substantive
rights of the citizens or the inhabitants of the
Philippines
5. The objective must be pursued in a lawful
manner
6. The law as well as the means to accomplish
the objective must be valid and not
oppressive
Procedural Due Process
It is a method or manner by which the law is
enforced. The basic component of procedural due
process is a) notice and b) opportunity to be heard.
The opportunity to be heard, in judicial, it is to
explain one’s side. In administrative, it is to seek
reconsideration of any decision made of that
administrative body. The due process aspect of law
must pass both the substantive and procedural for us
to say that there is compliance with due process of
law.
Two aspects of Procedural due process
1. Judicial proceeding
2. Administrative proceeding- applies to all
proceedings which are not judicial. It must be
substantive
Requirements of Judicial Procedural Due Process
1. There must an impartial court or tribunal
clothed with judicial power to hear and
determine the matter before it. It is not
influenced by any outside force. The judges’
decision is not based on any political
8
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
influence or any external matter. It must be
based on the facts and evidence presented.
The impartial court must have jurisdiction or
authority to decide the case.
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over
the person, the defendant, or over the
property which is the subject matter of the
proceeding. There is a requirement to have
jurisdiction over the person.
● In civil cases, the jurisdiction is acquired
in MTC or RTC
● In criminal cases, the first step in
acquiring jurisdiction is investigation
which is to be done in the Office of the
City Prosecutor or Prosecutor’s Office.
● In property cases, which is more
complicated, if the owner cannot be
found, there are In Rem proceedings
which must be submitted to the Clerk of
Court.
3. Defendant must be given an opportunity to be
heard.
a. This is a general statement:
Opportunity to be heard. But in criminal
cases or in civil cases, it will be based on the
rules provided. For example, There is a rule
on trial– Rule 30.
i.In a civil case: What if the opposing party chose not
to submit an answer? Then, there would be a default.
While it is an on-going trial, based on the rules, if
you didn’t answer you will be in default. You cannot
participate in the proceedings, but there will still be
a trial. It depends on what kind of proceeding.
ii.In criminal cases: When the accused, after
arraignment and the accused chose not to attend the
court proceedings– the trial will still go on in
absentia, because under the rules that’s allowed.
b. You are given the opportunity to be heard.
It’s not necessary that you are heard. Under
procedural due process, it is the mere
opportunity given to you that is enough to
fulfill that requirement. It’s not necessary that
you are heard, but that you are given that
opportunity to be heard. So in that case, for
example, in a criminal case: you were given
the chance to defend yourself, but you left.
Even if you were given an opportunity. So
that will comply with the procedural due
process, the same thing with the civil case.
You were given the opportunity to
participate, to answer– but you did not. But
in both cases, there is due process–
procedural due process, because the persons
involved are given an opportunity to be
heard.
4. Judgement must be rendered upon lawful
hearing.
a. This is also general because lawful hearing
can be the normal trial type hearing in court
(“Objection, Your Honor!”, “I present this
evidence…”) or it can be in that case, wherein he is
in default and cannot participate, or it can be just that
an exchange of pleadings in court. But, the important
thing that you must remember on judgement upon
lawful hearing is that, the procedure must be
followed before a judgement is rendered. So any part
of the procedure laid out in the Rules of Court (RoC)
must be followed. If there is one part that is not
followed, meaning that is a violation of procedural
due process. So you can claim that “a decision was
rendered in violation of my procedural due process,
therefore due process of law was not observed.”
That’s a general rule– later on, we will find out that
there are exceptions.
That’s the elements or requirements for judicial
procedural due process.
9
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
Administrative Procedural Due Process
The landmark case for this is not in your syllabus
because it was decided in 19--(kopong-kopong), I
think 1987. It’s Ang Tibay vs Court of Industrial
Relations, that’s the landmark case for administrative
due process (if you want to read that… please read
so you will understand). All the subsequent cases
under administrative procedural due process will cite
this. The BAR exam has asked this so many times,
even asked it one time– what does Ang Tibay vs CIR
state as regards administrative due process?
So this is a landmark decision and these are the
requirements for the administrative procedural due
process:
1. The right to a hearing, which includes the
right to present one's cause and submit
evidence in support thereof;
● The hearing here, in administrative
proceedings may vary from one
administrative agency, quasi-judicial
agency, or tribunal. They’re not the
same. One tribunal, they have a
different set of rules. COMELEC,
they have different set of rules. Civil
Service, different set of rules. The
school may have a different set of
rules or administrative proceedings,
etc. So, it will be dependent on that.
● There is no requirement of a trial type
hearing ( meaning yung merong
Judge, merong counsel, merong
parties na mag-away, cross-
examination). It can just be purely
exchange of papers, or probably
based on– for example, the rules that
not only one person who will decide
but a panel, etc. So, it depends on the
rules of that administrative agency or
administrative body.
● But there should be a hearing, the
hearing here as defined is not the
normal trial type hearing. It could just
be an exchange of paper, meaning
you get notified that there is an
administrative case against you and
you’re required to be present or to
submit your answer. (Then after the
answer, kung nagreply yung kalaban,
you can reply as well.)
● Now, what if an accused who’s under
an administrative proceeding requests
for a– na magkita-kita sila? So in that
case, even if it’s not provided under
the rules, the administrative body
must give that person an opportunity
to face who ever filed a complaint
against him and to meet, even if it’s
not provided in the rules– because he
has the right to, hearing.
● So in the hearing, it includes the right
to present one's case and to present
evidence in support thereof.
● So what do you mean by, present
one’s case?– it is you’re right to
present your side of the story, or your
version of the truth, or the defense
that you want to raise in answer to the
complaint or to the charge that is
levied against you. So that’s the right
to present one’s case. In relation to
that, you also have the right to present
evidence.
● In judicial proceedings, that bare
allegations are then equivalent to
proof, meaning if you just kwento
without any proof it’s not enough.
● In administrative proceedings, that
rule is not much strict or rigid,
10
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
because what is required of the
administrative proceeding is
substantial evidence– meaning, a fact
is proved by sufficient evidence. (So
kung ano lang yung mapresent mo na
evidence) And that evidence is
enough to support your claim.
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence
presented;
● Meaning if you submitted something,
the tribunal or the panel or the body
deciding your case must consider,
must look into it. But there is no
requirement that it will be used by
that administrative body or by the
panel or etc. to decide the case. The
requirement is just– that it is
considered in the decision, meaning
that it is looked, compared with the
evidence of the other party, so there is
still weight to it. That is just the
requirement, that it is considered.
3. The decision must have something to support
itself;
● So in relation to number two (2) the
decision of the administrative body,
the administrative panel, or the
person deciding the administrative
case, must have either a legal or
factual basis for his decision.
● Legal basis, is easy because if there is
a provision of law, he can use it.
● Factual basis, is that his decision
must be based on solid facts. On facts
that will prove substantial evidence.
Or that the decision is based on
evidence that will establish the
allegations.
● If you remember in, CONSTI I, there
is a rule on the decision making of the
courts that it must be based on the
facts and the law, or the decision must
contain the facts and the law upon
which the decision is based.
● So in application to this, if for
example the decision of the
administrative body states that these
are the facts, those facts must be
supported by something. That’s what
it means. Or it must be supported by
law.
● He cannot just allege that this is an
established fact, when there is no
basis– it’s just a claim, but it is
actually controverted by evidence.
For example, I’ll claim that I went to
the office that certain day, I wasn’t
late. But the information on the
Biometrics, (late ako ng 10 hours,
pwede ba yun?) I was late for two (2)
hours. What will you believe? My
claim or the substantial evidence–
that proves a fact that I am late?
● So statement of fact, it must be
supported by something, in this case
– substantial evidence.
4. The evidence must be substantial;
5. The decision must be based on the evidence
presented at the hearing; or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the
parties affected;
11
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
● This means that while for example a
decision must be based on something,
that something or that evidence must
be presented during that hearing,
during that process, during that
proceeding. And it is not from outside
sources– something that is not known
to either parties or at least not known
to one party. Why? Because fairplay,
requires that when evidence is
presented, you have the opportunity
to rebut that evidence. So kung
kinuha siya ng person deciding the
case from outside, na hindi alam nung
kabila, paano niya marebut? So
fairplay.
● So the decision, while it must be
based on evidence– on substantial
evidence-that substantial evidence
may either be presented during the
hearing or is contained in the record
of the proceedings.
6. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must
act on its own independent consideration of
the law and facts of the controversy, and not
simply accept the views of a subordinate;
● So I think the best explanation here is
that, when he makes a decision– he
won’t say, “according to arbitrator so
and so, this is what happened,” NO. It
must be your own understanding of
the fact, determination of the facts
and the laws involved. So it must not
be based on another person’s opinion
on the matter, or view on the matter,
or determination on the matter. It
must be your own determination of
the facts and law which are involved
in the administrative proceeding.
7. The decision must be rendered in such
manner that the parties to the proceeding
would know the reasons for the decision and
the various issues involved.
● Still in relation to the requirement that
the decision must contain the facts
and the law upon which the decision
is based, the same requirement that
both parties have knowledge thereof
regarding on what are the facts relied
upon by the administrative body or
the panel and what are the issues to be
resolved and how those issues were
resolved based on the law which are
applicable in the facts.
● Just like when you create a case
digest: you have facts, then issue and
then the discussion of the ruling on
the facts in relation as to what law is
applicable to that set of facts.
● So the decision must be rendered in
such a manner that the parties to the
proceeding would know the reasons
for the decision and the issues
involved in the decision.
●
Surneco vs ERC
Facts: On February 8, 1996, the Association of
Mindanao Rural Electric Cooperatives, as
representative of SURNECO and of the other 33
rural electric cooperatives in Mindanao, filed a
petition before the then Energy Regulatory Board for
the approval of the formula for automatic cost
adjustment and adoption of the National Power
Corporation restructured rate adjustment to comply
with Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7832.
12
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
February 19, 1997, the ERB granted SURNECO and It means being given the opportunity to be heard and
other rural electric cooperatives provisional authority for this purpose a formal trial-type hearing is not
to use and implement the Purchased Power essential. It is enough that the parties are given a fair
Adjustment formula pursuant to the mandatory and reasonable chance to demonstrate their
provisions of R.A. No. 7832 and its IRR, with a respective positions and to present evidence in
directive to submit relevant and pertinent documents support thereof. The PPA confirmation necessitated
for the Board’s review, verification, and a review of electric cooperatives’ monthly
confirmation. documentary submissions to substantiate their PPA
charges. The cooperatives were duly informed of the
After a careful evaluation of the records, the
need for supporting documents and were allowed to
Commission noted that the PPA formula which was
submit accordingly. This manifested the
approved by the ERB was silent on the calculation of
administrative due process. In fact hearings were
the cost of electricity purchased and generated.
conducted. The ERC conducted exit conferences
Thereon, the electric cooperatives had filed their
with cooperative representatives to discuss figures
respective motions for reconsideration and
and to double-check inaccuracies. The coops were
clarification. The ERC stated that the PPA was a
thereafter allowed to file their MR. Hence, there was
cost-recovery mechanism, not a revenue-generating
no denial of due process.
scheme, so that the distribution utilities or the electric
cooperatives must recover from their customers only BOCEA v. TEVES
the actual cost of purchased power. The ERC issued
its assailed Order, mandating that the discounts 661 SCRA 589 (2011)
earned by SURNECO from its power supplier should
be deducted from the computation of the power cost.
SURNECO then filed a motion for reconsideration FACTS: January 25, 2005, President Arroyo
and was denied in both the lower courts and the CA. signed into law the RA 9335. This law was enacted
When Order was contrary to optimize the revenue generation capability and
collection of the BIR and BOC.
Issue: Did the ERC afford due process by issuing its
Order to SURNECO? This law intends to employ a system of
rewards and sanctions through a creation of a
Ruling: No. The petition should be denied. There was
Rewards and Incentives fund, as well as a Revenue
no deprivation of due process.
Performance Evaluation board.
1. After ERC Order, cooperatives were given
opportunity to submit positions. This would cover all the employees of the BIR and
2. The tribunal considered the evidence BOC w ith at least 6 months of service.
submitted by the cooperatives. The board has the duty to:
3. ERC provided for the basis of its ruling.
 Prescribe rules for the allocation,
Administrative due process simply requires
distribution, release of fund
a) an opportunity to explain one’s side, or;
b) to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of.
13
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
 Set criteria for removing employees whose
revenue collection falls short from the
quota
 Terminate personnel according to the
criteria
 Prescribe a system for performance and
evaluation
 Perform issuance of rules and regulations
 Submit annual report to the congress.
BOCEA, the petitioner, argues that the RA
9335 was constitutional because it was a bill of
attainder. It inflicts punishment without trial. They
raised the evident fact that the board has the power
to remove employees who do not meet revenue
targets without the benefit of a hearing.
ISSUE: is RA 9335 a bill of attainder?
RULING: NO.
On this score, we hold that R.A. No. 9335
is not a bill of attainder. A bill of attainder is a
legislative act which inflicts punishment on
individuals or members of a particular group
without a judicial trial. Essential to a bill of
attainder are a specification of certain individuals
or a group of individuals, the imposition of a
punishment, penal or otherwise, and the lack of
judicial trial.
R.A. No. 9335 does not possess the elements of a
bill of attainder. It does not seek to inflict
punishment without a judicial trial. R.A. No. 9335
merely lays down the grounds for the termination
of a BIR or BOC official or employee and provides
for the consequences thereof. The democratic
processes are still followed and the constitutional
rights of the concerned employee are amply
protected.
Discussion:
A bill of attainder is a law which provides for
a particular class of person, like how it was explained
above. The law itself will say that you are penalized
or you are removed without expressly stating the
process of trial.
The law is not a bill of attainder as it merely
sets forth the grounds for removal. You will be
notified about the assessment of the panel, board, etc,
and you will be allowed to explain your side. Due
process is just an opportunity to be heard.
Under the law, there are grounds, and you are
given the opportunity to explain yourself whether
you come under the grounds provided for in the law,
so there is still a due process.
CABALIT v. COA-REGION 7
FACTS: Employees from LTO-Bohol (the
perpetrators) were found by the Ombudsman to be
have perpetrated a scheme to defraud the
government of proper motor vehicle registration
fees. The scheme was done by detaching the Plate
Release and Owner’s copy from the set of official
receipts then typing the correct details
corresponding to the vehicle registered, the
owner’s name and address, and the correct amount
of registration fees. The other copies, consisting of
the copies for the Collector, EDP, Record,
Auditor, and Regional Office, were typed on to
make it appear that the receipts were issued mostly
for the registration of motorcycles with much
lower registration charges. Incorrect names and/or
addresses were also used on said file copies. The
difference between the amounts paid by the
vehicle owners and the amounts appearing on the
file copies were then pocketed by the perpetrators,
14
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
and only the lower amounts appearing on the
retained duplicate file copies were reported in the
Report of Collections.
A preliminary investigation was initiated
by Graft Investigators and a formal charge of
dishonesty was filed against the alleged
perpetrators before the Ombudsman and the
parties were required to submit their counter-
affidavits. All of them submitted counter-
affidavits denying responsibilities to the alleged
anomalies. They were also subjected to a state
audit by COA, which the latter found 106
tampered official receipts. After, the Ombudsman
directed the parties to submit position papers
pursuant to A.O. No. 17, which the parties
including the COA complied. No cross-
examination of the State Auditor was conducted.
ISSUE:
Are the perpetrators denied of due process of law
when the investigating lawyer of the Ombudsman
proceeded to resolve the case based only on
affidavits, position papers and other evidence on
record without conducting formal hearing?
RULING:
NO, they were not denied due process of law when
the investigating lawyer proceeded to resolve the
case based on the affidavits and other evidence on
record. A.O. No. 17, provides that the hearing
officer may issue an order directing the parties to
file, within ten days from receipt of the order, their
respective verified position papers on the basis of
which, along with the attachments thereto, the
hearing officer may consider the case submitted
for decision.
It is only when the hearing officer
determines that based on the evidence, there is a
need to conduct hearings or formal investigations
that such further proceedings will be conducted.
But the determination of the necessity for further
proceedings rests on the sound discretion of the
hearing officer. Petitioners have utterly failed to
show any reason why the hearing officer’s
determination should be overturned
Office of the Ombudsman afforded
petitioners every opportunity to defend themselves
by allowing them to submit counter-affidavits,
position papers, memoranda and other evidence in
their defense. Since petitioners have been afforded
the right to be heard and to defend themselves,
they cannot rightfully complain that they were
denied due process of law.
In administrative proceedings, the filing of
charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the
person so charged to answer the accusations
against him constitute the minimum requirements
of due process. More often, this opportunity is
conferred through written pleadings that the
parties submit to present their charges and
defenses.
Discussion:
Important point is really when you talk about
due process in administrative cases like in the
Ombudsman, it is not needed to be in trial-type
hearing, or need to be before the judge, counsel,
represented by lawyer. It is just the opportunity to be
heard as an essential aspect.
YLAYA v. GACOTT
FACTS: This involves a disbarment
proceeding against a lawyer (Gacott) who
defrauded his clients. He has clients who are
probably illiterate. He allegedly deceived his
15
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
clients to sign a “preparatory” Deed of Sale which
would be beneficial to them. He then converted the
“preparatory” Deed of Sale, without the
knowledge or consent of the clients, into a Deed of
Absolute Sale to sell the latter’s property in favor
of his relatives. When they found out that this
happened, they filed a disbarment complaint
against this lawyer before the Supreme Court.
Normally, if the Supreme Court proceeds
the complaint, it would delegate the proceedings
on the matter to the IBP (Integrated Bar of the
Philippines) and the IBP would now conduct the
investigation and the parties would validate their
positions and their submissions and, ultimately,
the IBP would come up with a recommendation
that it would present to the Supreme Court for its
approval or modification.
After due proceedings, the IBP
recommended that this lawyer should be
suspended from the practice of law for two (2)
years.
ISSUE: Whether or Not the IBP violate the
lawyer’s right to due process?
RULING:
In this case, we have a private party and a
lawyer private party. Why are you talking about
due process when we say that due process is only
a constitutional right and therefore only applicable
against the State?
It is an assertion of a violation of this right
not between the parties but rather the tribunal that
heard the matter; here, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. For example, in a civil or criminal
case, the invocation of due process is directed to
the tribunal that heard the matter since there is now
a state actor; you can invoke the provisions of the
Bill of Rights.
The IBP did not violate the lawyer’s right
to due process because he was able to fully
participate in the proceedings of the IBP and
submitted numerous pleadings, including
evidence, before it. He was even allowed to file a
motion for reconsideration.
He argues that he was not able to meet the
witnesses face-to-face to cross examine them.
According to the court, due process, as applied to
administrative proceedings, is the opportunity to
explain one’s side. In Samalio v. Court of Appeals,
due process in an administrative context does not
require trial-type proceedings similar to those in
courts of justice. Where the opportunity to be
heard, either through oral arguments or through
pleadings, is accorded, no denial of procedural due
process takes place. The requirements of due
process are satisfied where the parties are afforded
a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their
side of the controversy at hand. The right to cross-
examine or the opportunity to cross-examine is not
even mandatory or not even a requirement for due
process in administrative proceedings.
In any case, any seeming defect in the non-
observance of the right to due process is cured or
cleansed in the filing of a motion for
reconsideration because there in your motion for
reconsideration, you can already state all the
reasons there on your side. He was given such an
opportunity in this case. A denial of due process
cannot be successfully invoked by a party who has
had the opportunity to be heard on his motion for
reconsideration.
Take note that disbarment proceedings are
sui generis in character. Nevertheless, the court
applied the requirements for procedural due
process in disciplinary proceedings to be observed
for purposes of complying with the due process
requirement.
16
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
Discussion:
This case talks about disbarment, if you
remember our discussion last week, administrative
and quasi-judicial bodies have their own rules,
specifically in administrative cases. Whatever is the
rule, you just have to follow it. It doesn’t have to be
katulad ng court na mayroong hearing, may trial,
whatever is provided there if it is followed by the
latter and thats already compliance with the
procedural due process. So in this case, ang
nirereklamo niya is hindi niya na confront ang
witness, again kasi hindi kailangan ng trial type
hearing what he just needs to do is counter that kung
ano man ung sinabi nung kanyang complainant sa
disbarment. That is counted with the evidences he
will present.
Disbarment cases are sui generis, its a kind of
its own. While we are not really in a part ng judiciary
na employed etc., but we are after we take the BAR
eaxms, we pass, we take our oath, we become
officers of the Court. So, in that light we are under
their disciplinary power. Kunyari sa mga
administrative cases when the subject matter of the
case is under their under their jurisdiction, then
pwede ka mapunta doon. Altghough we are not really
under the judiciary, in effect they have control over
the entire judiciary, all the officers of the court are
under their disciplinary power.
OCAMPO V. ABANDO
(Saturnino Ocampo V. Hon. Ephrem S.Abando, in
his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 18,
Hilongos, Leyte)
FACTS:
These are petitions for certiorari and
prohibition seeking the annulment of the orders
and resolutions of public respondents with regard
to the indictment and issuance of warrants of arrest
against petitioners for the crime of multiple
murder.
On 26 August 2006, a mass grave was
discovered by elements of the 43rd Infantry
Brigade of the Philippine Army at Sitio Sapang
Daco, Barangay Kaulisihan, Inopacan, Leyte. The
mass grave contained skeletal remains of
individuals believed to be victims of "Operation
Venereal Disease" (Operation VD) launched by
members of the Communist Party of the
Philippines/New People’s Army/National
Democratic Front of the Philippines
(CPP/NPA/NDFP) to purge their ranks of
suspected military informers.
Police Chief Inspector George L. Almaden
(P C/Insp. Almaden) of the Philippine National
Police (PNP) Regional Office 8 and Staff Judge
Advocate Captain Allan Tiu (Army Captain Tiu)
of the 8th Infantry Division of the Philippine Army
sent 12 undated letters to the Provincial Prosecutor
of Leyte through Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
Rosulo U. Vivero (Prosecutor Vivero). The letters
requested appropriate legal action on 12
complaint-affidavits attached therewith accusing
71 named members of the Communist Party of the
Philippines/New People’s Army/National
Democratic Front of the Philippines
(CPP/NPA/NDFP) of murder, including
petitioners herein along with several other
unnamed members.
ISSUES:
1. Whether petitioners were denied due process
during preliminary investigation and in the
issuance of the warrants of arrest.
2. Whether the murder charges against petitioners
should be dismissed under the political offense
doctrine.
17
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
RULING:
Petitioners were accorded due process
during preliminary investigation and in the
issuance of the warrants of arrest.
A preliminary investigation is "not a casual
affair." It is conducted to protect the innocent from
the embarrassment, expense and anxiety of a
public trial. While the right to have a preliminary
investigation before trial is statutory rather than
constitutional, it is a substantive right and a
component of due process in the administration of
criminal justice.
In the context of a preliminary
investigation, the right to due process of law
entails the opportunity to be heard. It serves to
accord an opportunity for the presentation of the
respondent’s side with regard to the accusation.
Afterwards, the investigating officer shall decide
whether the allegations and defenses lead to a
reasonable belief that a crime has been committed,
and that it was the respondent who committed it.
Otherwise, the investigating officer is bound to
dismiss the complaint. "The essence of due
process is reasonable opportunity to be heard and
submit evidence in support of one's defense."
What is proscribed is lack of opportunity to be
heard. Thus, one who has been afforded a chance
to present one’s own side of the story cannot claim
denial of due process.
Petitioner Ocampo alleges that Judge
Abando did not comply with the requirements of
the Constitution in finding the existence of
probable cause for the issuance of warrants of
arrest against petitioners.
Probable cause for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest has been defined as "such facts
and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
Discussion:
has been committed by the person sought to be
arrested." Although the Constitution provides that
probable cause shall be determined by the judge
after an examination under oath or an affirmation
of the complainant and the witnesses, we have
ruled that a hearing is not necessary for the
determination thereof. In fact, the judge’s personal
examination of the complainant and the witnesses
is not mandatory and indispensable for
determining the aptness of issuing a warrant of
arrest.
It is enough that the judge personally
evaluates the prosecutor’s report and supporting
documents showing the existence of probable
cause for the indictment and, on the basis thereof,
issue a warrant of arrest; or if, on the basis of his
evaluation, he finds no probable cause, to
disregard the prosecutor's resolution and require
the submission of additional affidavits of
witnesses to aid him in determining its existence.
The political offense doctrine is not a
ground to dismiss the charge against petitioners
prior to a determination by the trial court that the
murders were committed in furtherance of
rebellion.
Under the political offense doctrine,
"common crimes, perpetrated in furtherance of a
political offense, are divested of their character as
"common" offenses and assume the political
complexion of the main crime of which they are
mere ingredients, and, consequently, cannot be
punished separately from the principal offense, or
complexed with the same, to justify the imposition
of a graver penalty.”
The instant consolidated petitions are
DISMISSED.
18
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
If you’ve noticed, the cases that we’ve
discussed, they have varied proceedings. This one, is
a criminal prosecution. If you remember your
discussions, criminal prosecution will start in the
Prosecutor’s Office. So, there is preliminary
investigation. If there is probable cause there, an
information will be filed in the court order to proceed
with the proceedings. The OCP or the Prosecutor’s
Office, it’s administrative, its court is of course the
judicial, same with the Ombudsman.
But, in the Ombudsman, it is more
complicated because aside from being vested with
administrative power over all public officers,
meaning, under the law, they can remove public
officers, they are also prosecutorial. Whatever the
Prosecutor’s office is doing involving public
officers, they also have the power to do preliminary
investigations. Now, the rules of the Ombudsman
and the revised rules on criminal procedure, they are
somewhat alike. In the start of the investigation, you
have to be issued with a subpoena to answer the
complaint levied against you. Under the set of rules,
it was indicated that after diligent efforts to find your
location so that your subpoena will be served to you
personally, it should be proved that there was a
diligent effort to locate you. Their rules will actually
allow them to institute other modes of service. It may
not be personal, it can be substituted with
publication, etc so that the due process requirement
of notice is met.
In the case recited, the other plaintiffs were
able to receive while the others did not. But then,
when they found out of the case, they have the
opportunity to seek the copy of the complaint. They
should be given. In the case, the Representative of
Ocampo participated in the proceeding defend his
client. The requirement of notice is actually met. Just
like any other case on the due process, it’s just the
opportunity for you to air your side of the story. Later
on, since this is all together specific topics on the Bill
of Rights, we will discuss the rules on criminal
procedure and the rights of the accused when we
reach that point in time.
GUTIERREZ v. COA
FACTS:
Maria Theresa Gutierrez is a Cash
Collecting Officer, with the designation of Cashier
III at the National Food Authority. On May 30,
2008, she had collections amounting to P9,
390,834.00, covered by Official Receipt Nos.
0420975 to 0421246. On that day, she placed the
collections in a wooden cabinet.
The next day, Gutierrez's collections
amounted to P1, 505,625.00. Of that amount,
P714, 852.75 and an undeposited amount of P0.50
from March 2008 were placed in a wooden
cabinet. The rest was placed in the safety vault.
The total undeposited collection as of
March 31, 2008 was P10, 896,459.50. Of the
amount, P10, 105,687.25 was placed in the
“pearless” boxes in a wooden cabinet and P790,
772.25 was placed in a safety vault.
Armed men entered the premises of the
NFA and took Gutierrez’s undeposited
collections. The State Auditor issued a demand
letter to Gutierrez ordering her to immediately
produce the missing amounts and she was also
ordered to submit within 72 hours a written
explanation why such shortage occurred.
Gutierrez requested relief from money
accountability for the loss of the collections. The
letter was addressed to State Auditor Joaquin.
Commission on Audit Director IV Tito S. Nabua
19
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
(Director Nabua) issued a decision denying
Gutierrez’s appeal.
Gutierrez argues that she was assisted by counsel
only after a withholding order had already been
issued. She also argued that the Commission on
Audit Director’s issuance of a decision on her
appeal without requiring her to file an appeal
memorandum was a violation of her due process.
ISSUE:
WON Gutierrez’s due process rights were violated
RULING:
NO. The right to counsel under Section 12
(1) of Article III of the Constitution applies in
criminal proceedings, but not in administrative
proceedings. It is a right given to persons accused
of an offense during criminal investigation. Any
proceeding conducted by an administrative body is
not part of the criminal investigation or
prosecution. Petitioner is not being accused of or
investigated for a crime.
Petitioner’s due process rights were not
violated when the Commission on Audit Director
had failed to require her to submit an appeal
memorandum before he decided her appeal of the
State Auditor’s issuance of a withholding order.
There was also no violation of due process rights
when the Commission on Audit issued its January
31, 2012 decision denying her request for relief
from accountability, without a petition for review
of the Commission on Audit Director’s decision.
The right to appeal is not part of due process.
Neither is a natural right.
In sum, due process in administrative
proceedings does not necessarily require a trial
type of hearing. Neither does not necessarily
require a trial type of hearing. Neither does it
require an exchange of pleadings between or
among the parties. Due process is satisfied if the
party who is properly notified of allegations
against him or her is given an opportunity to
defend himself or herself against those allegations,
and such defense was considered by the tribunal in
arriving at its own independent conclusions.
Discussion:
It is a disciplinary proceeding in COA. The
representation of our counsel was done subsequent
on the demand in the proceeding. So, he was
represented only afterwards by a counsel. And then
she said she was not given opportunity to appeal.
First, in administrative cases, it is not a
requirement (not also prohibited) in accordance with
the principle of due process that you are represented
by a counsel. The basic premise is that due process is
the opportunity to be heard. It is not an opportunity
to be heard with counsel, but just opportunity to be
heard.
Second, appeal is a statutory right. Meaning,
it can only be availed of or it can only be asked for if
it is provided for by a law. In this case, if the rules
provide for an appeal. If there is no appeal, then it is
not part of the due process.
SEC v. UNIVERSAL RIGHTFIELD
PROPERTY
FACTS:
Respondent Universal Rightfield Property
Holdings, Inc. (URPHI) is a corporation duly
registered and existing under the Philippine Laws,
and is engaged in the business of providing
residential and leisure-related needs and wants of
the middle and upper middle-income market.
20
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
On May 29, 2003, petitioner Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC), through its
Corporate Finance Department, issued an Order
revoking URPHI's Registration of Securities and
Permit to Sell Securities to the Public for its failure
to timely file its Year 2001 Annual Report and
Year 2002 1st, 2nd and 3rd Quarterly Reports
pursuant to Section 173 of the Securities
Regulation Code (SRC), Republic Act No.
8799On October 24, 2003, the SEC granted
URPHI's motion to lift the revocation order,
considering the current economic situation,
URPHI's belated filing of the required annual and
quarterly reports, and its payment of the reduced
fine of P82, 000.00.
During the scheduled hearing on July 6,
2004, URPHI, through its Chief Accountant,
Rhodora Lahaylahay, informed the SEC why it
failed to submit the reportorial requirements, viz.:
(1) it was constrained to reduce its accounting staff
due to cost-cutting measures; thus, some of the
audit requirements were not completed within the
original timetable; and (2) its audited financial
statements for the period ending December 31,
2003 could not be finalized by reason of the delay
in the completion of some of its audit
requirements.
On four different occasions, still URPHI
failed to comply with the requirements although it
was given extensions from July to November of
2004, thus in December of 2004, sec revoked
URPHI’s registration of securities and permit to
sell securities to the public for its failure to submit
said reportorial requirements.
ISSUE: W/N URPHI was accorded all the
opportunity to be heard and comply with all the
reportorial requirements.
RULING:
There is no dispute that violation of the
reportorial requirements under Section 17.1 of the
Amended Implementing Rules and Regulation of
the SRC is a ground for suspension or revocation
of registration of securities pursuant to Sections
13.1 and 54.1 of the SRC. However, contrary to
the CA ruling that separate notices and hearings
for suspension and revocation of registration of
securities and permit to sell them to the public are
required, Sections 13.1 and 54.1 of the SRC
expressly provide that the SEC may suspend or
revoke such registration only after due notice and
hearing, to wit:
13.1. The Commission may reject a
registration statement and refuse
registration of the security thereunder, or
revoke the effectivity of a registration
statement and the registration of the
security thereunder after due notice and
hearing by issuing an order to such effect,
setting forth its findings in respect thereto,
if it finds that:
(ii) Has violated any of the provisions of
this Code, the rules promulgated pursuant
thereto, or any order of the Commission of
which the issuer has notice in connection
with the offering for which a registration
statement has been filed.
54.1. If, after due notice and hearing, the
Commission finds that:
(a) There is a violation of this Code, its
rules, or its orders;
21
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
(b) Any registered broker or dealer,
associated person thereof has failed
reasonably to supervise, with a view to
preventing violations, another person
subject to supervision who commits any
such violation;
(c) Any registrant or other person has, in a
registration statement or in other reports,
applications, accounts, records or
documents required by law or rules to be
filed with the Commission, made any
untrue statement of a material fact, or
omitted to state any material fact required
to be stated therein or necessary to make
the statements therein not misleading; or,
in the case of an underwriter, has failed to
conduct an inquiry with reasonable
diligence to insure that a registration
statement is accurate and complete in all
material respects; or
(d) Any person has refused to permit any
lawful examinations into its affairs, it shall,
in its discretion, and subject only to the
limitations hereinafter prescribed, impose
any or all of the following sanctions as may
be appropriate in light of the facts and
circumstances:
(i) Suspension, or revocation of any
registration for the offering of securities;
The Court has consistently held that the
essence of due process is simply an opportunity to
be heard, or as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side
or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of. Any seeming
defect in its observance is cured by the filing of a
motion for reconsideration, and denial of due
process cannot be successfully invoked by a party
who has had the opportunity to be heard on such
motion.24 What the law prohibits is not the
absence of previous notice, but the absolute
absence thereof and the lack of opportunity to be
heard.
All told, the CA erred in ruling that the
SEC revoked URPHI's registration of securities
and permit to sell them to the public without due
process of law. Quite the contrary, the
requirements of due notice and hearing under
Sections 13.1 and 54.1 of the SRC were
substantially complied with. Due notice was made
through the Order dated July 27, 2004 stating that
revocation proceeding shall ensue if URPHI
would still fail to submit the reportorial
requirements after the lapse of the 60-day
suspension period. Though no formal hearing was
held, URPHI was still given an opportunity to be
heard through the letters dated September 13 and
18, 2004 before the Order of Revocation was
issued, as well as through its Notice of Appeal and
Memorandum when it moved to reconsider the
said order.
Discussion:
This case is concerned with Securities and
Exchange Commission. There is this notice for the
simple requirement for due process and opportunity
to be heard. Here, the requirement of notice was
discussed. What happened was first, there was this
proceeding and then their registration security was
revoked. They moved that it will be lifted, thus it was
lifted subject to the requirement that it be submitted.
However if they fail to submit said requirement, the
proceeding will continue. The Supreme Court noted
that they were actually duly notified, it was just a
continuation of the proceedings. As there wasn’t new
as it still dwells with the fact of non-submission of
22
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
URPHI of the requirement as they were given time
but still there was no action to submit such.
SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES, INC. v
BF HOMES, INC
FACTS:
BF Homes, Inc. (BF Homes) is the owner of
several parcels of land located in the northern
portion of BF Homes Parañaque Subdivision,
particularly identified as Italia II lots.
BF Homes, represented by Florencio B. Orendain
(Orendain), as rehabilitation receiver appointed by
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);
and SMPI, represented by Federico C. Gonzales,
President, entered into three successive Deeds of
Absolute Sale whereby the former sold to the latter
a total of 130 Italia II lots with a combined area of
44,345 square meters.
SMPI completed the payments for the 130 Italia II
lots in December 1995.6 In compliance with
Section 37 of all the three Deeds of Absolute Sale,
BF Homes delivered the Transfer Certificates of
Title (TCTs) to SMPI but only for 110 of the 130
Italia II lots purchased by SMPI.
SMPI, thru counsel, sent BF Homes a letter on
May 20, 1996 demanding the delivery of the
remaining 20 TCTs.
Despite receipt of the afore-mentioned
letter, BF Homes failed or refused to heed the
demand of SMPI. Consequently, SMPI filed a
Complaint for specific performance with damages
before the HLURB to compel BF Homes to deliver
the remaining 20 TCTs to SMPI.
In its Answer BF Homes alleged that the
Deeds of Absolute Sale executed were entered into
by Orendain in his personal capacity and without
authority, as his appointment as rehabilitation
receiver was revoked by the SEC in an Order dated
May 17, 1989. In support of its counterclaims, BF
Homes averred that the consideration paid by
SMPI for the 130 Italia II lots was grossly
inadequate and disadvantageous to BF Homes;
and that the Deeds of Absolute Sale were undated
and not notarized.
SMPI, it countered that the validity of the
three Deeds of Absolute Sale was already upheld
by the SEC in its Omnibus Order dated November
7, 1994, and the motion for reconsideration of BF
Homes of said Omnibus Order was denied by the
SEC in its subsequent Order dated August 22,
1995. Both Orders were deemed final, executory,
and unappealable by the SEC in another Omnibus
Order dated July 31, 1996. As a result, the Deeds
of Absolute Sale were binding on BF Homes.
SMPI further maintained that Orendain was
authorized to sign the Deeds of Absolute Sale for
and in behalf of FBO Networks Management, Inc.
- the receiver which the SEC appointed to replace
Orendain, upon the latter's motion to convert his
involvement in the receivership from an individual
to a corporate capacity. SMPI additionally asserted
that absent substantiation, the allegation of BF
Homes of inadequate consideration for the sale of
the Italia II lots was self-serving; and that despite
being undated and not notarized, the Deeds of
Absolute Sale were valid since they contained the
essential elements of a contract. And even
assuming that the Deeds of Absolute Sale may be
rescinded, SMPI argued that BF Homes did not
offer and was not prepared to return the
consideration paid by SMPI.
Nonetheless, the arbiter ruled to suspend
the proceedings before the board until the SEC
23
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
shall have resolve with finality the issue of this
receiver in this case.
San Miguel then filed a petition for review
with the HLURB Board of Commissioners which
denied its petition and upheld the ruling of the
arbiter.
San Miguel went to the Office of the
President which reversed the ruling of the HLURB
and held that it was proper for the HLURB to
adjudicate, to dispatch the rights and obligations of
the parties in this case.
In appeal, Court of Appeals agreed with the
OP that the HLURB had the primary and exclusive
jurisdiction to resolve the complaint for specific
performance and damages of SMPI and should not
have suspended the proceedings until the SEC had
ruled with finality on the issue of Orendain's
authority to sell the 130 Italia II lots to SMPI.
ISSUE:
WoN there is a denial of due process in so far
as BF Homes is concerned, if the case will not be
remanded to the HLURB?
RULING:
The essence of due process is to be heard, and, as
applied to administrative proceedings, this means
a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's
side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of
the action or ruling complained of. Administrative
due process cannot be fully equated with due
process in its strict judicial sense, for in the former
a formal or trial-type hearing is not always
necessary, and technical rules of procedure are not
strictly applied.
In the instant case, SMPI and BF Homes were
afforded the opportunity to present and address
each other's arguments through an exchange of
pleadings, as well as to submit their respective
evidence before Arbiter Balasolla. To recall, the
case was already submitted for decision before
Arbiter Balasolla, meaning, there is nothing more
left for the parties to submit or do. To remand the
case and repeat the entire process once again
before the HLURB Arbiter will not only be
impractical, but also unreasonable and oppressive
for SMPI.
The CA also erred in applying the doctrine
of Primary Jurisdiction. The Doctrine of Primary
Jurisdiction explains that the courts cannot or will
not determine a controversy involving a question
which is within the jurisdiction of an
administrative tribunal, where the question
demands the exercise of sound administrative
discretion requiring the special knowledge,
experience, and services of the administrative
tribunal to determine technical and intricate
matters of fact, and a uniformity of ruling is
essential to comply with the purposes of the
regulatory statute administered. However, there
are certain exceptions to this rule. The exceptions
are:
(a) where there is estoppel on the part of
the party invoking the doctrine;
(b) where the challenged administrative act
is patently illegal, amounting to lack of
jurisdiction;
(c) where there is unreasonable delay or
official inaction that will irretrievably
prejudice the complainant;
(d) where the amount involved is relatively
small so as to make the rule impractical and
oppressive;
(e) where the question involved is purely
legal and will ultimately have to be decided
by the courts of justice;
24
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
(f) where judicial intervention is urgent;
(g) when its application may cause great
and irreparable damage;
(h) where the controverted acts violate due
process;
(i) when the issue of non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies has been rendered
moot;
(j) when there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy; (
k) when strong public interest is
involved; and,
(l) in quo warranto proceedings.
In this case, the Court went on to resolve
the matter because the issue would fall under one
of the exceptions (‘where judicial intervention is
urgent’). There’s no need to remand this case to
the HLURB because the housing issue is imbued
with public interest.
Therefore, it is crucial that the dispute between
these parties should be resolved as quickly as
possible to shelter the basic human need.
Discussion:
The requirement that the court, the tribunal, or the
administrative body, should have jurisdiction in
order for due process to be met. If they do not have
jurisdiction, they do not have the power to make a
decision over your case.
CAWAD v. ABAD (2015)
FACTS:
On March 26, 1992, RA 7305, aka The Magna
Carta of Public Health Workers was signed into
law. On September 3, 2012, the respondents DBM
and CSC issued DBM-CSC Joint Circular No. 1,
Series of 2012, to prescribe rules on the grant of
Step Increments. The joint circular provided that
“an official or employee authorized to be granted
longevity pay under an existing law is not eligible
for the grant of Step Increment due to length of
service.” Then on November 29, 2012, DBM and
DOH issued DBM-DOH Joint Circular No. 1
Series of 2012, which provided for the definition
of hazard pay and that it may only be granted to
public health workers (PHWs) if the nature of their
duties and responsibilities actually expose them to
danger. It also stated that the longevity pay should
be granted only when the following criteria are
met:
a. The PHW holds a position in the agency
plantilla of regular positions; and
b. He/She has rendered at least satisfactory
performance and has not been found guilty of any
administrative or criminal case within all rating
periods covered by the 5-year period.
In short, the joint circulars diminished and limited
the benefits granted by the Magna Carta to PHWs.
According to Section 35 of RA 7305, the rules and
regulations implementing the provisions of the act
should take effect only after thirty days after
publication in a newspaper of general circulation.
The DBM-DOH joint circular was made effective
on January 1, 2013, just three days after it was
published in a newspaper of general circulation on
December 29, 2012.
ISSUE:
Was the joint circular valid despite it not meeting
the publication requirement of RA 7305?
RULING:
25
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
Yes. The joint circular did not modify, amend, or
supplant the revised IRR. It gave no real
consequences to what the law itself has already
prescribed. As an exception to the rule on
publication, interpretative regulations which “need
nothing further than their bare issuance for they
give no real consequence more than what the law
itself already prescribed” need not be published.
These kinds of regulations do not need to be
published to be effective since they do not add
anything to the law and do not affect substantial
rights of any person.
Discussion:
This case discusses on the publication of the notice.
The questioned circulars were based on a law, we
have a rule that when the legislative delegates power
to the administrative agents to create a regulation
there are two possibilities:
1. If the implementing rules do not add any
procedure in the regular course of business
(this has to be more specific) it does need to
be published on a newspaper of general
circulation. Usually administrative
regulations need not be published, the
requirement is that it be registered in the
administrative register in UP law center,
which will have complied with the
publication requirement.
2. If the regulation adds burdensome
requirements, then it has to be registered in
UP law center [General Circulation].
Because it will impose burden that is not
found in the law (quite similar with 1)
In this case, this is just based on the law (no
burden). There was no requirement for it to be
published, but in any case it was still published in a
newspaper of general circulation, so the party
questioning the circulars cannot claim that there was
no notice, therefore there was due process because
notice was afforded there.
Cudia v. Superintendent of the PMA
February 24, 2015
FACTS: Cadel 1CL Cudia was a member of
Siklab Diwa Class of 2014 of the PMA. He was
supposed to be the salutatorian of his batch.
Professor Juanita Berong (Prof. Berong) of
the 5th period class issued a Delinquency Report
(DR) against Cadet 1CL Cudia because he was
“late for two (2) minutes in his Eng 412 class x x
x.” In his Explanation of Report dated December
8, 2013, Cadet 1CL Cudia reasoned out that: “I
came directly from OR432 Class. We were
dismissed a bit late by our instructor Sir.” He was
punished because of the result of his conversation
with Dr. Costales, who said that she never
dismissed her class late.
Cudia wrote an appeal to seek
reconsideration of the punishment. Honor
Committee constituted a team to conduct a
preliminary investigation and submitted its
Preliminary Investigation Report recommending
that the case be formalized.
The first formal hearing started late
evening of January 20, 2014 and lasted until early
morning the next day. Cadet 1CL Cudia was
informed of the charge against him, as to which he
pleaded “Not Guilty.” Cadet 1CL Cudia, was then
informed of the unanimous votes finding him
guilty of violating the Honor Code. He was
immediately placed in the PMA Holding Center
until the resolution of his appeal.
26
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
Cudia filed an appeal and it was denied as
it found no reason to conduct a re-trial based on
the arguments and evidence presented.
Colonel Rozzano D. Briguez (Col.
Briguez), the Commandant of Cadets, affirmed the
HC findings and recommended to Vice Admiral
Edgar Abogado, then PMA Superintendent, the
separation from the PMA of Cadet 1CL Cudia for
violation of the First Tenet of the Honor Code
Cudia filed an appeal. But the
Headquarters resolved to deny Cudia’s appeal for
lack of merit.
ISSUE: WON Cudia was denied of due process of
law?
RULING: NO. He was not denied due process
since he was heard by the Honor Committee.
In administrative cases, such as
investigations of students found violating school
discipline, there are minimum standards which
must be met before to satisfy the demands of
procedural due process which were mentioned in
DLSU v. CA:
(1) The students must be informed in
writing of the nature and cause of
any accusation against them;
(2) They shall have the right to answer
the charges against them and with
the assistance if counsel, if desired;
(3) They shall be informed of the
evidence against them;
(4) They shall have the right to adduce
evidence in their own behalf; and
(5) The evidence must be duly
considered by the investigating
committee or official designated by
the school authorities to hear and
decide the case.
Cudia argued that he was not accorded a
counsel, that it was not a judicial type of
proceeding.
However, there was no violation of the due
process based on those arguments. This argument
was already in Guzman v. National University
where this court held that “disciplinary sanctions
requires observance of the procedural due process.
And it bears stressing that due process in
disciplinary cases involving students does not
entail proceedings and hearings similar to those
prescribed for actions and proceedings in court of
justice. The proceedings in student discipline cases
may be summary; and cross examination is not, x
x an essential part thereof.” It only requires
substantive evidence.
Hence, Cudia was wrong that it should
have been judicial in character like cross examine
represented by a counsel was a pre-investigation
conducted here prior to the filing of the charges
against him before the CRAB. (Cadet Review and
Appeals Board).
He was notified of the Honor Code Report
that he did something wrong. He was given
opportunity to be heard to explain the report
against him; there were proceedings to evaluate
the report and his explanation.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of
the Honor Committee and the Cadets Review and
Appeals Board. Cudia was forfeited of his
privileged to graduate from the Philippine Military
Academy.
27
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
Discussion:
In relation to our discussion in due process, if
it’s an administrative proceeding, you follow the
rules. Here, what was followed was the Handbook of
PMA, and the handbook was lacking in procedure. It
does not even provide that the decision be in writing.
It was silent. That why Cudia raised that there was
no normal hearing. What he was given was only a
Delinquency Report submitted by her professor
because of being late in her class. Was that a
sufficient notice of the charge? According to the
Supreme Court, yes because he was made aware of
his violation. Then he was given the opportunity to
explain himself before the board. The next allegation
was that there was no written decision of his case.
The Supreme Court said that based on the Handbook
there was no requirement for it to be written. But the
requirement of due process is that you are informed
of the decision, and that was found to be present in
this case. He was told why he was forfeited to
graduate from the PMA and what the basis was for
it.
And also under that case, the landmark case
of DLSU v CA was discussed by the Court. It talks
about the minimum standards in school disciplinary
proceedings.
1. The students must be informed in
writing of the nature and cause of any
accusation against them;
Cudia raised this, alleging that it should have
been in writing. Was the notice in writing? In this
case, his professor gave a written notice (delinquency
report).
2. (2) They shall have the right to answer
the charges against them and with the
assistance if counsel, if desired;
In this case, nung una na nalaman niya na
sabi ng guro niya late siya, what he did was he
participated; he explained himself. It was only after
when the decision was against him that he wanted to
be represented by a counsel. Again, there is no
requirement that you should be represented by a
counsel in an administrative disciplinary proceeding
but if he raised this before he participated in the
proceeding and he was denied of representation by a
counsel, then this would be a violation of this
requirement because he may be represented by
counsel if he desires but of course he has to claim it.
The question proceeding was before he even
demanded a counsel.
3. They shall be informed of the evidence
against them;
4. They shall have the right to adduce
evidence in their own behalf; and
He tried to seek the testimony of his
classmates but despite their testimonies the decision
was still against him. But that is already a fulfillment
of that requirement that he was able to adduce
evidence to prove or support his defense
5. The evidence must be duly considered
by the investigating committee or
official designated by the school
authorities to hear and decide the case.
All his witnesses, all his defenses were
allowed and it was considered in making the decision
of the CRAB. Cadet Review and Appeal Board.
These minimum standards was all present in this
case.
CLT Realyty v. Hi-Grade Feeds
G.R. No. 160684, September 02, 2015
28
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
FACTS:
This involves a property dispute between
these two entities. The properties in dispute were
formerly part of the notorious Maysilo Estate left
by Gonzalo Tuason. The conflict arose due to an
overlapping of the properties of CLT and Hi-
Grade, which prompted CLT to file a case for
Annulment of Transfer Certificates of Title,
Recovery of Possession, and Damages before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City. The
TC ruled in favor of CLT so Hi-Grade went to the
CA to appeal and in the course thereof they filed a
motion to admit and take judicial notice. During
the pendency of the appeal, Hi-Grade filed a
Motion to Admit and Take Judicial Notice of
Committee Report on Senate Inquiry into Maysilo
Estate submitted by the Committees on Justice and
Human Rights and on Urban Planning, Housing
and Resettlement on July 1, 1998.
The Court of Appeals granted the motion
in a Resolution. Included in the Resolution,
however, is a statement that although the Court of
Appeals takes judicial notice of the Senate Report,
the Court of Appeals is not bound by the findings
and conclusions therein. Now, the CA reversed the
rulings of the RTC. CLT failed. CLT though that
the reason of the reversal of this decision was
among others, it is taking judicial notice of the
Senate report. So it wanted to have this decision
reversed before the Supreme Court arguing that its
right to due process was violated when the CA
took judicial notice of the Senate Report.
i. That report is inadmissible in evidence
because it was obtained in violation of
the RoC. It was unauthenticated. No
one was present to authenticate that
report.
ii. There was lack of opportunity for cross
examination on the contents of the
Senate report. Why? Because the Court
took judicial notice of that. Also, the
proceedings of the Senate produced
that report so right to due process was
violated. We’re done without notice to
CLT.
ISSUE: Was there violation of the right to due
process?
RULING:
No. Taking of judicial notice is expressly
allowed in the RoC. Rule 129
RULE 129
What Need Not Be Proved
Section 1. Judicial notice, when
mandatory. — A court shall take judicial notice,
without the introduction of evidence, of the
existence and territorial extent of states, their
political history, forms of government and
symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the
admiralty and maritime courts of the world and
their seals, the political constitution and history of
the Philippines, the official acts of legislative,
executive and judicial departments of the
Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of
time, and the geographical divisions.
Judicial notice is merely the cognizance of
certain facts which jurors and judges may properly
take into account and act upon without proof. Put
differently, it is the assumption by a court of a fact
without need of further traditional evidentiary
support.
So here since the Senate report is an
official act of the legislative department. There is
29
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
no violation of the right to due process. It is
expressly allowed.
Discussion:
The decision of the tribunal shall be based on the
evidence presented or on record. In administrative
proceedings.
Under the rules of court, there is the concept of
judicial notice. It can be mandatory or discretionary.
In this case, it was mandatory judicial notice.
Under RULE 129 RULES OF COURT, mandatory
judicial notice
Mandatory: the things that the court, without any
evidence, they should already know. Dapat isali
when they make the decision.
Example: Mga batas, hindi na kailangan ipresent.
In this case, it was legislative act of congress when
they submitted a report. This was taken judicial
notice of court. It can be part of the decision because
of the rule that the court can take mandatory judicial
notice of the facts.
Kunwari: laws of nature. umulan kahapon, the court
will take judicial notice. Hindi kailangan ng video as
proof. Umulan talaga kahapon. That is mandatory
judicial notice.
In discretionary, if it has knowledge of certain facts,
the court can acknowledge those facts on its own
discretion. The court allows judicial notice in
administrative proceedings. But it’s not clear.
Comelec, tribunal, should take notice. Dapat alam
mo.
Gray area in administrative proceedings if judicial
notice can be allowed.
CAROLINO V SENGA
FACTS: December 1, 1976, Jeremias A.
Carolino, petitioner's husband, retired from the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) pursuant
to the provisions of Sections 1(A) and 10 of
Republic Act (RA) No. 340, as amended. He
started receiving his monthly retirement pay in the
amount of P18,315.00 in December 1976 until the
same was withheld by respondents in March 2005.
On June 3, 2005, Jeremias wrote a letter addressed
to the AFP Chief of Staff asking for the reasons of
the withholding of his retirement pay. In a letter
reply, Myrna F. Villaruz, LTC (FS) PA, Pension
and Gratuity Officer of the AFP Finance Center,
informed Jeremias that his loss of Filipino
citizenship caused the deletion of his name in the
alpha list of the AFP Pensioners' Payroll effective
March 5, 2005; and that he could avail of re-
entitlement to his retirement benefits and the
restoration of his name in the AFP Pensioners'
Masterlist Payroll by complying with the
requirements prescribed under RA No. 9225, or
the Dual Citizenship Act.
AFP Judge Advocate General opined that
under the provisions of Sections 4, 5, and 6 of RA
No. 340, retired military personnel are disqualified
from receiving pension benefits once incapable to
render military service as a result of his having
sworn allegiance to a foreign country. It was also
mentioned that termination of retirement benefits
of pensioner of the AFP could be done pursuant to
the provisions of Presidential Decree (PD) No.
1638 which provides that the name of a retiree who
loses his Filipino citizenship shall be removed
from the retired list and his retirement benefits
terminated upon such loss. It being in consonance
with the policy consideration that all retirement
30
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
laws inconsistent with the provisions of PD No.
1638 are repealed and modified accordingly.
ISSUE: Does Carolino acquires vested right to the
benefits?
RULING: YES. Firstly, PD No. 1638 was signed
by then President Ferdinand Marcos on September
10, 1979. Under Article 4 of the Civil Code, it is
provided that laws shall have no retroactive effect,
unless the contrary is provided. It is said that the
law looks to the future only and has no retroactive
effect unless the legislator may have formally
given that effect to some legal provisions; that all
statutes are to be construed as having only
prospective operation, unless the purpose and
intention of the legislature to give them a
retrospective effect is expressly declared or is
necessarily implied from the language used; and
that every case of doubt must be resolved against
retrospective effect. These principles also apply to
amendments of statutes.
Secondly, it has been held that before a
right to retirement benefits or pension vests in an
employee, he must have met the stated conditions
of eligibility with respect to the nature of
employment, age, and length of
service. Undeniably, petitioner's husband had
complied with the conditions of eligibility to
retirement benefits as he was then receiving his
retirement benefits on a monthly basis until it was
terminated. Where the employee retires and meets
the eligibility requirements, he acquires a vested
right to the benefits that is protected by the due
process clause. It is only upon retirement that
military personnel acquire a vested right to
retirement benefits. Retirees enjoy a protected
property interest whenever they acquire a right to
immediate payment under pre-existing law.
Petitioner's husband acquired vested right
to the payment of his retirement benefits which
must be respected and cannot be affected by the
subsequent enactment of PD No. 1638 which
provides that loss of Filipino citizenship
terminates retirement benefits. Vested rights
include not only legal or equitable title to the
enforcement of a demand, but also an exemption
from new obligations after the right has vested.
Discussion:
Court discusses here vested right. If you read
the Sec.1 of Art. III of the Constitution or the due
process clause, life or property cannot be taken away
without due process of law and the concept of vested
right makes that right already a property. It cannot be
taken away unless there is due process of law. So in
this case, what happened was nag retire siya I think
1976 and the law was passed in 1979. That 1979 law
forfeited certain rights if you meet the grounds
mentioned in the case; for example, loss of Filipino
citizenship. But here the law that was applicable to
him as to his retirement was a different law and that
law is called substantive law. And because it is
substantive law and if you acquired that right based
on substantive law, that right becomes a property.
And loss of that right should call for due process of
law which actually excluded those who retire before
the law. Then yung vested right nia cannot be taken
away because the law itself provides for that remedy.
Okay? So vested right becomes property and
property cannot be taken away without due process
of law. Boom!
Yinlu v. Trans-Asia
31
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
FACTS:
The case involves 13 mining claims over the area
located in Barrio Larap, Municipality of Jose
Panganiban, Camarines Norte, a portion of which
was owned and mined by Philippine Iron Mines,
Inc. (PIMI), which ceased operations in 1975 due
to financial losses. PIMI’s portion (known as the
PIMI Larap Mines) was sold in a foreclosure sale
to the Manila Banking Corporation (MBC) and
Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank
(PCIB, later Banco De Oro, or BDO).
Subsequently, the government opened the area for
exploration of Uranium. From 1986, Trans-asia
explored the area. It also entered into an operating
agreement with Philex mining. Then, it filed for
approval of a Mineral Production Sharing
Agreement. Trans-asia was given an exclusive
right to explore, develop, and utilize the mineral
deposits in the said area.
Yinlu informed DENR that it had previously
acquired the mining patents of PIMI from MBC
BDO by way of a Deed of Absolute Sale. During
this time, Trans-asia informed Yinlu that it will
start the exploration work pursuant to the Mineral
Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA).
Yinlu sought the assistance of Mines and
Geosciences Bureau (MGB) Regional Office V for
the resolution of the issue. On the other hand,
DENR claimed that there was no record on file to
show the existence of the mining patents
belonging to Yinlu.
On May 21, 2009, DENR Secretary Jose L.
Atienza, Jr. issued his order resolving the issues
in Yinlu’s favor, finding that the mining patents
had been issued to PIMI in 1930 as evidenced by
and indicated in PIMI’s certificates of title
submitted by Yinlu; and that the patents were
validly transferred to and were now owned by
Yinlu.
The DENR Secretary issued and order for the
amendment of the MPSA to exclude the mineral
lands covered by Yinlu’s mining patents.
The Office of the President clarified that a mining
patent is a vested right and the Constitution
recognizes such right as an exception to the
prohibition against alienation of natural resources.
The existence of the TCT’s in the name of appellee
further bolsters the existence of the mining patents.
Under PD 1529, also known as the Property
Registration Decree, once a title is cleared of all
claims or where none exists, the ownership over
the real property covered by the Torrens title
becomes conclusive and indefeasible even as
against the government. Noteworthy is the fact that
the title trace backs of the said TCTs show that the
titles were executed in favour of the appellee’s
predecessors-in-interest pursuant to Act No. 496,
otherwise known as the Land Registration Act of
1902, in relation to the Philippine Bill of 1902,
which govern the registration of mineral patents.
On appeal, CA reversed the decisions of DENR
and OP stating that Yinlu was required to register
the mining patents under Presidential Decree 463.
ISSUE:
Can Yinlu’s mining patents be impaired?
RULING:
Yinlu’s mining patents constituted vested rights
that could not be disregarded.
Aside from the finality and immutability of the
decision of the OP are not the only reasons for
turning down Trans-Asia’s appeal.
Yinlu’s mining patents were governed by
Philippine Bill 1902,, the governing law on the
32
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
registration of mineral patents were valid, existing
and indefeasible, that it was the absolute owner of
the lands the TCTs covered; the TCTs were issued
pursuant to mineral patents based on Placer
Claims. Citizens of the United states are allowed
to explore, occupy, and purchase mineral lands
under sec 21 of Philippine bill 1902.
Mining rights under Philippine Bill of 1902 and
prior to the effectivity of the 1935 constitution
were vested rights that could not be impaired even
by the government. Indeed the mining patents of
yinlu were issued pursuant to the Philippine bill of
1902 and were subsisting prior to the effectivity of
the 1935. Hence yinlu and predecessor in interest
had acquired vested rights in the disputed mineral
lands, and could not be impaired even in light of
their past failure to comply with the requirement
of registration and annual work obligations.
DISCUSSION:
It involves an application of the constitution itself or
an interpretation of the constitution itself. The patent
of Yinlu was acquired before the 1935 constitution
was adopted by the Philippines. As you have learned
in Constitutional Law I, the Philippines had different
Constitutions written by Filipinoes. (1935, 1973, and
1987). These were constitutions because a
constitution basically is a fundamental charter
(fundamental law).
During the American occupation, even if they gave
us little independence considering that we were part
of their colony, we were given the Philippine Bill of
1902. The said Bill was essentially our fundamental
charter before the 1935 Constitution.
In Philippine Bill of 1902, it granted foreigners the
capacity to own lands unlike in the 1935, 1973, and
1987 Constitutions were it was established that
foreigners cannot own lands.
The law that was raised here by the Asia Pacific
Company was a subsequent law so the requirement
was a subsequent requirement. It was not yet
required during the time when that patent was
acquired by Yinlu.
This is an application of vested rights in relation to
the constitution because as we have learned we have
substantive due process and procedural due process.
This talks about substantive due process. Substantive
due process is either in line with law or in line with
the Constitution itself.
In this case it is not in line with the constitution
because its contrary to the 1935, 1973, and 1987
constitution but we have to look at the specific
fundamental law governing at the time when that
particular right was acquired and it was the
Philippine Bill of 1902 which actually granted
foreigners the right to own a land or these patents.
Therefore, because during that time the company has
already acquired that right, it has already become a
vested right and it cannot be taken away.
Republic v. Mupas
FACTS:
Asia’s Emerging Dragon Corp. (AEDC) submitted
an unsolicited proposal to the Government through
the Department of Transportation and
Communications (DOTC) and the Manila
International Airport Authority (MIAA) for the
construction and development of the NAIA-IPT
III under a build-operate-and-transfer (BOT)
arrangement.
On the other hand, Paircargo Consortium
composed of People’s Air Cargo and Warehousing
Co., Inc. (Paircargo), Philippine Air and Grounds
Services, Inc. (PAGS), and Security Bank
Corporation (Security Bank) submitted its
33
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
competitive proposal to the Prequalification Bids
and Awards Committee (PBAC).Paircargo
Consortium offered to pay the Government a total
of P17.75 billion as guaranteed payment for 27
years while AEDC offered to pay the Government
a total of P135 million for the same period.
Hence, DOTC awarded the project to Paircargo
Consortium (that later organized itself as
PIATCO). A Concession Agreement with
PIATCO for the construction, development, and
operation of the NAIA-IPT III under a build-
operate-transfer scheme was made to authorized
PIATCO to build, operate, and maintain the
NAIA-IPT III during the concession period of
twenty-five (25) years.
On March 31, 2000, PIATCO engaged the services
of Takenaka and Asahikosan to aid in constructing
the project. However, PIATCO defaulted on its
obligation to pay Takenaka and Asahikosan
pursuant to their respective contracts. Takenaka
and Asahikosan agreed to defer PIATCO’s
payments until June 2003. In 2002, President
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo declared in her speech
that the Government would not honor the PIATCO
contracts. On the same day, Takenaka and
Asahikosan notified PIATCO that they were
suspending the construction of the NAIA-IPT III
for PIATCO’s failure to provide adequate security.
September 17, 2002, petitioners Demosthenes
Agan, et al., asked the Court to nullify the
PIATCO contracts, and to prohibit the DOTC and
the MIAA from implementing these contracts for
being contrary to law. The case, entitled Agan v.
PIATCO, was docketed as G.R. No. 15500. May
5, 2003, the Court nullified the PIATCO contracts
after finding that Paircargo Consortium (that later
incorporated into PIATCO) was not a duly pre-
qualified bidder for failure to meet the minimum
equity requirements for the NAIA-IPT III project.
RTC appointed three Commissioners to determine
just compensation without consulting the
Government and PIATCO.
ISSUE:
Whether the right to due process of PIATCO were
violated because of the failure of the clerk of court
to issue the decision of the board of commissioners
as to the valuation of their compensation.
RULING:
Such failure was not enough to consider it a
violation of their right to due process. The parties
were able to discuss their position in this from the
commision up to the Supreme Court. They were
given ample opportunity to be notified of the
proceedings and give their respective side on the
matter. On Procedural due process on cases of
Eminent Domain, the facilities that will be taken
by the state shall be justly compensated. During
the entire proceeding they were able to present
evidence.
The SC said that while they may not be given at
the onset the note title of the report, you’re well
aware of the facts and were given the opportunity.
The court emphasized the while the rules of court
must be complied with, it should not be strictly
interpreted such that administration of justice is
actually hampered; you were already given your
time in court and this technicality will not waste
all the efforts and time that were given to you. As
long as you were given your minimum rights, it’s
not a violation of due process.
DISCUSSION:
Their procedural due process rights were violated.
For judicial due process, there is a process.
34
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
SC: During the entire proceedings, you were able to
present evidence. You were given the opportunity to
present evidence. YOu are well aware of the facts
and you are given the opportunity. While the rules of
court must be complied with, it should not be strictly
interpreted such that the administration of justice is
actually hampered.
It’s not a game of technicality, so long as you are
given your minimum rights.
Acampado v. Sps Comilla
FACTS:
The respondents, Spouses Cosmilla filed a Petition
for the Declaration of the Nullity of Document
against the petitioners before the RTC of Kalibo,
Aklan, Branch 6 alleging that the sale of their share
on the subject property was effected thru a forged
Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and is therefore
null and void.
The RTC rendered a Decision dated March 31,
2005 dismissing the complaint of the respondents
for failure to prove by preponderance of evidence
that the signatures of the respondents in the SPA
were forged.
On May 6, 2005, respondents filed a Motion for
Reconsideration seeking the reversal of the RTC
decision
However, the respondents failed to comply with
the requirement of notice of hearing as required
under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised
Rules of Court. The Motion for Reconsideration is
declared pro forma and the decision sought to be
reconsidered is declared final and executory as the
period of appeal has already expired.
Respondents elevated the matter to the Court of
Appeals by filing a Petition for Certiorari,
Prohibition and Mandamus with prayer for
Preliminary Injunction and TRO seeking to annul
and set aside the RTC Order dated May 16, 2005.
On October 27, 2006, the appellate court
dismissed the same for lack of merit. The Court of
Appeals declared that a motion which fails to
comply with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules of
Court is nothing but a useless piece of paper and
does not stall the running of the reglementary
period.
However, on June 28, 2007, the Court of Appeals
reversed its earlier Resolution and allowed the
relaxation of the procedural in a Resolution and
directed the court a quo to thresh out the Motion
for Reconsideration filed by the respondents on the
merits.
On August 19, 2011, the Court of Appeals denied
the Motion for Reconsideration filed by
petitioners.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in
granting the petition and relaxing the application
of the procedural rules?
RULING:
We resolve to grant the petition.
The Motion for Reconsideration is a contentious
motion that needs to comply with the required
notice and hearing and service to the adverse party
as mandated by Sections 4 and 5 of the Revised
Rules of Court:
RULE 15. SEC. 4. Hearing of motion. - Except for
motions which the court may act upon without
prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every
written motion shall be set for hearing by the
applicant.
35
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
Every written motion required to be heard and the
notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in
such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other
party at least three (3) days before the date of
hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the
hearing on shorter notice.
SEC. 5. Notice of hearing. - The notice of hearing
shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and
shall specify the time and date of the hearing
which must not be later than ten (10) days after the
filing of the motion.
The foregoing requirements are mandatory, and if
not religiously complied with, the motion becomes
pro forma.
A motion that does not comply with the
requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the
Rules of Court is a worthless piece of paper which
the clerk of court has no right to receive and which
the court has no authority to act upon.
Contrary to the findings of the appellate court,
petitioners were not given ample opportunity to
vent their side on the issue since they were not able
to promptly receive a copy of the notice of hearing
impinging the latter's right to due process. Upon
consulting the records no notice of hearing was
appended to the Motion for Reconsideration of the
respondent.
In keeping with the principles of due process,
therefore, a motion which does not afford the
adverse party the chance to oppose it should
simply be disregarded. Failure to comply with the
required notice and hearing is a fatal defect that is
deleterious to respondents cause.
DISCUSSION:
● Notice of hearing and Request for hearing for
motions is really a requirement under the Rules of
Court.
● When you file any motion that is contentious
(asking the court for a relief), it should be set for
hearing and heard, for both parties to air out their
sides.
● If it is not contentious (just to allow you to
file another pleading, no objections to the other
party), it does not need to be heard.
● If you ask for relief, and the other party
objects, it should be heard. In your pleading (written
requirement) the request for hearing must be
included (the particular motion and date of hearing).
● And then there is a notice for hearing, for all
the parties concerned.
● In this case, the respondent failed to include
in her Motion for reconsideration the notice for
hearing.
● The Court held that it was a violation of the
due process right of the petitioners because they are
deprived of procedural due process. They were not
given notice and opportunity to be heard.
● In general, do not use the Rules of Court in
cases which has small technicalities because it might
deprive justice to one party.
His motion for reconsideration is contentious. That is
a violation of his due process of rights. He was
deprived of procedural due process. Notice +
opportunity to be heard. He was not given notice and
opportunity to be heard. Courts are enjoined to deny
any motions xxxx. It is compliance with the basic
tenets of due process.
It’s not a little technicality. Compare with Republic
v. Mupas
36
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
He was really not given notice. The best way to learn
whether a rule should be strictly applied is to read.
Compare the cases ruled by the Supreme Court.
Manila Mining v. Amor
FACTS:
Manila Mining Corporation was a domestic
corporation which operated a large-scale open-pit
for gold and copper ore in Placer, Surigao del
Norte. In compliance with existing environmental
laws, petitioner maintained Tailing Pond No. 7
(TP No. 7), a tailings containment facility required
for the storage of waste materials generated by its
mining operations. When TP-7 reached the
maximum level in December 2000, Manila Mining
Corporation temporarily shut down its mining
operations pending approval of its application to
increase said facility's capacity by the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources-
Environment Management Bureau (DENR-EMB),
Butuan City. DENR-EMB allowed it to continue
operating for another 6 months. However, it failed
to secure an extension permit.
In 2001, Manila Mining Corporation served a
notice to its employees and DENR Regional
Office No. XII of the temporary suspension of its
operations for six months and the temporary lay-
off of two-thirds of its employees. The said period
was extended for another six months.
Lowito Amor, Rollybie Ceredon, Julius Cesar,
Ronito Martinez and Fermin Tabili, Jr, herein
respondents, filed the complaint for constructive
dismissal and monetary claims before the
Regional Arbitration Branch No. XIII of the
NLRC.
In 2004, the Executive Labor Arbiter rendered a
Decision holding petitioner liable for constructive
dismissal. Finding that the cause of suspension of
petitioner’s business was not beyond its control,
the Labor Arbiter applied Article 283 of the same
Code. Manila Mining filed its memorandum of
appeal. In opposition, respondents raised the issue
that Manila Mining mailed their copy of the
memorandum of appeal only on 7 February 2005.
ISSUE:
Did the CA err in ruling that Manila MIning’s
appeal filed with the NLRC was fatally defective
since it had fully complied with the requirements
of the Labor Code for perfecting an appeal?
RULING:
Time and again, it has been held that the right to
appeal is not a natural right or a part of due
process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may
be exercised only in the manner and in accordance
with the provisions of law.23 A party who seeks to
avail of the right must, therefore, comply with the
requirements of the rules, failing which the right to
appeal is invariably lost.
In case of a judgment involving a monetary award,
the same provision mandates that, "an appeal by
the employer may be perfected only upon the
posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a
reputable bonding company duly accredited by the
[NLRC] in the amount equivalent to the monetary
award in the judgment appealed from." Alongside
the requirement that "the appellant shall furnish a
copy of the memorandum of appeal to the other
party," the foregoing requisites for the perfection
of an appeal are reiterated under Sections 1, 4 and
6, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure in
37
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
force at the time petitioner appealed the Labor
Arbiter’s 25 October 2004.
Having received the Labor Arbiter’s Decision on
24 November 2004, petitioner had ten (10)
calendar days or until 4 December 2004 within
which to perfect an appeal. Without proof as to the
actual date of filing of said pleading being
presented by both parties, the CA discounted the
timeliness of its filing in light of the established
fact that the copy thereof intended for respondents
was only served by registered mail on 7 February
2005. Since proof of service of the memorandum
on appeal is required for the perfection of an
appeal from the decision of the Labor Arbiter, the
CA ruled that "respondents filed its appeal not
earlier than 07 February 200[5], which is way
beyond the ten-day reglementary period to
appeal."
By and of itself, the fact that the copy of
memorandum of appeal intended for respondents
was served upon them by registered mail only on
7 February 2005 does not necessarily mean that
petitioner’s appeal from the Labor Arbiter’s
decision was filed out of time. On the principle that
justice should not be sacrificed for technicality, it
has been ruled that the failure of a party to serve a
copy of the memorandum to the opposing party is
not a jurisdictional defect and does not bar the
NLRC from entertaining the appeal. Considering
that such an omission is merely regarded as a
formal lapse or an excusable neglect.
DISCUSSION:
Manila Mining only furnished a copy to the
respondents on the following year. The right to
appeal is not a constitutional right, it is merely
statutory. Not provided under substantive or
procedure. You cannot claim it as a right, If there is
no provision, then you cannot demand it as a right. If
it is provided under the law, then you must first
comply with the requirements of the law. It is still
your burden as appellant to comply with all the
requirements.
One of the most important rules in labor cases is the
filing of the bond. If not, your appeal should be
dismissed. The right to appeal cannot be claimed as
a constitutional right. The rules of NLRC and Labor
Code provided for the requirement.
SC: It is not part of his due process rights.
Jaylo v. Sandiganbayan
FACTS:
The petitioners were officers of PNP. During their
buy bust operation they killed three men. The
petitioners were charged with conspiracy in the
murder of the deceased.
During the promulgation of the Sandiganbayan’s
judgment, none of the accused appeared despite
notice. The court promulgated the decision in
absenta.
The petitioners filed a Motion for Partial
Reconsideration of the decision. In the assailed
resolution, the Sandigan bayan took no action on
the motion and ordered the implementation of the
warrants for the arrest of the convicted accused.
The court ruled that the 15-day period from the
promulgation of the judgment had long lapsed
without any of the accused giving any justifiable
cause for their absence during the promulgation.
Under Section 6 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court,
Jaylo, Valenzona and Habalo have lost the
remedies available under the Rules against the
Sandiganbayan’s judgment of conviction,
38
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
including the filing of a motion for
reconsideration.
ISSUE:
WON Section 6, Rule 120 violated their
substantive right which is their right to file a
motion for reconsideration.
RULING:
No. Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court
provides that an accused who failed to appear at
the promulgation of the judgment of conviction
shall lose the remedies available against the said
judgment.
Petitioners argued that the right to file a motion for
reconsideration is a statutory grant, and not merely
a remedy "available in [the] Rules," as provided
under Section 6 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court.
Thus, according to them, their absence at the
promulgation of judgment before the
Sandiganbayan cannot be deemed to have resulted
in the loss of their rightto file a motion for
reconsideration.
Petitioners’ argument lacks merit.
Like an appeal, the right to file a motion for
reconsideration is a statutory grant or privilege. As
a statutory right, the filing of a motion for
reconsideration is to be exercised in accordance
with and in the manner provided by law.
Petitioners insist that the right to file a motion for
reconsideration under Section 7 of P.D. 1606 is a
guarantee, and no amount of Rules promulgated by
the Supreme Court can operate to diminish or
modify this substantive right.
Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court, does
not take away per se the right of the convicted
accused to avail of the remedies under the Rules.
It is the failure of the accused to appear without
justifiable cause on the scheduled date of
promulgation of the judgment of conviction that
forfeits their right to avail themselves of the
remedies against the judgment.
It is not correct to say that Section 6, Rule 120, of
the Rules of Court diminishes or modifies the
substantive rights of petitioners.
It is well to note that Section 6, Rule 120, of the
Rules of Court also provides a remedy by which
the accused who were absent during the
promulgation may reverse the forfeiture of the
remedies available to them against the judgment of
conviction.
In order to regain their standing in court, the
accused must do as follows:
1) Surrender; and
2) File a motion for leave of court to avail of the
remedies, stating the reasons for their absence,
within 15 days from the date of the promulgation
of judgment.
DISCUSSION:
So in relation to the right to appeal, here what was
discussed was Motion for Reconsideration(the same
siya sa appeal). In that particular case, he just should
you it’s not the civil case because in civil they have
different rules.
Here, it was a criminal case and if the decision is
promulgated in absentia (wala ka) because di ka
sumulpot. You are actually notified that the
judgment on your case will be promulgated on a
certain date and you should appear. If you failed to
appear despite notice, then the court will just go on
promulgating the decision in absentia( in your
absence) and because of that, you will lose rights
(right to move for MR, to appeal etc) and subsequent
rights.
39
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
In cases of criminal cases, there are also remedies if
the decision in your criminal case is promulgated in
absentia. Mag file ng char char pag nacomply niya
na yung char char pwede na siya mag MR. So the
rules actually deprive my right to appeal, to question
the judgment, etc the Supreme Court said no. There
are rules.
The MR is not a constitutional right. It is not really
part of a due process. It is just provided for under the
rules to claim whatever rights you have as an accused
in the case as a convict. Because if you need to
exercise that right at the right time you have lost it.
So appeal is not a constitutional right but a statutory
privilege. The same thing with MR.
Aquino v. Municipality of Malay
FACTS:
Boracay West Cove applied through the
Municipality of Malay to solve the issuance
thereof a building permit in constructing this three-
story hotel. However, it was not issued because the
ground was supposedly within the “no-build zone”
demarcated in a municipal ordinance, but
eventually a notice of assessment was sent to it to
settle unpaid taxes and other liabilities. Thereafter,
a cease and desist order was issued by the
municipal government to stop the expansion of the
resort, and ultimately it issued an executive order
for the closure and demolition of the hotel. The
hotel owner filed for a petition arguing that judicial
proceedings shall first be conducted before the
mayor could order the demolition of the hotel.
ISSUE:
Is there a need for the hotel to go to court before
the property may be demolished?
RULING:
No, there is an existing provision in the local
government code that allows, under specific
grounds for the local chief executive to order the
demolition of hotels. The hotel, saying that they
were not notified, claimed that it was denied the
right of procedural due process when the mayor
demolished the building. They should first have
been notified and actually be given the opportunity
to be heard, or to give its side for the matter. The
court did not agree because:
o the acts of public officers enjoy the presumption
of regularity
o the hotel received notices
o there was observance of the 10-day allowance
period for the owner to demolish the hotel, but it
was never questioned
The hotel was demolished not exactly because it
was a nuisance but because it failed to comply with
the legal requirements prior to its construction;
that it should not be constructed in the first place,
they requested for permits which the mayor did not
grant. The non-issuance of the necessary permits
is a ground for demolition of the structure under
the local government code . since it is allowed by
the law, under the required premises in court order
that it was required under normal circumstances is
dispensable.
DISCUSSION:
Does the mayor have the power to demolish
structures? For each zone, there are different
requirements. In this case, it was in an environmental
zone. The requirements is that the owner should have
40
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
seeked the necessary permits prior to the
construction of the building wherein the owner did
not comply. Under the law, the LCG has the power
to demolish structures which are in violation of the
law, local ordinances.
The notice and opportunity to be heard were met. The
basic due process rights were actually given. In
substance, the LGU has the right to demolish the
hotel because it was in violation of so many laws.
December 6, 2019
BROWN MADONNA PRESS, INC. vs. MARIA
ROSARIO CASAS
FACTS:
Rosario Casas (Casas), was an accounting clerk
for Fortune General Insurance, a member of the ALC
Group of Companies. On December 1, 2003 she was
transferred to Brown Madonna Press, Inc. (BMPI), also
a member of the ALC Group, and was promoted as the
Vice President of Finance and Administration.
Five (5) years later, after a meeting with
Cabangon (BMPI’S company president) and Navas
(Vice President for the Central Human Resource
Department), as instructed by Cabangon-Chua (ALC’s
Chairman Emeritus) Casas was allegedly told to stop
reporting work three (3) days after the meeting.
Casas claims that the reason for her abrupt
dismissal was not disclosed to her, nor was there a
notice procured by the company notifying of her
dismissal. She was promised a separation pay and thus
she packed her things and left.
BMPI, on the other hand, asserts that it was
Casas who requested a graceful exit from the company
during the meeting, which was supposedly held to
confront Casas of the complaint made against her. They
insisted that Casas opted to leave the company as to
avoid any administrative investigation against her.
On the same date that Casas ceased to report to
work BMPI started to process her Clearance and
Quitclaim document. On May 17 2007, Casas sent
Cabangon-Chua a letter asking for a reconsideration of
her termination, to which the former ignored and thus
resulted to Casas filing this complaint for illegal
dismissal
ISSUE: Was Casas given the proper due process to her
dismissal?
RULING:
No. In the case at bar, the petitioners failed to
present a written notice provided to Casas informing her
of the alleged infractions against her as well as of her
dismissal and of the reasons behind it. There also was
no documentary evidence presented which supported
the petitioners claim that Casas had voluntarily
abandoned her work, as there was no resignation letter
and the Clearance and Quitclaim document had
remained unsigned.
Moreover, the alleged infractions against her
were merely speculations and have not been proven at
the time she was dismissed, thus applying the
presumption of innocence until proven guilty, Casas
was denied the opportunity to defend herself against the
allegations against her.
Lacking a substantial evidence of the just cause
that would have merited her dismissal the Supreme
Court ruled that she was denied of her procedural due
process.
DISCUSSION:
41
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
The Bill of Rights are only demandable
against the State. In this case, procedural due process
was asked against the employer/private entity and
not against the State, did the Supreme Court then err
in its ruling? NO.
The Supreme Court in all cases Labor
dismissals will always observe due process of Law
because it is provided for under the Labor Code,
making it a statutory due process requirement. The
elements of due process is made applicable, by the
Supreme Court in Labor cases as there exists a statute
that requires such application, “The Labor Code”.
When dismissing an employee, the two-
notice rule must be complied with.
Two-Notice Rule:
(1) Notify the particular person of an
investigation or a charge being lodged
against her for certain violations.
- There must be a written Just
Cause or Authorized Cause,
which may be found in the Labor
Code or Company Handbook.
- Administrative Due Process
requirements must be observed.
(2) Notify the employee of the decision made
following the investigation.
Current Jurisprudence tells us that, although
there is non-compliance with the procedural due
process, the termination (as long as there exists a
just/authorized cause) will not be invalid; but the
employer would be liable for damages. This is
because there is a substantive ground which supports
the termination.
NACION vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
FACTS:
The case deals with the procedure in
Commission on Audit (CoA). Petitioner, Atty. Janet
Nacion (Nacion) was an auditor of CoA. She was
assigned to audit Metropolitan Water Works Sewage
System (MWSS).
As an auditor from CoA, you are supposed to be
independent from the institution you are assigned to
because you are the one who will check whether they
are following the proper procedures. As a rule, you
cannot receive benefits from the institution otherwise
your independence may be compromised.
In the case, Nacion was alleged to have accepted
from the MWSS various benefits and loans. Thus, an
investigation was conducted against her.
During the fact finding investigation, you would
not know or you would not be notified that you were
being investigated. It was found from the investigation
that Nacion received bonuses and benefits from the
institution.
The CoA recommended to file a case against
Nacion. When there was a formal charge, she was
notified and was directed to give her comment and
answer.
After due proceeding, Nacion was found guilty
of grave misconduct and was suspended from office for
one year. Nacion went to Supreme Court and invoked
due process as one of her arguments. She said that the
record during her tenure with MWSS should have not
been included because there was no office order
covering it.
ISSUE:
Is Nacion correct that whatever the audit
committee found out should not have been the basis of
the charges against her?
42
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
RULING:
NO. The argument of Nacion that she was
deprived of due process because of the intrusion of
reports is incorrect. The court said that due process in
administrative proceedings such as in this case is the
opportunity to be heard before the judgment was
rendered.
There was no violation of due process because
she was duly notified and was able to give her answer
and even filed for a motion for reconsideration. The
court emphasized that there was no need for a separate
office order.
Nacion was given the chance to be notified and
be heard. Therefore she was not deprived of due
process.
DISCUSSION:
In cases of CoA, Ombudsman and other
administrative bodies, there is a level of
investigation which is the fact finding.
In that level of investigation, there is no need to
observe due process because it is the level where
you just build up the case. The level of investigation
where you find out if there is a cause for further
investigation. There is no need to ask the different
sides of the parties yet. You just have to look at the
available records, testimonies, and see the basis of
complaint.
There is no need to observe due process yet in fact
finding investigation because it is just a
determination if further investigation or a proper case
is to filed.
VILLANUEVA VS JBC
Facts:
Villanueva is an MCTC Judge for a year, and he
applied for the vacant position in the RTC.
However, there is a JBC Policy requiring five years
of service as a judge in the first level courts before
one can apply in the second level courts. He was
not included in the list of candidates for the vacant
RTC position because of the five-year service
requirement.
Villanueva argues that this violates
procedural due process owing to the lack of the
publication of the said policy in the UP Law Center
– Office of National Administrative Register
(ONAR). JBC raised the defence that there is no
violation of due process, as the policy is merely
internal in nature.
Issue:
Was there a violation of due process in the
implementation of the policy?
Ruling:
YES, the Supreme Court ruled that it has to be
published, but Villanueva’s contention is mistaken.
Only issuances of administrative agencies under
the executive branch are required for publication
with the ONAR. The JBC is under the Supreme
Court and is not part of the executive branch.
The policy is not only internal in nature.
Publication is indispensible, but there are
exceptions, one of which is that when it is merely
an internal rule or regulation. But the five-year
service requirement policy is not merely internal in
nature because it involves qualification standards to
determine proven competence of applicants. If it
were merely internal in nature, it will only regulate
and affect members of the JBC and its staff.
43
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
Rules implementing a statute should be
published. Publication is required in this five-year
requirement because it seeks to implement a
constitutional provision requiring proven
competence for members of the judiciary, to allow
for preparation and compliance, but petitioner
cannot compel the JBC to be included in the short
list of candidates, as it is at the discretion and under
the jurisdiction of the JBC.
The rules, as stated in Tañada v Tuvera, that you have
to publish laws, statutes, rules and regulations that
affect substantive rights or procedural rights, so long
as it affects third persons.
For internal rules, meaning it is only applicable in the
case among members of the JBC and it doesn’t affect
third parties or applicants, then it doesn’t need
publication. But that JBC rule in effect will affect the
requirements of the applicants for RTC judges.
Therefore, it is not internal in nature and must be
published.
But Tañada v Tuvera only tells you that laws, internal
rules and regulations of the executive branch or those
from the legislative branch should be published
either in the Official Gazette or, depending on the
amendments to the Civil Code, in a newspaper of
general circulation.
But in this case, SC says, and this is their rule, it not
necessary to be in the ONAR, but only that it is
published in a paper of general circulation or the
Official Gazette, so long as it is published, that there
is compliance with the notice rule, due notice to the
applicants.
In this case, there really is no opportunity to be heard
because it is not an administrative proceeding. It is
applying for a particular post in the government, so
the due process requirement here is to be notified of
the said requirements.
And as the reporter said, with the JBC this is a
discretionary power, and you cannot compel it. You
cannot compel a discretionary power, you can only
compel a power if it is mandatory, meaning
according to the law a particular office of the
government should comply with that. But if it is
discretionary, meaning that they have the discretion
whether or not to do it, then they cannot be
compelled.
KABATAAN VS COMELEC
FACTS:
This is the case on the biometrics requirement – if
you do not comply with requirement, you will be
deactivated.
So, one of the many challenges against the validity
of the law here is the COMELEC issuances
pursuant to the implementation of this law was that
they violate the tenets of procedural due process
because of the short periods of time between
hearings and notice of the nature of deactivation
proceeding.
In fact, one of the arguments was that it deprives
them of their right to suffrage, which we discussed
before is not even a natural right but a privilege
because there are requirements that we have to
comply because the Constitution itself provides
for limitations.
The requirement here is to comply with the
biometrics registration. They claim that they were
not notified; short period of time between hearings
and notice and also the nature of the proceedings
before the notice is summary.
ISSUE:
Does that violate due process?
44
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
RULING:
NO. The notice requirement was already
complied with because the COMELEC by way of
Resolution No. 10013 have already directed the
election officers to post the list of voters without
biometrics data in the bulletin boards in the city or
municipal halls and also sent individual notices to
the affected voters. Everyone in the list without
biometrics data have been informed by way of
these notices in the city halls and also individual
notices that they do not have biometrics data; so
the notice requirement is complied with.
The “right to be heard” is also complied with
because the resolution of the COMELEC gives
these individuals the opportunity to file their
opposition or objection to the deactivation of their
registration not later than a specific date plus it
accords you a summary hearing. The summary
hearing is not violative of the right of due process.
The Court emphasized here the reason why the
proceedings are summary; because time is of the
essence as the elections are drawing near and
therefore the proceedings involving the
deactivation of voters who are not able to register
under this law and the existing public issuances
should be done with haste.
The elections were drawing near so the voters who
were not able to comply with the biometrics
requirement should be weeded out already. So, the
public has been notified. Those who are affected
have been given the opportunity to be heard, and
they are also accorded summary hearing procedure
before the appropriate COMELEC body.
DISCUSSION:
The right to vote is a privilege, you have to comply
with the requirement of law to be able to vote. The
COMELEC is given the power to administer election
laws.
The new law requires voters to have biometrics in
order to be registered, if you have already been
registered before but has not registered anew under
the new law, the COMELEC has the power to
deactivate your prior voter registration.
The notice requirement was already complied with
because the COMELEC by way of Resolution No.
10013 have already directed the election officers to
post the list of voters without biometrics data in the
bulletin boards in the city or municipal halls and also
sent individual notices to the affected voters.
Everyone in the list without biometrics data have
been informed by way of these notices in the city
halls and also individual notices that they do not have
biometrics data; so the notice requirement is
complied with.
12/06/19 2ND Hour
2 ASPECTS OF DUE PROCESS
- Procedural due process
- Substantive due process
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
- Judicial, termination of employment,
administrative (take note of nuances in the
cases related to administrative)
Where Procedural Due Process Not Required:
 Abatement of nuisance per se: one which
affects the immediate safety of persons and
property and may be summarily abated under
the undefined law of necessity.
 Preventive suspension which is part of the
investigation process: no need for notice;
not meant to punish but to prevent the
investigation from being influenced by such
public officer.
45
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
 Provisional increases in certain laws
governing public utility: such as increase in
fares, oil prices, electricity prices; either in
their own charter, concession agreement, or
agreement with the government, companies
have initial power to determine increases,
subject to the review of their governing or
regulating bodies. (e.g., Energy Regulatory
Board for Electricity)
 Direct Contempt of Court or Contempt in
Senate/HoR: anything done in contempt of
courts or houses, punishable immediately.
The determination lies with the person or
entity with the power to contempt.
 Rule making where no notice or hearing is
required: such as circulars internal rules and
regulations that does not affect third parties
or anybody outside those who are directly
concerned.
In general, the same person or tribunal who adjudged
such decision should not review the same being
appealed. Such is a violation of procedural due
process.
DUE PROCESS AND POLICE POWER
TWO TESTS
1. Lawful Subject
 Characterized by the demand of
public welfare.
2. Lawful Means
 Assuming there is already a lawful
subject, concerned whether the
enforcement and execution of the
subject is lawful or reasonable.
SUBSTANTIVE ELEMENTS OF LAWFUL
SUBJECT
1. Public safety;
2. Public health;
3. Public morals; and
4. General welfare.
CASES
WHITE LIGHT CORP. v CITY OF MANILA
FACTS: On December 3, 1992, City Mayor Alfredo
S. Lim signed into law Manila City Ordinance No.
7774 entitled “An Ordinance Prohibiting Short-Time
Admission, Short-Time Admission Rates, and Wash-
Up Rate Schemes in Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging
Houses, Pension Houses, and Similar Establishments
in the City of Manila” (the Ordinance).” The
ordinance sanctions any person or corporation who
will allow the admission and charging of room rates
for less than 12 hours or the renting of rooms more
than twice a day.
The petitioners White Light Corporation (WLC),
Titanium Corporation (TC), and Sta. Mesa Tourist
and Development Corporation (STDC), who own
and operate several hotels and motels in Metro
Manila, filed a motion to intervene and to admit
attached complaint-in-intervention on the ground
that the ordinance will affect their business interests
as operators. The respondents, in turn, alleged that
the ordinance is a legitimate exercise of police
power.
ISSUE: Whether Ordinance No. 7774 is a valid
exercise of police power of the State.
RULING: No. Ordinance No. 7774 cannot be
considered as a valid exercise of police power, and
as such, it is unconstitutional.
The test of a valid ordinance is well established:
1. It must not contravene the Constitution or any
statute;
2. it must not be unfair or oppressive;
3. it must not be partial or discriminatory;
4. it must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
46
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
5. it must be general and consistent with public
policy; and
6. it must not be unreasonable.
The ordinance in this case prohibits two specific and
distinct business practices, namely wash rate
admissions and renting out a room more than twice a
day. The ban is evidently sought to be rooted in the
police power as conferred on local government units
by the Local Government Code through such
implements as the general welfare clause.
Police power is based upon the concept of necessity
of the State and its corresponding right to protect
itself and its people. Police power has been used as
justification for numerous and varied actions by the
State.
Lacking a concurrence of these requisites, the police
measure shall be struck down as an arbitrary
intrusion into private rights. The behavior which the
ordinance seeks to curtail is in fact already prohibited
and could in fact be diminished simply by applying
existing laws. Less intrusive measures such as
curbing the proliferation of prostitutes and drug
dealers through active police work would be more
effective in easing the situation. So would the strict
enforcement of existing laws and regulations
penalizing prostitution and drug use. These measures
would have minimal intrusion on the businesses of
the petitioners and other legitimate merchants.
Further, it is apparent that the ordinance can easily
be circumvented by merely paying the whole day rate
without any hindrance to those engaged in illicit
activities. Moreover, drug dealers and prostitutes can
in fact collect “wash rates” from their clientele by
charging their customers a portion of the rent for
motel rooms and even apartments.
Whether or not the exercise of police power is valid,
or a regulation is valid, the Court has used several
tests – strict scrutiny, rational basis, as well as
(heightened) or immediate secured scrutiny. The
rational basis test is used in the analysis of equal
protection challenges. However, the Court usually
applies the strict scrutiny test if there is a regulation
involving fundamental freedom so fundamental
rights – right to free speech, right to life, etc. The
examination here of the Court vis-à-vis the validity
of the regulation will be stricter than the normal tests.
The right to liberty is violated in this case.
ATTY. DERIJE’s DISCUSSION
- The ordinance prohibited the legitimate
schemes of the businesses without justifiable
reasons.
- Not in all cases that prohibitions amount to
unlawful means.
- the main purpose of police power is general
welfare.
-
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL v.
AYALA
FACTS: The Senate Committee on Trade and
Commerce found that the collection of parking fees
by shopping malls is contrary to National Building
Code and figuratively speaking, the Code has
“expropriated” the land for parking. Also,
Committee stated that the collection of parking fees
would be against Article II of RA 9734 (Consumer
Act of the Philippines) as to the State’s policy of
protecting the interest of consumers. Moreover,
Section 201 of the National Building Code gives the
responsibility for the administration and enforcement
of the provisions of the Code, including the
imposition of penalties for administrative violations
thereof to the Secretary of Public Works. This is not
being strictly followed as the LGUs are tasked to
discharge the regulatory powers of DPWH instead of
DPWH instead.
As such, Senate Committee recommended that: 1)
Office of Solicitor General should institute the action
47
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
to enjoin the collection of parking fees and enforce
the sanctions for violation of National Building
Code; 2) DTI pursuant to RA 7394 should enforce
the provisions of Code relative to parking; and 3)
Congress should amend and update the National
Building Code to prohibit the collection of parking
fees and its waiver of liability.
Respondent SM Prime assailed the recommendation
of the Committee and filed a Petition for Declaratory
Relief under Rule 63 of the Revised Rules of Court
against DPWH and local building officials,
contending that: 1) Rule XIX of Implementing Rules
and Regulations of National Building Code is
unconstitutional and void; 2) respondent has the legal
right to lease parking spaces; and 3) National
Building Code IRR is ineffective as it was not
published for 3 consecutive weeks in newspaper of
general circulation as mandated by Section 211 of
PD 1096.
OSG then filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief and
Injunction (with Prayer for Temporary Restraining
Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction) to the
RTC against respondents, prohibiting them from
collecting parking fees and contending that their
practice of charging parking fees is violative of
National Building Code.
ISSUE: Whether the petition of OSG for prohibiting
the collection of parking fees is a valid exercise of
the police power of State.
RULING: No. The petition of OSG to prohibit
collection of parking fees is not a valid exercise of
the police power of State.
It is not sufficient for the OSG to claim that “the
power to regulate and control the use, occupancy,
and maintenance of buildings and structures carries
with it the power to impose fees and, conversely, to
control, partially or, as in this case, absolutely, the
imposition of such fees.”
The Court finds that in totally prohibiting
respondents from collecting parking fees, the State
would be acting beyond the bounds of police power.
Police power is the power of promoting the public
welfare by restraining and regulating the use of
liberty and property. It is usually exerted in order to
merely regulate the use and enjoyment of the
property of the owner. The power to regulate,
however, does not include the power to prohibit. A
fortiori, the power to regulate does not include the
power to confiscate. Police power does not involve
the taking or confiscation of property, with the
exception of a few cases where there is a necessity to
confiscate private property in order to destroy it for
the purpose of protecting peace and order and of
promoting the general welfare; for instance, the
confiscation of an illegally possessed article, such as
opium and firearms.
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.
Normally, of course, the power of eminent domain
results in the taking or appropriation of title to, and
possession of, the expropriated property; but no
cogent reason appears why the said power may not
be availed of only to impose a burden upon the owner
of condemned property, without loss of title and
possession. A regulation that deprives any person of
the profitable use of his property constitutes a taking
and entitles him to compensation, unless the invasion
of rights is so slight as to permit the regulation to be
justified under the police power. Similarly, a police
regulation that unreasonably restricts the right to use
business property for business purposes amounts to a
taking of private property, and the owner may
recover therefor.
48
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
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.
In conclusion, the total prohibition against the
collection by respondents of parking fees from
persons who use the mall parking facilities has no
basis in the National Building Code or its IRR. The
State also cannot impose the same prohibition by
generally invoking police power, since said
prohibition amounts to a taking of respondents’
property without payment of just compensation.
ATTY. DERIJE’s DISCUSSION
- In this case, the subject is unlawful. The state
exercised eminent domain, they violated the
property rights of the mall owners.
- The mall owners were prevented to enjoy or
use or benefit from their property because of
the government regulation and as such it is a
violation of the lawful subject test
CHEVRON VS BCDA
FACTS: On June 28, 2002, the Board of Directors of
respondent Clark Development Corporation (CDC)
issued and approved Policy Guidelines on the
Movement of Petroleum Fuel to and from the Clark
Special Economic Zone. In one of its provisions, it
levied royalty fees to suppliers delivering Coastal
fuel from outside sources for Php0.50 per liter for
those delivering fuel to CSEZ locators not sanctioned
by CDC and Php1.00 per litter for those bringing-in
petroleum fuel from outside sources. The policy
guidelines were implemented effective July 27,
2002.
The petitioner Chevron Philippines Inc (formerly
Caltex Philippines Inc) who is a fuel supplier to
Nanox Philippines, a locator inside the CSEZ,
received a Statement of Account from CDC billing
them to pay the royalty fees amounting to
Php115,000 for its fuel sales from Coastal depot to
Nanox Philippines from August 1 to September 21,
2002.
Petitioner, contending that nothing in the law
authorizes CDC to impose royalty fees based on a per
unit measurement of any commodity sold within the
special economic zone, protested against the CDC
and Bases Conversion Development Authority
(BCDA). They alleged that the royalty fees imposed
had no reasonable relation to the probably expenses
of regulation and that the imposition on a per unit
measurement of fuel sales was for a revenue
generating purpose, thus, akin to a “tax”.
BCDA denied the protest. The Office of the
President dismissed the appeal as well for lack of
merit.
When elevated in SC, petitioner argued that: 1) CDC
has no power to impose fees on sale of fuel inside
CSEZ on the basis of income generating functions
and its right to market and distribute goods inside the
CSEZ as this would amount to tax which they have
no power to impose, and that the imposed fee is not
regulatory in nature but rather a revenue generating
measure; 2) even if the fees are regulatory in nature,
it is unreasonable and are grossly in excess of
regulation costs.
Respondents contended that the purpose of royalty
fees is to regulate the flow of fuel to and from the
CSEZ and revenue (if any) is just an incidental
product. They viewed it as a valid exercise of police
power since it is aimed at promoting the general
49
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
welfare of public; that being the CSEZ administrator,
they are responsible for the safe distribution of fuel
products inside the CSEZ.
ISSUE: Whether the act of CDC in imposing royalty
fees can be considered as valid exercise of the police
power.
RULING: Yes. SC held that CDC was within the
limits of the police power of the State when it
imposed royalty fees.
In distinguishing tax and regulation as a form of
police power, the determining factor is the purpose
of the implemented measure. If the purpose is
primarily to raise revenue, then it will be deemed a
tax even though the measure results in some form of
regulation. On the other hand, if the purpose is
primarily to regulate, then it is deemed a regulation
and an exercise of the police power of the state, even
though incidentally, revenue is generated.
In this case, SC held that the subject royalty fee was
imposed for regulatory purposes and not for
generation of income or profits. The Policy
Guidelines was issued to ensure the safety, security,
and good condition of the petroleum fuel industry
within the CSEZ. The questioned royalty fees form
part of the regulatory framework to ensure “free flow
or movement” of petroleum fuel to and from the
CSEZ. The fact that respondents have the exclusive
right to distribute and market petroleum products
within CSEZ pursuant to its JVA with SBMA and
CSBTI does not diminish the regulatory purpose of
the royalty fee for fuel products supplied by
petitioner to its client at the CSEZ.
However, it was erroneous for petitioner to argue that
such exclusive right of respondent CDC to market
and distribute fuel inside CSEZ is the sole basis of
the royalty fees imposed under the Policy
Guidelines. Being the administrator of CSEZ, the
responsibility of ensuring the safe, efficient and
orderly distribution of fuel products within the Zone
falls on CDC.
There can be no doubt that the oil industry is greatly
imbued with public interest as it vitally affects the
general welfare. Fuel is a highly combustible product
which, if left unchecked, poses a serious threat to life
and property. Also, the reasonable relation between
the royalty fees imposed on a “per liter” basis and the
regulation sought to be attained is that the higher the
volume of fuel entering CSEZ, the greater the extent
and frequency of supervision and inspection required
to ensure safety, security, and order within the Zone.
Respondents submit that the increased administrative
costs were triggered by security risks that have
recently emerged, such as terrorist strikes. The need
for regulation is more evident in the light of 9/11
tragedy considering that what is being moved from
one location to another are highly combustible fuel
products that could cause loss of lives and damage to
properties.
As to the issue of reasonableness of the amount of
the fees, SC held that no evidence was adduced by
the petitioner to show that the fees imposed are
unreasonable. Administrative issuances have the
force and effect of law. They benefit from the same
presumption of validity and constitutionality enjoyed
by statutes. These two precepts place a heavy burden
upon any party assailing governmental regulations.
Petitioner’s plain allegations are simply not enough
to overcome the presumption of validity and
reasonableness of the subject imposition.
ATTY. DERIJE’s DISCUSSION
- Distinction between taxation and police
power.
- Primary purpose of taxation, to raise revenue;
Primary purpose of police power, to regulate
for public safety regardless if there is revenue
from such regulation.
50
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
ESPINA v. ZAMORA
FACTS: On March 7, 2000 President Joseph E.
Estrada signed into law Republic Act (R.A.) 8762,
also known as the Retail Trade Liberalization Act of
2000. It expressly repealed R.A. 1180, which
absolutely prohibited foreign nationals from
engaging in the retail trade business. R.A. 8762 also
allows natural-born Filipino citizens, who had lost
their citizenship and now reside in the Philippines, to
engage in the retail trade business with the same
rights as Filipino citizens.
Petitioners argue that the law runs afoul of Sections
9, 19, and 20 of Article II of the Constitution which
enjoins the State to place the national economy under
the control of Filipinos to achieve equal distribution
of opportunities, promote industrialization and full
employment, and protect Filipino enterprise against
unfair competition and trade policies. Also, the
implementation of R.A. 8762 would lead to alien
control of the retail trade, which taken together with
alien dominance of other areas of business, would
result in the loss of effective Filipino control of the
economy. Ultimately, there is a clear and present
danger that the law would promote monopolies or
combinations in restraint of trade.
Respondents countered that petitioners have failed to
overcome the presumption of constitutionality of
R.A. 8762. Indeed, they could not specify how the
new law violates the constitutional provisions they
cite. Sections 9, 19, and 20 of Article II of the
Constitution are not self-executing provisions that
are judicially demandable. They also said that the
Constitution mandates the regulation but not the
prohibition of foreign investments. It directs
Congress to reserve to Filipino citizens certain areas
of investments upon the recommendation of the
NEDA and when the national interest so dictates. But
the Constitution leaves to the discretion of the
Congress whether or not to make such reservation. It
does not prohibit Congress from enacting laws
allowing the entry of foreigners into certain
industries not reserved by the Constitution to Filipino
citizens.
ISSUE: Whether or not R.A. 8762 is
unconstitutional.
RULING: No, it is not unconstitional. As the Court
explained in Tañada v. Angara, the provisions of
Article II of the 1987 Constitution, the declarations
of principles and state policies, are not self-
executing. Legislative failure to pursue such policies
cannot give rise to a cause of action in the courts.
The Court further explained in Tañada that Article
XII of the 1987 Constitution lays down the ideals of
economic nationalism: (1) by expressing preference
in favor of qualified Filipinos in the grant of rights,
privileges and concessions covering the national
economy and patrimony and in the use of Filipino
labor, domestic materials and locally-produced
goods; (2) by mandating the State to adopt measures
that help make them competitive; and (3) by
requiring the State to develop a self-reliant and
independent national economy effectively controlled
by Filipinos.
In other words, the 1987 Constitution does not rule
out the entry of foreign investments, goods, and
services. While it does not encourage their unlimited
entry into the country, it does not prohibit them
either. In fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of
equality and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign
competition that is unfair. The key, as in all
economies in the world, is to strike a balance
between protecting local businesses and allowing the
entry of foreign investments and services.
There is no showing that the law has contravened any
constitutional mandate. The Court is not convinced
that the implementation of R.A. 8762 would
eventually lead to alien control of the retail trade
business. Petitioners have not mustered any concrete
51
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
and strong argument to support its thesis. The law
itself has provided strict safeguards on foreign
participation in that business. Thus –
First, aliens can only engage in retail trade
business subject to the categories above-
enumerated; Second, only nationals from, or
juridical entities formed or incorporated in
countries which allow the entry of Filipino
retailers shall be allowed to engage in retail trade
business; and Third, qualified foreign retailers
shall not be allowed to engage in certain retailing
activities outside their accredited stores through
the use of mobile or rolling stores or carts, the use
of sales representatives, door-to-door selling,
restaurants and sari-sari stores and such other
similar retailing activities.
In sum, petitioners have not shown how the retail
trade liberalization has prejudiced and can prejudice
the local small and medium enterprises since its
implementation about a decade ago.
ATTY. DERIJE’s DISCUSSION
- Initially, retail trade is restricted to filipinos
only. RA 8762 allowed foreigners to conduct
retail trade.
- Is there a violation of the Constitution? No,
there is not. The subject of RA 8762 is a
lawful subject. No constitutional provision
prohibiting competition in retail trade
between filipinos and foreigners.
Rimando vs. Naguilan Emission
Facts:
It involves a petition for certiorari on the
application of the Naguilan Emission Testing
Center for an extension of their business permit.
Naguilan Emission Testing Center has been
operating in a land owned by the Municipality of
Naguilan, La Union from 2005 to 2007. In 2008,
it filed for application for the renewal of its
business permit after paying for the corresponding
fees. However, Mayor Abraham E. Rimando who
was the Mayor of the Municipality of Naguilan, La
Union refused to issue them their business permit.
The mayor proposed that they execute a
contract of lease with the Municipality of
Naguilan. Even if the Naguilan Emission Testing
Center is amenable to such, the mayor still refused
to issue them their business permit. Because of
that, Naguilan Emission Testing Center filed for a
petition for mandamus to compel Mayor Rimando
to issue them their business permit.
The RTC denied such petition and in its
decision it held that a mayor’s duty to issue
business permits is discretionary in nature which
may not be enforced by a mandamus writ. On
appeal, the CA also held that the case was
dismissible on the ground of mootness because by
that time Mayor Rimando was no longer the
Mayor of Municipality of Naguilan.
Issue:
The main issue in this case is if Mayor
Rimando could have been compelled to issue
business permit by petition of mandamus.
Ruling:
The pertinent law on the case is found on Section
444-B of the Local Government Code of 1991
which reads that the local governance the purpose
of which is the general welfare of the municipality
and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this
Code, the municipal mayor shall initiate and
maximize the generation of resources and
revenues and apply the same to the
implementation of development plans, program
52
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
objectives and priorities as provided for under
Section 18 of this Code. Included in the functions
of the mayor is to issue licenses and permits and
suspend or revoke the same for any violation of the
conditions upon which the said licenses and
permits have been issued pursuant to the law or
ordinance.
Section 444-B paragraph 3 states that the
power of the municipal mayor to issue licenses is
pursuant to Section 16 of the Local Government
Code which is also known as the general welfare
clause. It encapsulates the delegated police power
to local government units. Therefore, the local
government units exercise police power through
their respective legislative bodies.
The LGC of 1991 grants the municipal
mayor, who was in this case Rimando, the power
to issue licenses and permits and suspend or
revoke the same for any violation of the
conditions.
Therefore, the ruling of the RTC that the
petition for mandamus was dismissed was correct
since the exercise of the mayor in issuing the
business license was discretionary in nature and a
petition for mandamus was not really the correct
action but it should have been a petition for
certiorari.
We have actually learned before that if the action is
discretionary of any government body, in this case
the mayor, you cannot compel it by mandamus. Only
actions which are mandatory for public officials to
do can be compelled by mandamus. But the
important discussion really here on police power is
that the repository of legislative power is the
legislative department – Congress. They can actually
delegate police power such as in this case they
delegated it to the local chief executive and under the
Local Government Code, it also delegated it to the
local Sangguniang Panlusod, Sangguniang
Panlalawigan, and Sangguniang Bayan – local
legislative department. It is also under the reported
provision that the enforcement of police power is
delegated to the local chief executive – to the mayor.
Because this is not the police power of the state, this
is just delegated police power, as all delegations, it is
limited by the law which enacts it. If you remember,
there is the concept of non-delegation of power.
When one power has already been delegated in the
Constitution to a particular branch, it cannot be
delegated. What is already delegated cannot be
delegated further. There are certain exceptions and
one of which is the legislative branch can delegate
police power but subject to the conditions provided
for by law. The law here applicable is the Local
Government Code. Under Section 16 that is the
general welfare clause of the Local Government
Code. If you remember, the scope of police power
in general of the legislative is public health, public
safety, public morals, and general welfare. The
general welfare clause under the Local Government
Code encompasses all that you can think about
welfare in the local setting. It is the local
government’s local legislative bodies – the
Sanggunian, who has more of a sense of what is
needed in their locality, that’s why they are delegated
the power to decide what are applicable to that
particular municipality.
The legislative power has two tests – lawful subject
and lawful means, in relation to that, there will be
tests on the lawfulness of the subject or the
lawfulness of the means. The police power can be
delegated by legislative branch but not fully as it
should comply with or should be in line with the
delegated power as provided for in the law. It’s not
only the local government units – local legislative
bodies or the local chief executive, which can be
delegated with police power. It could also be
53
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
delegated to the administrative bodies which as a
wisdom of legislative body be granted a portion of
police power.
Fernando v. St. Scholastica
Facts:
This is a case where a college is affected
by police power of Marikina City issuing
Ordinance 192 regulating construction of fences
and walls in the City of Marikina. Apparently, the
college has built walls which were already 50
years old and were so high that the visibility from
outside the walls you cannot see the interior of the
wall. The 1995 and 1998 Ordinance 217 and 200
amended Section 7 and 5, respectively, of
Ordinance 192.
On April 2, 2000, the government of
Marikina sent a letter to St. Scholalistica to replace
fence and make it 80% see-through, and move it
back 6 meters to provide for parking. On April 26,
2000, St. Scholastica requested for an extension of
time to comply on the ground that during the
hearings of the ordinance, the time it was being
crafted by Marikina City, St. Scholastica failed to
attend in the creation of said ordinance.
St. Scholastica filed for petition of
prohibition and an application for writ of
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining
order, in order to stop Marikina City officials from
destroying forcibly the walls to enforce the local
ordinance. St. Scholastica argued that the
Ordinance 192 acts in excessive jurisdiction which
contravenes Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution
because it will take away 1,808 sq. m. of the lot
they possess in the west drive, and 1,954 sq. m. in
the east drive, and the total losses will be
approximately 18 million for St. Scholastica
College when we talk about the value of the land.
Petitioners counter that the ordinance is a
valid exercise of police power.
RTC issued preliminary injunction and
decided that indeed it is a violation of Article 3 of
the 1987 Constitution because the power being
exercised is not necessarily police power anymore.
RTC granted the petition and issuance of writ of
prohibition commanding petitioners to
permanently desist from enforcing or
implementing Ordinance No. 192 in respect to the
property of St. Scholastica. It further ruled that the
moving back of the fence for 6 meters amounts to
appropriation of property which would deny St.
Scholastica from enjoying such property.
However, the government of Marikina may do so
not under police power but under eminent domain
which will require just compensation for taking the
property.
One of the contentions of the petitioner that
such 6 meters of lot will provide parking spaces
for the benefit of St. Scholastica students and
employees did not give weight because the school
has already provided sufficient parking inside the
premises of the school.
The 80% see-through walls will deprive
the Benedictine nuns their right to privacy.
Danger to security has no basis because in fact
there has been no crime recorded that was
committed on the grounds of St. Scholastica. It
does not have any merit. Beautification is also an
insufficient reasoning to make it transparent.
It also observed that Section 7 of
Ordinance No. 192, as amended, provided for
retroactive application. It held, however, that such
54
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
retroactive effect should not impair the
respondent’s vested substantive rights over the
perimeter walls, the six-meter strips of land along
the walls, and the building, structures, facilities,
and improvements, which would be destroyed by
the demolition of the walls and the seizure of the
strips of land.
They provided that because those walls
were already established way before the ordinance
is put into action, government of Marikina stated
that this particular ordinance will have a
retroactive effect. Therefore, they will try to
destroy the walls which are already there when the
ordinance took into effect.
Petitioner argues that Ordinance No. 192
was a curative or remedial statute designed to
correct the defects of buildings and structures
which were brought about by the absence of
insufficiency of laws. This law is referred to as the
National Building Code by which the Court finds
no merit because there is no defect in the actual
National Building Code. And if there are defects
in the National Building Code, the exclusive
power to modify or repeal it is not vested on the
rights of the government of Marikina but on the
power of Congress.
Petition granted Ordinance No. 192. They
are permanently desisted from its enforcement. So
the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.
Ordinance No. 192 did not justify police power. It
did not regulate but take respondents’ property
without due process of law which is why they are
trying to take a specific amount of property which
is six meters from the left and right without just
compensation which could have been acquired if
they tried to use the power of eminent domain.
Issue:
Whether or not the government of Marikina
violated the due process in exercising police power
through Ordinance No. 192?
Ruling:
So the petitioners complied with
procedural due process in enacting Ordinance No.
192. As with the meetings when they tried to create
the ordinance into action, they failed to comply
substantive due process.
Failure of respondent’s public hearings in
order to raise objections, it does not amount to a
waiver of their right to question the validity of the
ordinance. Because of the meetings they provided
or the public hearings they have done to create the
ordinance, it does not mean that since St.
Scholastica does not have the rights to counteract
the ordinance.
The real intent of the five meter set back is
to make parking space free for public use and not
for use of said college.
Petitioners failed to point out irregularity
in National Building Code. Provisions, correction
of any in the code shall be undertaken by the
Congress and not by the Marikina City Council.
The Supreme Court distinguished two
types of police power. The general legislative
power and the police power proper.
The general legislative power authorizes
the municipal council to enact ordinances and
make regulations not repugnant to law, as may be
necessary to carry into effect and discharge the
powers and duties conferred upon the municipal
council by law.
Police power proper authorizes the
municipality to enact ordinances as may be
necessary and proper for the health and safety,
55
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
prosperity, morals, peace, good order, comfort,
and convenience of the municipality and its
inhabitants, and for the protection of their
property.
The Supreme Court tested the
constitutionality of Ordinance No. 192 and used
two types of test. The rational relationship test
and strict scrutiny test in order to verify whether
the ordinance violated the constitutional rights.
In rational relationship test, laws and
ordinance are upheld when they are rationally
further governmental interest. In that case, the
taking of land by St. Scholastica would rationally
further the government’s interest.
The strict scrutiny test compels the
governmental interest on absence of less
respective means in achieving their interest,
Therefore, it checks whether there are rights that
are violated, which is constitutional in nature,
when they tried to exercise police power. One
interest of general public requirement is its
exercise and the means employed are reasonably
fp92 failed rational relationship test because it is
not reasonably necessary and it is oppressive of
private right. When it is stated that it is not
absolutely necessary, it means that the means
employed are not necessarily reasonable. The 80%
feasibility which is imposed on the walls is not
necessarily reasonable to make sure that the same
thing would necessarily follow.
Because of the retroactive nature of the
ordinance, curative statutes are enacted to cure
defects in a prior law or to validate legal
proceedings which would otherwise be void for
want of conformity with certain legal
requirements. They are intended to supply defects,
abridge superfluities and curb certain evils.
Their failure to point out a regular or valid
provision in the National Building Code that was
supposed to be modified by Ordinance No.
192.The respondents provide a total of 76 parking
slots for their 80 classrooms and, thus, had more
than sufficiently complied with the law. So, the
Ordinance No. 192 is not curative and because of
the Separability clause, only Sections 3.1 and 5 of
Ordinance No. 192 are invalid and other sections
are enforceable.
The Government of Marikina acted in excess of
jurisdiction in enforcing Ordinance No. 192 and
the Court of Appeals decision is hereby affirmed.
So the respondents are to permanently desist from
enforcing or implementing Sections 3.1 and 5 of
Ordinance No. 192.
Lawful subject here applies the rational
relationship test/rational basis test and strict scrutiny
test. And there is an intermediate test.
These tests are used in the exercise of police
power to determine whether or not there have been
violation of the rights of citizens. The rational
relationship test is the basic minimum. Once an
ordinance or law passes that, then the courts will
move up. There are certain cases when it is really a
contentious fundamental right, it moves straight
away to scrutiny test. In this case, the Court
primarily used the rational basis test. Once it passes
the rational basis test, they move up to scrutiny test
because there was an allegation here of a violation of
due process, specifically substantive due process.
The purpose of the ordinance is to create
parking spaces but the implementation was not only
for the school but for other private properties to move
back the wall that has already been built. Or without
the wall, if they made improvements that needs to be
moved. We’re talking about private poroperties and
56
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
in this case, the land was owned by St. Scholastica.
So, the purpose to make more parking spaces and the
means under the ordinance was for the private
property owner to move the wall or to build a new
wall with the following requirements: 80%
feasibility, etc.
So the question the court asked was whether
the means employed by the ordinance or LGU
necessary to reach its goal of adding parking spaces?
If we look at it, the LGU, because the general
welfare has a leeway to create ordinance to benefit
the general public. But if you compare the benefit
that is derived from making more parking spaces, the
inconvenience that will happen or will result in
implementing that goal or purpose. Meaning, you
have to take the property or ask property owner to
demolish a property that has already been built and
build a new one.
So, is it reasonable? Under three strict scrutiny test,
there are three elements of strict scrutiny test:
1. Compelling state interest that needs to be
protected. That is why it needs to be a police power
act by the government. Is there are compelling state
interest in making more parking areas? No, it’s not a
compelling state interest.
2. Tailor the means and the methods that you
employ. The narrowest application of that particular
means or method. Meaning, you don’t create or
employ a method or means that is too broad that it
will affect even those which should not be affected.
Because the first element has not been met, there is
no need to discuss the second and the third element.
3. The means and method are reasonably
necessary to achieve the purpose and it is not
oppressive.
The difference for the rational relationship test and
strict scrutiny test is the first element. Because in the
first element, it’s compelling state interest whereas,
the requirements for rational relationship test:
Requirements for rational relationship test:
1. The interest of the general public etc. as
compared to a class is given importance.
Meaning, if you pass an ordinance or a law,
it creates the act of exercising police power,
thus creating the benefit to the general
welfare, public safety, health, and public
morals.
2. The means are reasonable, and it is not
oppressive.
Based on the case, it was not necessary to
achieve the goal. They could have made
other arrangements or made a parking
building. The means was not reasonable.
Other than the means was not reasonable, it
was a violation on the property rights of St.
Scholastica. This was not an exercise of
police power because you will take property
without just compensation. Thus, this case
should have been an exercise of eminent
domain, not an exercise of police power. It
did not past the test to become a valid
exercise of police power.
Legaspi v. City of Cebu
Facts:
In this case, the car of Atty. Jaban Jr. and
Sr. were immobilized by a steel clamp on two
different occasions. It were immobilized pursuant
to Ordinance No. 1664. On different occasions,
there were also clamping of vehicles made by the
City of Cebu to different people pursuant to the
same ordinance. This case is a consolidated case
before the RTC. The RTC, favored the petitioner
and declared ordinance no. 1664 void or
57
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
unconstitutional. Because it deprived the car
owner the right to use their motor vehicle. The CA
reversed the RTC’s decision. The principal thrust
of this appeal is the constitutionality of Ordinance
1664. Defendants-appellants contend that the
passage of Ordinance 1664 is in accordance with
the police powers exercised by the City of Cebu.
Issue:
Whether or not the passage of Ordinance
No. 1664 is a valid exercise of police power.
Ruling:
As said by the Supreme Court, police
power is lodged primarily in the National
Legislature. It cannot be exercised by any group or
body of individuals not possessing legislative
power. The National Legislature, however, may
delegate this power to the President and
administrative boards as well as the lawmaking
bodies of municipal corporations or local
government units.
The CA opined, and correctly so, that
vesting cities like the City of Cebu with the
legislative power to enact traffic rules and
regulations was expressly done through Section
458 of the LGC, and also generally by virtue of the
General Welfare Clause embodied in Section 16 of
the LGC.
Indeed, the LGUs would be in the best
position to craft their traffic codes because of their
familiarity with the conditions peculiar to their
communities.
Considering that traffic congestions were already
retarding the growth and progress in the
population and economic centers of the country,
the plain objective of Ordinance No. 1664 was to
serve the public interest and advance the general
welfare in the City of Cebu. Its adoption was,
therefore, in order to fulfill the compelling
government purpose of immediately addressing
the burgeoning traffic congestions caused by
illegally parked vehicles obstructing the streets of
the City of Cebu.
Did Ordinance No. 1664 meet the
requirements of procedural due process?
Notice and hearing are the essential
requirements of procedural due process. Yet, there
are many instances under our laws in which the
absence of one or both of such requirements is not
necessarily a denial or deprivation of due process.
The clamping of the petitioners’ vehicles
pursuant to Ordinance No. 1664 (and of the
vehicles of others similarly situated) was of the
same character as the aforecited established
exceptions dispensing with notice and hearing. As
already said, the immobilization of illegally
parked vehicles by clamping the tires was
necessary because the transgressors were not
around at the time of apprehension. Under such
circumstance, notice and hearing would be
superfluous.
The tests of a valid ordinance are well
established. A long line of decisions has held that
for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be
within the corporate powers of the local
government unit to enact and must be passed
according to the procedure prescribed by law, it
must also conform to the following substantive
requirements:
(1) must not contravene the Constitution or any
statute;
(2) must not be unfair or oppressive;
(3) must not be partial or discriminatory;
58
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
(4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
(5) must be general and consistent with public
policy; and
(6) must not be unreasonable.
To reiterate, the clamping of the illegally parked
vehicles was a fair and reasonable way to enforce
the ordinance against its transgressors; otherwise,
the transgressors would evade liability by simply
driving away.
If you remember the last case, it talks about
parking. The same is through with this case. But the
two cases (St. Scholastica and Legaspi) have
different results. Why? Because it’s different in
factual circumstances. While St. Scholastica’s case
involved private property, this case involved public
property. The discussion on notice and opportunity
to be heard was discussed in this case in such a
manner that it was not necessary at the point of
clamping for notice and hearing to be done because
the transgressors were not in their cars. But take note
that this is an ordinance, and for it to be valid, the
requirement is publication. Under criminal law,
ignorance of the law excuses no one. You are
therefore already considered notified of this
particular ordinance.
Because this is an ordinance, this is
considered a crime malum prohibitum. Since it is
malum prohibitum the violation itself is the crime.
When they saw the car illegally parked, it was
already considered a violation. However, there was a
discussion in the case that if the transgressors were
in the car, he has the opportunity to go away and find
a lawful parking space. Since the transgressors were
not in the car at that time, it was assumed that they
are notified of the ordinance, and thus the clamping
of petitioner’s vehicle is a valid exercise of police
power.
This case is the same with St. Scholastica in
that its purpose was to provide for the general
welfare a more accessible road for the comfort of the
general public. But in this case, in contrast with St.
Scholastica, the means were reasonably necessary as
these were not private roads but rather public ones.
Public roads should be used for public transportation
and not for public parking. Also, there was no
discussion on eminent domain because there was no
private property to speak of.
Manila Memorial v. DSWD
Facts:
On April 23, 1992, RA 7432 was passed
into law, granting senior citizens the following
privileges:
SECTION 4. Privileges for the Senior Citizens. –
The senior citizens shall be entitled to 20% on all
purchases made my senior citizens from all
establishments.
Sec. 2. DEFINITIONS. – For purposes of
these regulations: i. Tax Credit – refers to the
amount representing the 20% discount granted to
a qualified senior citizen by all establishments
relative to their utilization of transportation
services, hotels and similar lodging
establishments, restaurants, drugstores, recreation
centers, theaters, cinema houses, concert halls,
59
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
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 for value-added tax or other
percentage tax purposes. x x x x
Sec. 4. RECORDING/BOOKKEEPING
REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE
ESTABLISHMENTS. – Private establishments,
i.e., transport services, hotels and similar lodging
establishments, restaurants, recreation centers,
drugstores, theaters, cinema houses, concert halls,
circuses, carnivals and other similar places of
culture[,] leisure and amusement, giving 20%
discounts to qualified senior citizens are required
to keep separate and accurate record[s] of sales
made to senior citizens, which shall include the
name, identification number, gross sales/receipts,
discounts, dates of transactions and invoice
number for every transaction. The amount of 20%
discount shall be deducted from the gross income
for income tax purposes and from gross sales of
the business enterprise concerned for purposes of
the VAT and other percentage taxes.
RA 7432 deals with the treatment 20%
senior citizen discount. Under RA 7432, this
senior citizen discount was previously treated as a
tax credit. The 20% tax credit can be deducted
directly from your tax liability equivalent to a peso
to peso restitution.
Upon the reenactment of RA 9257 or the
Expanded Senior Citizen Act, RA 7422 was
amended and the 20% discount given to senior
citizens is now treated as tax deduction. Petitioner
questioned the said tax treatment as it contradicts
to RA 7422 which allows 20% discount and it is a
violation of the eminent domain which provides
private property shall not be taken without just
compensation.
Issue:
WON the 20% discount is now treated as
tax deduction is a violation of eminent domain or
unconstitutional.
Ruling:
The court held that no, it is not a violation
but a valid exercise of police power where just
compensation is acquired then contrary to the case
that it is of eminent domain which renders it
unconstitutional because it is not a peso to peso
reimbursement. The court noted that the tax
deduction does not reimburse the petitioner
because the discount is not treated as deduction.
However, the net income is definitely lesser than
the tax credit directly subtracted from the tax
liability.
The 20% discount under the RA 9257 does
not directly reduce the tax liability but is a peso to
peso basis. It only offers a fractional reduction in
tax that is why the petitioner brings in force the
compensation. However, the petitioner cannot
claim compensation because it is an exercise of a
valid police power. It is also intended to improve
the welfare of the senior citizen is less likely to be
unemployed and more prone to illness and
disabilities. It is also a regulation affecting the
responsibility of establishments pursuant to the
exercise of a valid police power to adjust their
products and services relative to special kinds of
individuals.
In problems of taking a property, the problem
is whether you classify it as a police power or
eminent domain, but both have totally different
requirements in the exercise of each.
60
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
In the case at bar, the argument was taking of
the property via eminent domain. In the amendment,
gross income will just be part of the deductions,
whatever is your net profit multiply the value of the
table, you will be taxed accordingly, there will be no
more deductions because it was already deducted.
Lawful subject – whether the law is in line
with the constitution. There is important to certain
classes of people: youth, employees, women, senior
citizens.
It comes under the lawful subject. The
purpose in line with the Constitution is to make their
life more comfortable. The means are reasonably
necessary as to discounts of the Senior Citizens.
Remman Enterprises, Inc. and Chamber of
Real Estate and Builders Association v.
Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate
Service and Professional Regulation
Commission
Facts: R.A. 9646 or Real Estate Service Act of the
Philippines was signed into law on June 29, 2009
by former President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo. It
aims to professionalize the real estate service
sector under regulatory scheme of licensing,
registration and expansion of real estate service
practitioners in the country. The internal rules and
regulations of R.A. 9646 was promulgated on July
21, 2010 by the Professional Regulation
Commission and the Professional Regulatory
Board of Real Estate Service under Resolution no.
2 series of 2010. On December 7, 2010, petitioners
Remman Enterprises and the Chamber of Real
Estate and Builders Association instituted a Civil
case in the Regional Trial Court seeking to declare
as void and unconstitutional the following
provisions of R.A. 9646.
Section 32 of R.A. 9646 provides that “No
partnership or corporation shall engage in the
business of real estate service unless it is duly
registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission [SEC], and the person authorized to
act for the partnership or corporation are all duly
registered and licensed real estate brokers,
appraisers or consultants, as the case may be. The
partnership or corporation shall regularly submit a
list of its real estate service practitioners to the
commission and to the SEC as part of its annual
reportorial requirements. There shall at least be
one licensed real estate broker for every 20
accredited salespersons.”
Petitioners argue that this provision of the law
violates due process laws as it infringes the Real
Estate Developers’ rights and their most basic
ownership rights which is the right to use and
dispose of such property as imbued in Article 428
of the New Civil Code.
Issue: Whether or not Section 32 of R.A. 9646 is
unconstitutional as it infringes on the rights of real
estate developers and hence, violated substantive
due process?
Held: NO. It is NOT unconstitutional. It DOES
NOT violate substantive due process. As this case
is not a deprivation of property and there was no
restriction as to the right of use and enjoyment of
the Real Estate Developers. The SC further held
that if the petitioners felt overburdened with the
new requirements such is an unavoidable
consequence of visible regulatory measure.
61
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
The SC further held that, no right is absolute, so
proper placing of profession, trade, or business,
especially if the conduct affects the execution of
legitimate governmental functions, preservation of
the state, public health, morals, and general
welfare, such must be considered a valid subject
for the legitimate exercise of police power.
The legislature also emphasized the importance of
professionalizing the real estate service sector
because it increases the competence of real estate
practitioners, it enhances their ethical standards
especially that real property transactions
nowadays are susceptible of manipulations, and
corruption. Most especially if this will fall in the
hands of unregistered or unlicensed people which
are working under ineffective regulatory system.
R.A. 9646 also aims to professionalize real estate
sector because this will be a contribution to the
Gross Domestic Product and the economy as a
whole as well as practitioners are expected to play
a vital role in spearheading the continuous flow of
capital, boosting investors' confidence and
promoting the overall national progress.
For these reasons, as the condition so demands and
as the legislature has determined, the property
rights of the real estate developers should bow
down to the supremacy of the police power of the
state.
Although property rights are sheltered by due
process, the ultimate goal of the property rights
should be/ must be yielded towards the general
welfare of the public. Moreover, the SC has
discussed that the police power is attributed to
promote the common good.
Implementing such, R.A. 9646 would lose
earnings and capitals in the process and because of
this the questioned provisions would be
invalidated. Furthermore, the SC said that if there
is an absence in evidence as to the confiscatory
effect of the law, then the presumption of validity
and constitutionality shall be upheld in favor of
everyone.
Discussion: So, this case is a very good example of
general welfare for everybody. Just, much like all
professions (nursing, engineering, etc.) it is regulated
by the state. If you can point out one profession that
is not being regulated by the state, then it probably is
an emerging profession, or something that just came
about recently. So, there’s really no question on the
power of the state to regulate. But here, the case just
discussed how the regulation is reasonable. If you
were able to monitor the real estate landscape for the
past years, they attempted to and succeeded in
professionalizing the real estate trade.
Before, you can simply take a review class, apply for
real estate broker. You don’t need a 4-year degree.
Now, there’s a requirement that you have to finish a
bachelor’s degree. So the goal is, to make sure that
all those who are involved in the real estate are
professionals. They are bound by conduct, ethical
standards, etc. It is because the practice or the
business of real estate is emerging in the country and
it is imbued with public interest.
It is a lawful subject of regulation, because it will
redound to the general welfare of the people. And
the means employed is to regulate it. To require real
estate businesses to hire only registered brokers,
agent, etc. So while it may affect the income flow of
real estate business, it might diminish their authority,
or their discretion on hiring– it is a valid exercise of
regulatory power or police power by the state
because of the purpose of making it professional,
making sure that the government has a mechanism to
check whether or not these professionals or those
involved in real estate business are doing what is
62
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
provided for by the law or what is expected from
them as participants in the real estate business.
There is also the discussion of equal protection, but
it will be discussed next year (2020). Equal
protection clause, because they tried to argue that
they were a different class. Why are they different?
Let’s find out next year (2020).
(IMBONG v OCHOA please read the digest in the
google drive instead)
HERMANO OIL MANUFACTURING &
SUGAR CORPORATION V. TOLL
REGULATORY BOARD, ENGR. JAMES S.
DUMLAO, JR. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (PNCC)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND
HIGHWAYS (DPWH)
Facts: Hermano oil owned a parcel of land near
Brgy. Sta Rita by NLEX. TRB built a fence which
deprived Hermano oil from accessing the property.
Hermano requested an easement of right of way,
stating that they have been deprived of enjoyment
and possession of the property due to the fence.
TRB denied.
Issue: Should the right of way be granted?
Held: NO. The putting up of the fence was valid
exercise of police power, and such can only be
assailed if it violates the right to due process and
equal protection.
A toll way is not an ordinary road, it is designed to
promote fast access to certain destinations so it
requires maintenance/regulation. As a special road
it is understood that not all forms of transport can
use it. Public safety requires certain restrictions to
different parts of the road therefore the access
fence was reasonable restriction. (RA 2000)
Sub-issue: But what about the areas (restaurants,
gasoline stations, etc) that were not restricted?
Held: Even some areas were unrestricted, this is
still valid because the owners provide service to
motorists.
Discussion: Let’s try to imagine, that you’ve been to
Imperial Manila (charing!) you will see beside it a
fence. Maybe the ones that have no fence are only
those in the overpass bridge. So, that was the
discussion.
The express way passes through private properties,
and the fastest is through the Hacienda Luisita. The
complainant of the case was asking, why was it
fenced? When they would no longer have access to
the expressway. Thus that was their contention–
there was no due process, deprived of the use of the
land, access to road, etc. The discussion with why the
toll/ expressway, is a different road from ordinary
roads. And why ordinary people can have no access
to the expressway. So it was defined in this case that
a toll road is different from a regular road. This is a
road intended for fast vehicles so that they can reach
their destination faster– reason why it is called
expressway. And there is a limitation to the access of
other private owners because of the nature of the toll
road. If they can freely create a pathway from their
private property to the expressway, they may be
harmed. And the fencing is actually pursuant to a
law.
63
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
The petitioner here argued that there are other
establishments which have access to the expressway.
Thus, the Court discussed equal protection, and why
was there a difference in treatment. The SC said that
those establishments provide rest time from a long
journey. They are differently situated from those
simply are private owners, who don’t have any
benefit that they can give/provide for the drivers.
There is a difference in treatment because they have
different situations.
Why was he deprived of his property without due
process of law? The answer to that is the fencing is
pursuant to law. Is it lawful then? Does the state have
power to fence? The exercise of police power, when
the deprivation of the property is because of a
compelling safety interest or even because there is a
rational relationship between the ends that the state
wants to meet and the means which is employed. So
in this case, the purpose of the expressway is for the
ease of going to your destination, so it is a high
speed– further protection is necessary.
(SKIPPED AQUINO and KABATAAN to finish all
other cases as AQUINO was already previously
discussed)
Ferrer vs. City Mayor Bautista
Facts: Oct. 17, 2011, a City Ordinance was enacted
(Socialized Housing Tax of Quezon City). Sec. 3
provides that a special assessment equivalent to
½% on the assessed value of land in excess of 100k
shall be collected by the city treasure accruing to
the city socialized housing program. The special
assessment shall accrue to the socialized housing
program. Quezon city council also enacted an
ordinance in 2013 for the collection of proceeds
from garbage fees to be paid together with real
property taxes.
Ferrer is a registered co-owner of 371 sq.m
residential property. He has been paying the realty
taxes and garbage fees. Respondent asserted that
the protection from informal settlers and collection
of garbage fees are basic functions of the Quezon
city gov. Respondent assert that the taxes and fees
apply to all owners without discrimination; that the
rates are consistent with the UDHA (Urban Dev’t);
that the garbage collection is an exercise of police
power.
Issue: WON the city properly exercised its police
power.
Holding: Taxation is not merely for revenue but
has regulatory purpose. This is primarily done in
the exercise of police power for the general
welfare of the city. This is beneficial to both the
underprivileged and the real property owners. The
situation will improve the value of the property
and will provide safety in the community. Property
rights are subject to reasonable limitations. As to
the socialized housing tax, it is imposed validly by
the city government. Sec. 43 of the UDHA allows
such power to be discharged for the efficiency of
basic services, programs and projects. As to the
garbage fee, the respondents argue that it is not a
tax because it is not imposed for revenue. A fee is
a charge fixed by law for the inspection of an
activity. The garbage fee is not a tax. If the
generating of the revenue is primary and
regulation is merely incidental, the imposition is a
tax. The second ‘fee’ is struck down as
unconstitutional for double taxation.
Discussion: This case discusses the relationship
between police power and taxation. Two ordinances
were questioned: the imposition of socialized
housing tax and the imposition of garbage fees. The
first is collected for socialized housing programs, for
relocation and construction, so it benefits all. This is
64
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
an exercise of police power although taxes were
collected. They are regulating the building of houses
and programs. As for the second, it is not already an
exercise of police power. Regulation should contain
all facets, (for inspection and for the application to
something) not just solely for garbage collection.
Hence, it was considered a tax. The money involved
is related to what the city is expected to do-purely a
measure to gain revenue. The first ordinance
provides benefit for the general welfare.
Police power which flows from the recognition that
the welfare of the people is the supreme law is the
plenary power vested in the legislature to make
statutes to promote public health, public moral,
peace, education, safety, and welfare of the people.
The people should not pay the government to do its
job. If it were for regulation of garbage collection
services, it would have been valid. In this case, the
garbage fee was purely for revenue. The difference
between taxation and exercise of police power is
the purpose of the imposition. The reason why
police power is easily confused with the other state
powers is that it is the least delimiting of the state
powers.
Imbong vs. Ochoa is included in the exam.
International vs. Green Peace
Facts: In 2010, a MoU was executed between Intl
Service (ISAAA) and UP Los Banos and UP Min
for the creation of BT Talong. NCBP issued a
completion certificate for the research. Green
Peace filed a Writ of Kalikasan against the project
members saying that the eggplant is detrimental to
the general welfare and public health. Green Peace
filed for a TRO. ISAAA questioned the validity of
Green Peace’s legal standing, and that the issue is
moot because the research has already been
terminated.
Issue: Can the government restrict the research
through the exercise of police power?
Holding: Health and ecological concerns can be
the basis of the exercise of police power.
Art. 2, Sec. 15, 1987 Constitution. “The State
shall protect and promote the right to health of
the people and instill health consciousness
among them.” Sec. 16 “the State shall protect and
advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology…”
The constitutionally ordained goals are compelling
state interests restricting the rights to property and
liberty. Restricting the rights to property and
liberty does not deny their holders due process of
law, provided there is a disputable rational
relationship between the regulatory measure and
legitimate purposes. The requirement of adopting
the least restrictive means to protect interests show
that there were alternatives considered and that
clear standards were considered. The court does
not consider the vaidity of the standards chosen.
The court must be convinced that there is such a
standard that was loosely applied.
Discussion: The case reiterated the three tests. The
tests determine whether the government action
infringes upon fundamental rights:
1. State scrutiny-the highest;
2. Intermediate scrutiny;
3. Rational basis/relationship test.
65
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
In the State Scrutiny, the compelling state interest
must be proven to justify the infringement.
The interest raised was the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology. According to petitioners, there are
dangers brought by genetically modifying the talong.
The Court decided that the issue on the talong is
already moot.
Rosas vs Montor
Facts:
On December 7, 2004, Jafar Saketi Taromsari
(Taromsari) and Jalal Shokr Pour Ziveh (Ziveh),
both Iranian nationals, arrived in the Philippines at
the Mactan-Cebu International Airport (MCIA).
After staying in a hotel in Cebu City for a few
days, they left for Narita, Japan on December 14,
2004.
On December 16, 2004, Japanese immigration
authorities discovered that Taromsari and Ziveh
had counterfeit or tampered Mexican and Italian
passports and used falsified names: "Jaime
Humberto Nenciares Garcia" for Ziveh and
"Marco Rabitti" for Taromsari. For using these
fraudulent passports and lack of entry visa, the
Japanese immigration authorities denied entry to
Taromsari and Ziveh and sent them back to the
Philippines. Taromsari and Ziveh and admitted at
the detention cell of the Bureau of Immigration
(BI) Cebu Detention Center. On December 17,
2004, security guards Elmer Napilot (Napilot) and
Jose Ramon Ugarte (Ugarte) received a written
order from petitioner directing them to escort
Taromsari and Ziveh from Bi Detention, Mandaue
City to MCIA pursuant to the aforementioned
exclusion order for violation of Sec. 29 (a) (17) of
Commonwealth No. 613 or the Philippine
Immigration Act(PIA)of 1940.9
On December 19, 2004, Taromsari and Ziveh were
released from detention and brought by Napilot
and Ugarte to the MCIA for deportation.10 They
were allowed to leave for Tehran, Iran via Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia on board Malaysian Air Lines.
On January 18, 2005, respondents Imra-Ali
Sabdullah and Dilausan S. Montor, employees of
the Bureau of Immigration (BI), Cebu, filed a
Complaint-Affidavit12 before the OMB against
petitioner, Napilot and Ugarte for grave
misconduct, violation of Section 3(e)13 of
Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 and conduct
prejudicial to the interest of public service.
Respondents alleged that petitioner irregularly and
anomalously handled and disposed of the case
involving two restricted Iranian nationals by
allowing them to leave the country without
initiating any proceeding for violation of
immigration laws considering that said aliens were
potential threats to the country's national interest
and security. It was further contended that the
Iranian nationals should have been charged for
deportation because they violated Section
37(a)(9), in relation to Sections 45 and 46 of PI A.
Issues: whether there is substantial evidence to
sustain the finding of the gross misconduct
warranting the petitioners removal for the service.
Ruling :
Every sovereign power has the inherent power to
exclude aliens from its territory upon such grounds
as it may deem proper for its self-preservation or
public interest. Section 1028 of the PIA of 1940
requires non-immigrants to present their unexpired
passports and valid passport visas to immigration
officers. Exclusion and deportation are formal
removal procedures which ultimately results to an
alien's removal from the territory provided for
separately under Section 29 and 37 of the PIA,
66
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
respectively. Under Philippine immigration laws,
exclusion is the authorized removal of an alien by
immigration officers, performing primary
inspection, or by the immigration boards of special
inquiry, by secondary inspection, of any foreigner
arriving in the Philippines who, upon inspection
and prior to entry or admission, is barred by
immigration laws, rules and regulations from
entering or being admitted to the Philippines.
When an alien is excluded he is immediately sent
back to the country where he came from on the
same vessel which transported him, unless in the
opinion of the Commissioner of Immigration such
immediate return is not practicable or proper.
Deportation proceedings, on the other hand, are
governed by Sections 3735 to 39 of the PIA. We
have stated that the power to deport aliens is an act
of State, an act done by or under the authority of
the sovereign power.36 It is a police measure
against undesirable aliens whose continued
presence in the country is found to be injurious to
the public good and the domestic tranquility of the
people. Having admitted that they knowingly
entered the country with the use of fraudulent
passports and false representations when they
arrived on December 7 , 2004, Taromsari and
Ziveh should have been ordered arrested and
formally charged with violation of Section
37(a)(9) in relation to Section 45(c) and (d).
Deportation proceedings should have been
initiated forthwith against these aliens. In this case,
petitioner had the duty under the law to oversee the
filing of criminal actions and deportation
proceedings against Taromsari and Ziveh and not
merely excluding them. Instead of filing the
appropriate criminal charge as mandated by law,
petitioner allowed Taromsari and Ziveh to depart
and return to Tehran via Malaysia. In failing to
initiate the proper proceedings against the Iranian
nationals and allowing them to escape criminal
charges and thorough investigation for possible
terrorist activities or human trafficking, petitioner
displayed a blatant disregard of established
immigration rules making him liable for grave
misconduct that warrants his removal from the
service.
Discussion: What was important here is that
deportation by the state is a police power. The
discussion in this case, in Constitutional Law 1, due
process is applicable even to inhabitants. Even in the
deportation and exclusion proceedings, you should
give the inhabitant, those who sojourn in the
Philippines or aliens, due process.
The discussion here on due process police power is
not an Ombudsman case of the person. But take note,
deportation proceeding is different from exclusion
proceeding. Although the effect is you will drive
away or advice the undesirable alien to leave the
Philippines. The exclusion proceeding will happen in
the Immigration when you present your travel
documents, when it is lacking or do not have really
the papers to allow you to enter the country that is
when you will be excluded. However, that is already
the due process that is required.
What happened on this case was, they jumped off
from the Philippines to Japan. But they were denied
in Japan because it was discovered that their travel
documents were fake. They were sent back to the
Philippines. Instead of a deportation proceeding,
because there was really a violation of deportation
laws of the Philippines when they presented fake
travel documents, it was exclusion proceeding which
was not the proper action. That is why it was an
Ombudsman case and it was the discussion of police
power on due process in this case. What is important
here, deportation and exclusion of undesirable aliens
is an exercise of police power because undesirable
aliens are ought to be a danger to the Filipinos or to
67
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
the inhabitants to the Philippines. The exercise of 3. Public Corporation
police power is the State has the power to remove or
advise undesirable aliens to leave the country. 4. Quasi-public Corporations

I. Executive

- As a general and fundamental principle, the

exercise of the sovereign right of eminent domain is
within the legislative power. Congress is the only
branch possessing the authority to delegate the power
or authorize the exercise of power. However, the
President with the authority expressly vested by the
legislative, can also exercise the same power.

II. Local Government Units

- The Local Government Code allows best

cities with legislative powers to enact rules and
regulations.

- The power to exercise eminent domain is

delegated to the LGUs so that the Congress will not
be burdened by the responsibilities because the local
government knows what would be the proper
measure to avoid, congestion, violation of traffic
E. DUE PROCESS AND EMINENT DOMAIN
rules, etc.
(ARTICLE III, SECTION 9, 1987
CONSTITUTION) - If the power is exercised by the delegate, it is
tested by: a valid delegation and whether it is within
Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for the delegated power.
public use without just compensation.
Requirements:

Primarily, the legislative is the one who may exercise 1. Necessity

eminent domain. However, by the power vested in
2. Private Property
the said branch, the legislative has the authority to
delegate its power. There is no need to exercise the power of eminent
domain, if the property to be taken is public property.
The power to exercise eminent domain can be
delegated to: What is deemed to be a private property?

1. Executive General Rule: All private property capable of

ownership may be expropriated; includes public
2. Local Government Units
utility or services
68
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
Exception:
a.) Money – futile because offsetting due to
payment of just compensation (usually in money)
b.) Choses in action – proprietary right in
personam (personal right) in something intangible or
which is not in one’s possession but enforceable
through court action (i.e. right of action in tort or
breach of contract, share in joint-stock company,
insurance claims)
Private property devoted for public use, i.e.
cemetery, is subject also to expropriation.
3. Taking
- There must be entry under the color of
authority. The period of entry is more or less
permanent.
(3) The entry into the property should be under
warrant or color of legal authority;
(4) The property must be devoted to a public use
or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously
affected; and
(5) The utilization of the property for public use
must be in such a way to oust the owner and deprive
him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property.
2 Different Types of Taking:
1. Possessory- depriving the owner of the
possession
2. Regulatory- there’s a government policy that
limits the owner of possessing the property. (E.g.
Road right of Way)

- There may be actual expropriation by

expediency. (E.g. The use of subdivision roads to
ease the traffic as in the MMDA Case) , if
4. Public Use
momentarily, it is allowable.
• For there to be a valid exercise of eminent
- But, if permanent, there must be a proper
domain, the expropriation must solely be for the
exercise of eminent domain.
purpose of public use.
- Taking may not be actual entry. It involves
• The benefit to the public could either be
any kind of dispossession. (E.g. You cannot
direct or indirect. Even if the direct benefit is only
construct a high-rise building near the runway).
minimal, the indirect benefit must also be considered
There is dispossession as you are prevented from the
(ex. public health, prevention of crimes).
right of usual enjoyment of the property.
• There are two test to determine whether or
- A number of circumstances must be present
not the expropriation is for public use: the Direct
in the ‘taking’ of property for the purposes of
Advantage Test and the Indirect Advantage Test.
eminent domain:

(1) The expropriator must enter a private

property; o The Direct Advantage Test will look at how
many people will out rightly be benefited.
(2) The entrance into the private property must
be for more than a momentary period;
69
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
o The Indirect Advantage Test will look at how
the public in general is benefited.
In the case of City of Manila vs Latio
Competitive closure which likewise constitute lawful
taking should be compensated by the government.
The burden of the owner to convert and transfer his
business otherwise permanently after the subsequent
violation should be borne by the public as this end
benefits them as a whole.
Initially if there is a private market, the city decides
to reclassify area of the private area into a residential
zone. Owner of the private market, should be
compensated for the loss of income by owner, and
his enjoyment of the profits therefrom.
Public use can be for the general welfare of the
people, but could also be broadened to those specific
people; segregate society as long as it is for public
purpose. For example, the executive department
grants a franchise land by private corporations to
expropriate, so that they can build power lines. While
they may be for profit, the services provided are for
public use (Private Communication Lines, Power
Distributors).
The taking is for public use even if the taking is by
private corporations. Health, provision of basic
services. The process of making roads, power lines,
and pipelines are not for public use before. However,
it has expanded, it allowed concessionaires to take
fees (roads with tolls). The concept of public use is
evolving, as long as it has become necessary for the
public. Before there was no concept of wireless
connectivity, the government may employ
concessionaires if they want to install a city wide
WiFi. Because of the needs, the court may allow such
as public purpose, when before it might decide not to
allow it because of lack of proof that it is needed by
the public.
Public use is an evolving concept. The best way to
find out if something is for public use is when the
Supreme Court says that it is. There are cases saying
what public use is.
Eminent Domain
Eminent domain is not limited to the use of
the public. Pwede gamitin ng private corporation.
The public will benefit. The end goal of eminent
domain is for the public welfare. One way or another,
there should be intent to provide services.
So there is this concept that the public use should
remain, or if it stops there should be something else
to replace it or else private owners can reclaim the
land.
Then there is just compensation. It is equivalent to
the real substantial and fair value of the property
taken. Determined as of the date taking, or filing of
complaint, whichever comes first. In Rule 67 Rules
of Court, there is a provision that the determination
of just compensation whether real or personal
property, the taking away of you power of ownership
or enjoyment should be determined when you file for
expropriation or date of the actual taking. There are
cases when government already took your property,
essentially taking your right to your property.
Due process, substantial and procedural. Now we
have the procedure, this is the general procedure for
expropriation. This doesn’t apply to cases of agrarian
reform process, because it is governed by a different
rule. Ito siya, it is general expropriation. This applies
to other delegates.
The requirements for exercise of LGUs to exercise
the power of eminent domain. Refer to Local
government code:
1. An ordinance is enacted by local legislative
council - ordinance NOT a resolution. Ordinance
70
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
must authorize the local chief executive to
exercise the power of eminent domain or to
pursue expropriation proceedings over a private
property. Hindi pwede general description lang.
2. The power of eminent domain for public
use, purpose, or welfare, or for the benefit of the
poor and landless - Take note of the limitation of
the LGUs. But take note, it is for the benefit of the
poor, the landless. It must be for the public
purpose or welfare.
3. There is payment of just compensation as
required Sec 9, Article III of the Constitution and
other pertinent laws. So, here the pertinent laws,
if the ordinance is silent, it refers to the Rules of
Court which has a provision regarding the
computation of the just compensation.
4. A valid and definite offer has been
previously made to the owner of the property
sought to be expropriated but said offer was not
accepted.
So there are two points in the last requisites,
that there is an offer for that particular property but it
was rejected by the private property owner.
So, that was the requisites for the LGU.
Now, as regards to the main procedure which is also
applicable to the LGU aside from these specific
requisites for the LGU, this will be the main
procedure.
There are instances na meron ng taking na wala pang
filing but the first thing you should do is dapat nagfile
kayo ng Petition For Expropriation sa court.
Jurisdiction is sa court, the RTC where the property
is located. So if nauna ang taking na walang filing,
ang impact nun is that, the just compensation will be
based on the day of the taking not on the day of the
filing because whichever date comes first. So kunyari
ang nauna is filing hindi ang taking, the petitioner,
which is usually the government, should want to
possess the property already, must deposit the
amount equivalent to the assessed value of the
property for the purposes of taxation in a government
banking institution. The initial determination of the
assessed value pwede mo siyang makita sa mga tax
declarations of the property.
But if nauna ang taking, the determination of the
court is whether or not there is public necessity,
whether it is really a private property, whether there
is valid taking.
Now, there are two stages in the procedure of
expropriation:
1. The condemnation stage – you actually take
possession of the property or exercise the real right
over that property. You already done the taking. The
process in the court is whether there is public
necessity, whether it is really a private property,
whether there is valid taking. The court issue a
decision whether it grants the expropriation or the
condemnation is validly done and that was a correct
exercise of the power of eminent domain or it will
dismiss the case. This first stage is appealable. But
15 days after the order is released and you do nothing
about it, the decision becomes final.
2. Ascertainment of the just compensation
stage - Under Rule 67, the procedure is the court will
appoint three (3) commissioners to determine the
value of the just compensation. In actual practice
that’s why 3, because dapat they are independent of
each other. They will submit a report to the court,
pwedeng iba-iba sila, or same sila and they will talk
about the value of the property and the court will
decide based on their individual reports and their
consolidated reports. It is the court who will decide
or determine the value of the just compensation.
71
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
Under jurisprudence, just compensation has been
repeatedly defined in general as, the market value. It
is a sum of money which a person desirous but not
compelled to buy and an owner willing and not
compelled to sell would agree on a price to be given
and received therefor. Just compensation is the
market value.
Also under the Rule 67, there’s the concept
of consequential damages and consequential
benefits. It’s not always that when you condemned a
property, the other properties will be injured.
Sometimes, they will be benefited, there value will
increase. For example, the development of the New
Clark City in Tarlac. Because of the development,
the value of real estate properties around the area
increase.
Base on the market value, you subtract the
consequential benefits. There is also time na there’s
consequential damages or injuries, so in that case,
you add your consequential damages to the market
value. But how about a part of it has consequential
damages and another part of it has consequential
benefits, you offset. What if mas malaki
consequential damage kesa sa benefit, then there is a
material damage. Pag mas malaki ang benefit kesa sa
damage, then there is a material benefit. Pag damage,
add it to the market value. Pag benefit, subtract to the
market value.
The definition of just compensation which is
the market value is affected by consequential damage
and consequential benefits or both. So that’s just
compensation.
There is a case, that under the rules, the
requirement is the court will assign individuals as
commissioners who will determine the value of just
compensation. But in that case it was the Bulacan
Provincial Board who determines the real estate
value in Bulacan,which is composed of three (3)
commissioners. The petioner here alleged that the
Rules of Court was not followed. But the Supreme
Court said, there was substantial compliance of the
Rules of Court. Because like the Rules of Court,
there were three individual persons, who are
independent of each other, determining the value of
the property. Once more, they were actually expert
on the field of determining the value.
Vda. De Ujano v. Republic
This case talks about the public purpose. One of the
basic requirements of the exercise of eminent domain
is public purpose. If the public purpose is gone, there
is a procedure to be followed. First stage: to
determine whether the exercise of eminent domain is
proper. What if the public purpose is gone or no
longer pursued by the government/expropriator?
The rules are
If the government has a new purpose/public purpose,
it can still expropriate/exercise its power of eminent
domain but it has to file a new petition for
expropriation for the court to determine whether if it
is still proper to exercise such power.
If the government/expropriator already abandoned
and there is no public purpose, then the private owner
of the property has the right to recover the said
property.
There are also instances when the procedures are
already completed. There has been a determination
of the propriety and payment of just compensation.
If that is the case, the private owner has to buy back
the property. In the case where only the first stage
has been completed, of course there is no exchange
of money yet, the private owner has the right to just
compensation but only to the extent that he has been
deprived of his ownership.
72
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
If the government has taken the property, there is
some disturbance.
Without exchange of money yet, the private owner
has the right of money to the extent that the was
deprived of the ownership because there is already a
diminution of the property.
Republic v. Tatad
A portion of land was expropriated by the
government and there are private people who are
claiming to be the owners of that portion of lot. The
government also stepped in and claimed that the said
property is the property of the Republic of the
Philippines.
Issue : Can the court, in the same expropriation
proceeding, be given authority to adjudicate the
ownership of the property?
Who owns the private properties? It is important to
determine the owner because the just compensation
should be paid to the owner of the private property
being expropriated.
Ruling : Yes, the Court has the jurisdiction to
determine who among the claimants or who among
the parties involved has the right to receive the just
compensation. The Court can determine who has the
standing to be part of the expropriation case.
Sy v. Local Government of Quezon City
This talks about interests as to the payment of just
compensation. The issue is on the second part of the
procedure of expropriation which is the payment of
just compensation. The determination of just
compensation is either from the date of the actual
taking of possession or from the date of the filing of
the case, whichever comes first.
For example, the court has already ruled on the just
compensation. The Court ruled that the property
owner is entitled to One million pesos but the
government failed to pay the just compensation for
about 5 years.
Issue : Does the private owner has the right to collect
interest? At what rate?
Prior to June 2013: Legal Interest can be divided into
12% or 6%
After June 2013 : Whatever amount the legal interest
is at 6%
Just take note of the date.
SC: Yes, they are entitled to collect the legal interests
of the unpaid just compensation.
Secretary of DPWH v. Tecson
Facts: The subject property was taken sometime in
1940, without the owner’s consent and without
necessary expropriation proceedings and used for the
construction of the McArthur Highway. This case
was decided in 2013.
Issues
W/N the private property owner can initiate
an expropriation proceeding given the amount of
time lapsed.
W/N the private property owner can recover
just compensation.
SC: Yes, the action for expropriation DOES NOT
PRESCRIBE. If all the elements are present, then the
expropriation can be filed anytime.
Can the private property owner question the
propriety or public purpose of the exercise of
73
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
eminent domain? No, the private property owner can
no longer question such. It has already been 60 years
- concept of laches (failure to seek or claim your right
within a reasonable period of time). The right to just
compensation will also not prescribe. In this case, the
just compensation value was computed from the day
of the taking of the property.
Inverse/Reverse Condemnation -
Typically, the power of the State is eminent domain.
The process in which the government exercises this
power is condemnation or expropriation.
In inverse/reverse condemnation, the private
property owner files the petition for expropriation,
the government does not care. In this instance, the
government uses the private property even without
filing the appropriate expropriation proceedings.
Because the government does not file an action, the
private property owner initiates the expropriation
proceeding. The same stages will be followed.
What he/she asks the court is just the 2nd stage.
Meaning, he concedes that there is public purpose.
The determination of the value of just compensation.
NPC v. Cruz
Rule 67, Rules of Court : The procedure requires that
the Court should appoint 2 individuals to become
commissioner to determine the value of the just
compensation. Here, the Court appointed the
provincial appraisal committee of Bulacan. The
petitioner questioned such appointment because
according to NPC, it was deprived of due process
because of the non-compliance with Rule 67 of the
Rules of Court.
SC: There was substantial compliance to the rules.
Due process was given to NPC.Essentially, the
provincial appraisal committee was actually
composed of three individuals who have expertise in
determining values of real property.
De Coco v. CA
This talks about the concept of eminent domain but
in relation to agrarian reform. There are specific
provisions regarding agrarian reform and urban
development in relation to the exercise of eminent
domain.
In this case, Presidential Decree No. 27, there are
provisions on how a particular person may be
deprived of its property through the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program of the government.
There are administrative stages. Normally, it is the
court which will determine at the onset what is just
compensation. Here, there is an administrative
ground. There could be a negotiation between the
private property owner and the government (from the
Department of Agrarian Reform). If they reach an
agreement, DAR will fill in Court. It will essentially
take the place of propriety and just compensation.
This makes the process easier.
If it is part of the Agrarian Reform program, it is
always taken for public purpose.
RA 6657 where the SC laid down what is already
provided for in the procedure of the Department of
Agrarian Reform in the criteria for determining just
compensation. It is actually based on the Circulars,
Memoranda of DAR regarding the determination of
just compensation.
LBP v. Ababag
Section 17 of RA 6657 enumerates the factors which
must be taken into consideration after the amount of
74
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
just compensation has been determined to be
awarded to the party in a particular case.
Section 17. Determination of Just Compensation. —
In determining just compensation, the cost of
acquisition of the land, the current value of the like
properties, its nature, actual use and income, the
sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations,
and the assessment made by government assessors
shall be considered. The social and economic
benefits contributed by the farmers and the
farmworkers and by the Government to the property
as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans secured
from any government financing institution on the
said land shall be considered as additional factors to
determine its valuation.
This criteria will be the basis of the officers in
determining whether or not the computation of just
compensation is correct. There will be times when
the procedures will not stop in DAR because one or
both of the parties are not yet contented with the
amount. It will be raised to the courts of justice. The
courts of justice also have guidelines to determine
whether or not there has been proper determination
of just compensation.
The Court is given more leeway, even if it is outside
these parameters, so long as it is an equitable factor
or paremeter. The courts can actually change or
modify the valuation computed by the DAR or
DARAP.
Manila Memorial v. DSWD
In this case, it involves the 20% discount of the
senior citizens. Is it an exercise of police power or is
it an exercise of eminent domain? It is an exercise of
Police Power so because it is police power you
should use the concepts of police power not eminent
domain. No need for just compensation.
Republic v. Ortigas
This talks about the road widening of the DPWH
project in C5 road extension. The issue is WON
Ortigas can sell the property being a subject of
expropriation. The portion of the road used in road
widening belongs to Ortigas. Can Ortigas sell the
portion of his lot to the Government instead of
having the property expropriated? Yes, because he is
a private owner and a private owner has the right to
dispose, enjoy or destroy his property. And if the
government is amenable to the sale, why would you
go to the process of expropriation which is more
cumbersome. Because if you remember, there is a
process of negotiated sale with the private property
owner.
Hermano Oil v. TRB
This case is about the property deprived of access in
express way. The issue in this case is that according
to the owner it was eminent domain. His argument
was that the exercise of eminent domain is does not
mean physical taking only but diminution,
deprivation and etc. according to him, the
Government should compensate him because a
portion of his property was blocked by a fence so he
was deprived of access in the toll road. However, this
is not a case of eminent domain but a case of police
power. In police power, there is no necessity to say
whether that particular property owner entitled just
compensation.
Landbank v. Lajom
This discusses agrarian reform. In this case, the court
discussed the evolution of agrarian reform in the
Philippines. There is an issue here if what law should
be used. Again, when the legislative delegates the
power to exercise eminent domain to a delegate, here
to delegate is the agrarian reform because they are
implementing the agrarian reform program. What
law should that particular implementing agency
follow? Given the history of the agrarian reform
75
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
program, marami na ang agrarian reform laws that
were passed and because there is a change in the law
and in a certain portion of time, a particular agrarian
law will control in the substance and procedure in the
exercise of the power of eminent domain in relation
to agrarian reform. What law should apply? The start
of the expropriation was during the effectivity of the
earlier agrarian reform laws, but it was never
finished. The process, the procedure was never
finished, until the RA 6657 took effect. So the private
property owner and the government finished were
trying to finish the process during the effectivity of
RA 6657. The issue is WON it’s the previous laws,
or the current agrarian reform laws should be used in
the process of expropriating the property.
Sc: we apply the later law. RA 6657. Because the
previous expropriation proceeding was never
finished. It never came into provision, there was no
ruling of any tribunal, any court, as to the propriety
as to the exercise of eminent domain etc. and the
substantial process of the determination came about
only when RA 6657 Was effective. So that law
should be used to determine whether there is
propriety to exercise the power of eminent domain
and if yes, what is the value of just compensation?
Take note of the factual circumstances in the case.
Republic v. Heirs of Borbon
This actually talks about the concept of public use is
no longer limited to the ancient meaning of public
use but it has evolved in public interest, public
benefit, and public convenience.
Mercado v. LBP
Talks about agrarian reform but more specifically as
to the determination of just compensation. If you
remember, there is an administrative level in the
determination of the propriety in the determination
of the just compensation, but it eventually reaches
the court. Here, it was emphasized that the
determination of just compensation is essentially a
judicial function. Therefore, the court cannot be
boxed as to the determination of the administrative
bodies because it is its exclusive power to determine
the value of the just compensation. So whatever the
findings of the agrarian reform, it not intended to
limit the court on what the value of its determination
by a particular property taken by the government
because it is the judiciary that has the final say as to
the value.
Republic v. Mupas
This case was already discussed before in the topic
due process. And in the process of eminent domain,
meron commissioners na mag adjust ng value of just
compensation. In this case, there was a procedure
before the commissioners, the parties submitted the
necessary documents which will show the
commissioners what the value of the property is.
After they made a report, they submitted it to the
court, but they did not give a copy to the parties. The
parties complained and said it was a violation of their
right to due process. The court said, no the report is
just a product of their pleadings, the documents that
they have submitted. So they are duly notified on
what the content of the report is because it was just
based on the documents they presented.
Second issue: WON due process was granted? Yes,
because they were given notice and the opportunity
to be heard.
If you remember our discussion on interest rates and
the procedure, one of the rights of the govt when it
exercises its right on eminent domain, if the
government really wants to occupy the property, the
government can deposit the amount of the market
value of the property to a government financial
76
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
banking institution. So that the govt can possess and
take the property.
Issue: what if after the determination that there was
propriety of the exercise of eminent domain, and then
after the determination of the value of the just
compensation, correct yung value na na deposit but
the government bank failed to release the money
within a reasonable period of time. So the private
party is asking for interest. WON the private property
owner has the right to demand for interest?
Held: NO, the depositing by the govt the value of the
just compensation to the government bank is already
considered payment to the private property owner.
The government is not liable for interest.
***But there is also a case in your case list wherein
the Court granted the private property the interest.
With the same situation because the delay was so
unreasonable that despite several demands of the
private property owner, the government did not make
any payment. And when the government is not
making any effort to release the value of the just
compensation. Take note that the availability of the
money as payment for just compensation is subject
to legislation. Remember the concept in Consti 1 that
no public money can be disbursed unless it is based
on an appropriation made by congress.
NPC v. Manalastas
WON: in computing just compensation, should
inflation rate be considered?
Held: No, because the effect of inflation is already
considered in the grant of interest. Every year, every
month there is a certain inflation rate. It is the
increase In the value of goods services etc. because
of inflation. In relation to just compensation, what if
the payment is much farther away from the date of
the taking? There is the grant of interest because you
were deprived of your property and you have
unrealized income. The interest rates granted to the
private owner will take the place of the effect of
inflation as to the value of whatever property has
been taken by the government in its exercise of its
power of eminent domain.
De Knecht v. Bautista
Who are the persons having interest in the property
to be expropriated? Its not only the owner but all
those who may be interested because they have
certain rights over the property. Example lessee-
lessor, usufructs, etc – those persons may be
involved and they must also be compensated in the
expropriation of the property that was taken away.
Republic v. PLDT
The government wants to inter-connect with PLDT.
Government said interconnection is an exercise of
police power, PLDT said no its an exercise of
eminent domain because you took away our property
for public purpose so you should justly compensate
us.
Held: its exercise of eminent domain. The act of
depriving PLDT of its full use of transmission lines
and . because there is taking of property which is
lines and services, so PLDT should be justly
compensated.
JANUARY 17, 2020
DUE PROCESS AND EMINENT DOMAIN: (for
reiteration)
- There are two steps in the procedure of due
process
77
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
1. Determination of the propriety in the exercise In instances where the property has been taken by the
of the power of eminent domain. government before but there is no expropriation
proceeding that was filed by the government
• When the Court rules that there is propriety,
this means that the exercise of eminent domain was - The party’s negligence in asserting their right
proper. over their private property despite the knowledge
that the property has already been taken by the
• May attain finality if there is no appeal or government for public purpose, is a waiver of their
when the private parties will not question it. right to question the propriety of the exercise of the
power of eminent domain, but it does not erase the
fact that he has been deprived of his private property
When it becomes final the right to question has been and is entitled to just compensation.
waived and/or that the private parties affirm the
decision of the Court that the propriety is proper,
since when finality is achieved it can no longer be
questioned.

• Because there is an opportunity to question

that propriety of the exercise of the power of eminent
domain, it may stay in the first stage for some time
when this opportunity is exercised by the private
parties.

• It is the Supreme Court who decides whether

the expropriation proceedings will continue or not. If
the Court decides the continue with the proceedings,
then we move on to step # 2. If not, then the
expropriation will cease to exist.

2. Determination of the value of just

compensation.
DUE PROCESS AND TAXATION
• In this stage, the parties still have the right to
question the determination of the Court of the value TAXES
of just compensation.
- enforced proportional contributions from
persons and property levied by the law-making body

78
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
of the State by virtue of its sovereignty for the
support of the government and all public needs
TAXATION
- the inherent power of the sovereign,
exercised through the legislature, to impose burdens
upon subjects and objects within its jurisdiction for
the purpose of raising revenues to carry out the
legitimate objects of government.
LIFEBLOOD DOCTRINE
- The existence of a government is a necessity
and thus the imposition of taxes is also a necessity
since the government cannot operate without it,
being that it is the governments means of funding its
expenses, thus for these reasons the government has
the right to impose such burden on its citizens.
-
“Taxes are the lifeblood of the government
and their prompt and certain availability is an
imperious need.”
The primary purpose of taxation is to gain revenue.
Sometimes the power of taxation may be coupled
with police power, this means that aside from the
purpose of generating revenue it also has a regulatory
aspect, such as excise tax.
Taxation as an inherent power of the State:
-The Constitution merely limits the exercise of this
State Power, one limitation is due process thus
concepts and discussions on due process apply to
taxation. This means substantive and procedural
aspects are also present in the exercise of due process
in this inherent power.
Substantive Aspect (Article VI, of the 1987
PH Constitution)
Sec. 28 (1), Article 6 (Basic Principle) “The rule of
taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The
Congress shall evolve a progressive system of
taxation.“
- Uniform, meaning that taxes will be uniform
for those who are similarly situated. (e.g. Individuals
who earn more than the minimum wage are taxed at
a different rate than those who are earning minimum
wage)
- Equitable, this means that the tax imposed
upon taxpayers must be within their ability to pay
taking into account their living conditions and
expenses.
- Progressive System of Taxation, a system of
taxation wherein the tax liability of an individual
increases alongside their taxable income, meaning
the higher the income; the higher the tax rate is. This
also implies that imposition of direct taxes should be
greater than that of indirect taxes.
- Sec. 28 (2), Article 6 (Delegation to the
President of taxing powers) “The Congress may, by
law, authorize the President to fix within specified
limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions
as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export
quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties
or imposts within the framework of the national
development program of the Government.”
Sec. 28 (3), Article 6 (Instances when tax exemption
is applied) “Charitable institutions, churches and
parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto,
mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands,
buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and
exclusively used for religious, charitable, or
educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.”
Sec. 28 (4), Article 6 (Tax Exemption) “No law
granting any tax exemption shall be passed without
79
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of
the Congress.”
This is substantive because it gives Congress a guide
on what it can and cannot do with regards to taxation.
other substantive basis:
- National Internal Revenue Code
- Tariff and Customs Code
These are substantive since it holds information on
taxes, tax rates, date of payment of taxes, how to pay
taxes and includes substantive provisions on the
procedure of the payment.
Procedural Aspect
- Based on what is provided for in the law and
eventually the rules and regulations set by
governments agencies (e.g. BIR, BOC)
- Due process is applied when a there exists a
tax violation which calls for an investigation by the
BIR.
For example, when a taxpayers’ tax payment is
deficient or lacking than that of what is imposed
upon him/her which results in an investigation by the
BIR against the taxpayer. If after investigation they
have determined that the amount paid was indeed
lacking, they cannot immediately accuse the
taxpayer of tax evasion.
• The taxpayer must be informed of the
findings of the investigation and be given the chance
to explain and pay the deficiency.
• All of the steps that is necessary for the
taxpayer to be given due process must be followed.
TAX EXEMPTIONS [Sec. 28 (3) & (4) of Article 6]
- A privilege granted to a select few.
- Strictly construed against the taxpayer.
- Burden of proving tax exemption rests on the
taxpayer.
Taxpayer cannot invoke the defense of
deprivation of substantive due process when he/she
failed to prove exemption from tax.
• Absolute Tax Exemption
(Charitable Institutions, Religious Institutions…
etc.)
- Institutions falling under this category and
their use of properties cannot be taxed
• Conditional Tax Exemption
(Private Educational Institutions… etc.)
- Institutions that are under this category are
partially exempt from tax, subject to the conditions
provided by law.
Example of Due Process to Tax or Custom Cases
(will be discussed in Taxation 2)
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS
- One of the main powers or obligations of Bureau of
Customs is to levy cost of duties of imports. It needs
to pass through the Customs before it is released
because Customs will check what kind of taxes are
applicable and to see whether the import products are
allowed to be in the Philippines.
- There is a process of seizure of prohibited products
- The process will be once it enters Customs, it will
be seized by Customs officials. Usually there is a bill
of dating (a contract, a receipt, etc.). It will tell you
what are inside the package and who the consignee
is. The consignee and consignor has the right to
question the seizure under the Tariff and Custom
80
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
Laws. They can file pleadings or they will directly go
to Customs and defend why these products are
allowed to be in the Philippines. After five days, the
Customs will decide. For example the Customs
official will deny the plea to release it, an appeal can
be made by the consignee or consignor. The Customs
official cannot deny them the right to appeal,
otherwise it will be a violation of due process. Even
after the appeal, if the decision is still unfavorable to
the consignee or consignor, they can still raise the
case to the Court of Tax Appeal. That is how you
grant Procedural Due Process to Tax or Custom
Cases.
Equal Protection – Section 1, Article 3
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty,
or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
WHAT IS EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS?
- The second part of section 1, article 3
- The guarantee of equal protection of laws is not a
guarantee of equality in the application of laws upon
all the citizens of the state. It is not therefore a
requirement in order to avoid constitutional
prohibitions against inequality that every man,
woman and child should be affected alike by a
statute. Equality of operation of statute does not
mean indiscriminate operation of persons merely as
such but the persons according to the circumstances
surrounding them.
- Equal Protection can be better understood probably
if we discuss the requirements on how laws are to be
applied in relation to equal protection. There should
be a valid classification.
- Equal Protection does not mean that all of us,
citizens or all corporations, should be equally treated.
The treatment of individuals or juridical entities must
be based on their classification.
- Meaning if there is no valid classification between
individuals or corporations or other entities or
groups, then the treatment must be equal.
- Equal Protection presupposes that all are of the
same classification. Because equal protection is not
a guarantee of equal treatment, its requisites will tell
you that a treatment can be different if there is valid
classification.
- The General Rule is all that are similarly situated
should be treated alike. But once there is valid
classification, treatments can be different.
- Equal Protection in relation to procedural due
process, the law must be applied equally to those who
are in the same class.
- The treatment for those in similar class can be as to
the rights conferred or to the liabilities imposed.
For example: There is a new law on taxation
involving all corporations. All corporations which
have an outstanding capital stock of 100 Billion.
They are classified differently. This means the rights
that are conferred to them and the liabilities imposed
should be equal among them.
- Similar to Due Process, Equal Protection has TWO
ASPECTS:
1. SUBSTANTIVE – the law will provide for the
standards of enforcements such as who are included
or to be affected by the law. The law will provide for
the classification.
2. PROCEDURAL – the actual implementation of
the law. Equal protection must not only be found in
the law itself but must also be exercised. Such that
even though the law itself passes the tests required to
say that this law does not violate equal protection,
81
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
but when it is implemented, the effect has violation
to equal protection, it is then presumed to be a
violation of equal protection.
- It is not enough that substantive part is met. But in
its implementation, equal protection must also be
observed.
- There must always be a valid classification
- The question that should always be raised is “why
are we treated differently? What is our classification
that will separate us from all others?”
Elements or Requirements of a Valid Classification
1. There must be a substantial distinction – if the law
will classify a certain group as different, the
difference must be substantial.
For example: Anti Violence against Women and
Children Act – it only protects violence against
women and children. It does not protect violence
against men.
Case of Garcia v. Drilon – you will see why there is
a substantial distinction between men and women.
The court enumerated the substantial distinction.
One important distinction is that the statistics show
that violence is directed against women and children
compared to those directed to men. The requirement
is met by the law because there is really a substantial
distinction between men and women.
2. The classification must be germane to the purpose
of the law – germane means related to or a necessary
aspect of the purpose of the law.
Case of Garcia v. Drilon – the purpose is to reduce
the violence against women and children and to
prevent and punish violence against them. What is
the classification? The classification made is men,
women and children. Why are they separated? Is the
classification to different groups necessary? Yes
because what is needed is to reduce the percentage of
violence which are directed to women and their
children that are usually done by men. There is a
necessity of the classification.
SOUTHERN LUZON DRUG CORP V. DSWD
FACTS:
In Southern Luzon Drug v DSWD, there is a
petition assailing the Decision of the Court of
Appeals which dismissed the petition for
prohibition filed by Southern Luzon Drug
Corporation (petitioner) against the Department of
Social Welfare and Development, the National
Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons (now
National Council on Disability Affairs or NCDA),
the Department of Finance and the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (collectively, the respondents),
seeking to prohibit the implementation of Section
4(a) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9257, the
Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003, and
Section 32 of R.A. No. 9442, which amends the
"Magna Carta for Disabled Persons," particularly
the grant of a 20% discount on the purchase of
medicines by senior citizens and persons with
disability (PWD), respectively, and treating them
as a tax deduction due to the reason that claiming
it affects the profitability of their business.
The petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged
in the business of drugstore operation in the
Philippines while the respondents are government'
agencies, office and bureau tasked to monitor
compliance with R.A. Nos. 9257 and 9442,
promulgate implementing rules and regulations for
their effective implementation, as well as
prosecute and revoke licenses of erring
establishments.
82
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
ISSUE:
Whether or not the sales discount for Senior
Citizens and PWDs violate the petitioner’s right to
equal protection of the law.
RULING:
No, the subject laws do not violate the equal
protection clause. The equal protection clause is
not infringed by legislation which applies only to
those persons falling within a specified class. If the
groupings are characterized by substantial
distinctions that make real differences, one class
may be treated and regulated differently from
another." For a classification to be valid, (1) it
must be based upon substantial distinctions, (2) it
must be germane to the purposes of the law, (3) it
must not be limited to existing conditions only,
and (4) it must apply equally to all members of the
same class.
Atty. Derije:
In the case of Southern Luzon Drug v DSWD, the
class that is separated here are the senior citizens and
the differently-abled. The younger and able-bodied
individuals raised a complaint, “Why are we not
given the discount?”
The purpose of the 20% discount for senior citizens
is to make their life easier, to lessen their burdens
because they have already served their fruitful years
in the service of the Filipino people. For PWDs,
because they are differently-abled, there are certain
things that they cannot do, or they cannot achieve,
that they are deprived of in society because of their
different disability.
Now the younger and able-bodied, they complained.
So is the classification of the government in granting
20% discounts to senior citizens and differently-
abled germane to the purpose of the law to lighten
the load of those who are already burdened? The
answer is yes. The discount is necessary in order to
achieve the purpose of government, to ease the life
of those who need and deserve it. Again, that is a
valid classification. The differently-abled and the
senior citizens are created or categorized into a class,
and they are given certain rights that are not given to
the youth or those who are able-bodied individuals.
Next condition or requirement is that the
classification must not be limited to existing
conditions only. This means that the law that is
passed or the classification that is made will be
dynamic. It will transcend generations. It will apply
to similar people even after so many years of the law
being implemented. It does not mean a classification
for a specific view or conditions or circumstances for
whatever is happening in the present. The output of
the law must be looking forward. From the present
but looking forward, that it does not relate or apply
to conditions only happening now, but must still be
happening in the future and it will apply similarly to
those people who are similarly situated now who
may be similarly situated in the future. For example,
again senior citizens, those who are young today but
will become senior citizens in the future. The law
will apply when they reach that or when they become
part of that classification. Or maybe an able-bodied
person meets an accident, unfortunately, and
becomes disabled and can no longer perform those
things which he can do prior. In the future, they will
be covered in that classification. The classification is
not limited to existing conditions only.
And the fourth and final requirement, the
classification must be applied equally to those of the
same class. This requirement is actually part of the
procedural due process, or the actual implementation
83
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
of the law that is being questioned. Meaning, while Valid Classification
one-two-and-three has been met by the law, the
substantive portion, but in the implementation of the Requirements/Elements:
law itself, there is a violation of equal protection,
1. There must be a substantial distinction. If the
then it will still be a violation of the clause. So
law will create a class, the difference must be
number four is met when in the application, it is
substantial.
applied equally to those in a similar class.
Ex: VAWC only protects violence against women
If you remember in our discussion of substantive due
and their children, it doesn’t protect violence against
process, there are three levels of tests: rational basis,
men. In Garcia v. Drilon, the Supreme Court shows
intermediate, and then strict scrutiny. In the
why is there SUBSTANTIAL DISTINCTION in
determination of whether or not the substantive
VAWC. The Court enumerated the disctinctions.
aspect of equal protection is met, the Supreme Court
First, is in violence against persons, the statistics
uses the rational basis test, a legislative classification
show that there is more violence directed against
to survive an equal protection challenge must be
women and their children, compared to violence
shown to
directed against men. Historically, the court says,
1) rationally further legitimate state interests that men has been the more dominant sex, women
(for example, what is the state interest in granting the had to fight for certain rights that were originally
discount to senior citizens and PWDs, to alleviate only given to men. Men usually imports their
them from their conditions, to unburden them, to dominance through violence. There is a substantial
reward them among the senior citizens specially, is a distinction between men and women.
legitimate state interest, which are legitimate state
2. The classification must be germane to the
interests because the Constitution has social justice
purpose of the law. It must be a necessary aspect
provisions where “we give more in law to those who
of the purpose of the law.
have less in life),
Germane meaning: It is related to, or necessary
2) the classification must be reasonable (which
aspect of the purpose of the law. In Garcia v. Drilon,
means the classification is in relation to the first and
the purpose of VAWC according to the Court, is to
second element of a valid classification, which
prevent violence against women and their children.
means there is substantial distinction and that the
What is the classification? Men and Women and their
classification is germane to the purpose of the law,
Children. Was it germane that Men, and Women and
which ties up this second element/requisite of the
their children be classified into different groups? In
rational basis test to the first and second requirement
relation to the substantial distinction requirement,
of a valid classification, as in the case of VAWC,
because there is protection needed to reduce the
there is distinction between the protection of women
percentage of violence directed to women and their
and their children vis-à-vis the protection of men in
children which are usually perpetrated by men, There
society) and finally,
is a necessity for the classification.
3) the classification must rest upon some ground
Southern Luzon Drug Corporation v. DSWD : The
of difference having a fair and substantial relation to
class separated are the senior citizens/differently-
the object of the legislation.
abled/etc. The purpose of 20% discount is to make
84
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
their lives easier/lessen their burden. THe purpose of
the discount is to make their lives easier, lessen their
burden, because they have already served their
purpose in the service of the people. For PWDs, they
are differently abled, there are certain things which
they cannot do, or achieve. They are deprived
because of their disability. Is the classification of
government in granting discount germane? which is
to lighten the load of those who are carrying a
burden? The discount is necessary in order to achieve
the purpose of the government. It is a valid
classification. The seniors, etc. are categorized as a
class.
3. Classification must not be limited to the
existing conditions only. The law, or the
classification made will be dynamic and
transcend generations. It should apply to
similar people, even after so many years since
the law was effectively implemented. The
outlook of the law must be looking forward.
It does not apply only to conditions
happening now, but it should also apply to
conditions happening in the future, and it will
apply to similarly situated people now, as
with people similarly situated in the future.
EX: Senior Citizens of the future who are not yet
seniors now, the law must apply when they
become part of that classification. Similarly,
Able-bodied persons now, who meets an accident
in the future, must be afforded the same rights
given to disabled persons , when they finally
belong to the classification (of disabled persons).
The classification must therefore be not limited
to existing conditions only.
4. The Classification must be applied equally to
those of the same class. This is part of the
procedural due process or the actual implementation
of the law that is being questioned. Meaning, if
requisites 1 thru 3 is met by law (substantive) but If
in the implementation of the law itself, there is a
violation of equal protection, it is still a violation of
the clause. It (the requisite) is met if in the
application, it is applied equally to those who belong
to the similar class. In substantive due process, there
is the three level test. In the determination whether or
not the substantive aspect of ep is met, the supreme
court uses the Rational Basis Test. A legislative
classification, to survive the equal protection
challenge, must be shown to rationally further
legitimate state interests. In the constitution, for
example, there is the social justice clause. Where it
gives more in law, those who have less in life. The
classification must also be reasonable. This means,
In relation to the first and second element of a valid
classification (substantial disctinction, and the
classification must be germane to the purpose of the
law).
5. The Classification must rest upon some ground
of difference, having a fair and substantial
relation to the object of the legislation.
Equal Protection of Laws
All persons subject to legislation should be treated
alike under like circumstances and conditions both in
the privileges inferred and liabilities imposed. The
guaranty exists to prevent undue favor and privilege
to some unjust discrimination when similar subjects
are treated differently.
Probations on economic equality, political equality
and social equality
These probations will actually tell that there is a bias
for certain classes of the society.
Eg. Economic Equality under Sec 14 Art 2 “The
State recognizes the role of women in nation building
85
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the
law of women and men”
This not actually an absolute equality between men
and women because there are substantial differences
between men and women. For example, Natural
Differences. Women have uterus and men doesn’t
have. Women are given maternity leave whereas
Men are given Paternity leave which is limited to 7
days
Its recognition, while there may be a fundamental
equality of men and women, there are actually
substantial differences in certain aspects.
Section 11 ART III FREE Access supports in quasi-
judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall
not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.
It tells that there is a fundamental equality to access
the courts. The constitution provides for a bias
against those who experience poverty to go to court
or to seek the help of the courts.
Sec 5 Art VIII This is in relation to Art 3 Section 11,
“The Supreme Court has the power to promulgate
rules concerning legal assistance to the unprivileged”
One of their powers is to promulgate rules and
regulations, that’s why it is in relation to Art 3 Sec
11 because access to courts or how will you enforce
your rights to courts is govern by the procedures
promulgated by the supreme court. (How will
Indigents go to court) So the SC is given power of
how will it be implemented
Last year, there is new rule on assistance to
indigenous people or under poverty. People under
those classifications don’t have to pay for lawyers.
There is actually requirement on how to prove that
you’re indigent or the income level is not sufficient
to hire or retain a lawyer. That’s why they are given
free access to courts because these people has no
means unless they’re given opportunity
Art XII Sec 2 Par 3 The congress may, by law allow
by small-scale utilization of natural resources by
Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming,
with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish-
workers in rivers, lakes, bays and lagoons
The general rule is that all land, water, air , trees and
etc are owned by state. The government is guided to
create laws which will make the utilization of natural
resources but the preference is the cooperative
fishing so they can live day by day. There is actually
to those who are less in life.
Sec 10 Art XII of the Constitution gives preference
to the Filipinos in general as against Foreign
Businesses or Interests
ART XII Sec 2 is a general statement of Social
justice, should give more in law to those who are less
in life
Then we have political equality Sec 10 of Art IX (c)
Candidates of any public office shall be free from
any form of harassment. When you meet the
qualifications under the law to run a campaign, you
should not be arbitrarily be deprived of that right to
file a certificate of candidacy, to run a campaign for
any position in the government or be chosen as a
leader.
Sec 1 ART XII General Expression of Social Justice
One example of political equality is the case of Ang
Ladlad vs. COMELEC,
This case involves the registration of Ang Ladlad (an
LGBTQ partylist), The COMELEC division
assigned to determine whether the registration is
proper denied the registration on moral grounds
citing the passages from Bible, Quran and provisions
86
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
of the Revised Penal Code and etc. Under the
Partylist systems Act, there is an exclusive ground
there for the disqualification or cancellation or denial
of registration. For example, If you are a foreign
party, finance by a foreign party or if you commit
violence in the achieving goals as a party. The Ang
Ladlad raise the case to En Banc division and
eventually reached the Supreme Court. The SC said
that there was a violation of Equal Protection.
Requirements on valid classification among
others:
1.) There must be a substantial distinction
Is there any substantial distinction between guards as
s class, nurses or members of LGBT? And use the
passage of the Bible in denying the the registration
of the Ang Ladlad.
- SC said thet there is no substantial
distinction.
- The party list system act must be used sa Ang
Ladlad and all others that applied to the COMELEC
for registration.
- The purpose of the law to register is to make
sure that this who are registered are not under those
who are unrepresented, marginalized, etc. and the
grounds for disqualification or cancellation serves as
parameters as wo whether or not you are either
marginalized etc.
2. The Classification must not be limited to
existing conditions only and the classification
must be applied to those of the same class.
Since all of them should be treated to be of the same
class since they represent their sectors, the law must
be applied to them equally, it must be the same law
that must be applied to them. Not one, two or few
should be burdened by the application of laws which
are not only not related but are not laws in the first
place. For example, the Bible or Quoran, which are
not statutes or a constitution, hence should not be a
legal basis for the rulings of the court.
- Here, there was a violation of the equal
protection of the laws.
Economic or social equality
Quinto v COMELEC
The Omnibus election code states that those who file
their candidacy who are appointive public officials
are automatically severed from their public office
once they file the certificate of candidacy. Whereas,
for those who are elected into office, such as mayors,
vice mayors, governors etc., they are still public
officials but even if they file their certificate of
candidacy, they are not automatically severed from
their office.
The Supreme Court said that there is a substantial
distinction between a public officer who is elected
and a public officer who is appointed. One of the
biggest differences is that under the Constitution,
appointive public officials are not entitled to exercise
partisan political activity. Meaning they cannot
campaign, cannot run for office. Whereas, the
elective public officials, yun yung kanilang
ginagawa, partisan political activity. The APP have
different set of work like sa COA. So, there is a
substantial distinction and the effect of them in filing
a certificate of candidacy is also different. There is
no violation of the equal protection of law because
there is a valid classification. The purpose of the law
is really to implement the provision of the
Constitution.
Case of Halus-os(?) and Trillanes – wala sa syllabus
Halus-os was already convicted. Trillanes was then a
detainee, not yet convicted. This are two cases. The
87
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
issue in the first case was whether or not Halusos has
the right to attend sessions of congress because he
was just elected as a congressman. The SC said no REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE
since he was not the same as all other congressman
The right to be secured pertains to the right of
for being convicted of a crime, hence deprived of
persons, their houses, their papers and effects. Papers
liberty. In the case of Trillanes, he made a distinction
are documents, private documents. Effects are your
and said that he was not yet convicted, innocent until
personal properties like gadgets. The right pertains to
proven guilty. The case filed against him was coup
these things and it’s actually implemented under the
de ta which is a rnon-bailable offense. He said that
Rules of Court – Search Warrant is under Rule 126
he should be given the right to participate as his job
of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and Warrant of
as a senator. But the SC still denied.
Arrest is under Rule 113, still under the Rules on
The question there as regards equal protection was Criminal Procedure.
whether or not there was a substantial distinction
Petron LPG v. Alo, the case provides the
between senator Trillanes and all other senators
requirements under search warrant. What you need
because he was still considered innocent. The SC
to do to make your search warrant reasonable. There
said that you are still in a different class because you
are also warrantless searches but is considered
are under inditement for a non-bailable offense,
reasonable. The general rule will be there should be
while the others, wala silang kaso, or if meron man,
a valid search warrant.
it is bailable. The difference is, if it is bailable, there
is a provision in the Constitution which says you may Requisites of a valid search warrant
be free and enjoy the rights like any other person.
Whereas for those which are non-bailable, the 1. Probable cause is present.
Constitution lawfully deprives you of your exercise
of political rights and of your liberty, therefore you 2. Such probable cause must be determined
are in a different class. Thus, there is a substantial personally by judge.
distinction.
- This tells you that the search warrants are
Atty. Dejire: READ OTHER CASES AND judicial warrants. It is a court of justice which issues
MEMORIZE BY HEART ALL THE BASICS. it.
ALWAYS START WITH, WHETHER OR NOT
3. The judge must examine personally in
THERE IS A VALID CLASSIFICATION.
writing and under oath or affirmation the
BOTH SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL complainant and the witnesses he may produce.
MUST NOT BE IN VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL
4. The applicant and the witnesses must testify
PROTECTION
on the facts personally known to them.

5. The search warrant must specifically describe

the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

If you look at Rule 126, this will give you the

procedural due process requirements, whereas the
88
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
substantial or the basis of the right is under the
Constitution – Section 2 of Article III. A search
warrant under Rule 126 is a technical term. It is
defined under Section 1 as an order in writing issued
in the name of the People of the Philippines signed
by the judge and directed to a peace officer
commanding him to search for personally property
described therein and bring it before the court.
Usually, a search warrant is connected with a
criminal case or a criminal proceeding. However, the
process of obtaining a search warrant is not a
criminal procedure. It is not a criminal process. If
you remembered, there is a different required
evidence in criminal procedures. That’s why in the
process of obtaining a search warrant, the
jurisprudence and the law actually makes the weight
of evidence necessary to obtain it lesser that a
criminal trial or procedure because it is actually to
aid enforcement agencies or the government to
obtain evidence or to prove any criminal activities.
The quantum of evidence in obtaining a search
warrant is merely probable cause.
In ABS-CBN v. Gozon, it will actually tell you that
the term probable cause is not exclusive to search
warrant. Under the case, there are four instances
where there is requirement to determine probable
cause. While essentially, probable cause is the same
in all these proceedings, weight of the evidence that
is necessary, it is defined differently in each instance.
There is a separate distinct definition of probable
cause when you talk about probable cause in search
warrants.
Instances where there is requirement to determine
probable cause
1. There is probable cause during a preliminary
investigation stage.
- This is where the determining officer is the
public prosecutor, the city or municipal prosecutor,
the prosecutor’s office, to determine whether there is
probable cause to indict somebody of a charge. It is
a different definition of probable cause but the same
weight of evidence of probable cause necessary.
2. Warrant of arrest or commitment order
- This is determined by a judge once the
criminal case is already filed in court.
3. When there is a determination by an
enforcement officer, a police officer, military or even
a normal citizen, in the instances where a warrantless
arrest is allowed.
4. Search warrant
How does the Supreme Court define probable cause
in search warrant cases?
The definition of probable cause in warrant of arrest
cases in the case of Laud vs. People and People vs.
Breis:
Probable cause in a search warrant is defined as, “a
fact and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that
an offense has been committed and that the object
sought in connection with the offense are the place
sought to be searched.”
This definition of probable cause in a search warrant
talks about requirement no. 5, that the warrant must
specifically describe the place to searched and the
things to be seized.
The search warrant must pertain to a single criminal
offense.
This definition is related to these two (2) elements:
That a reasonably prudent or discreet man, if he/she
is shown acts and circumstances, he would believe
that it is an offense that has been committed. And in
relation to the issuance of a search warrant, that the
89
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
effects of the crime or those things which are used in
the crime are in the place which are described in the
application and the things to be seized are also
specifically described therein.
Later on, that the words in the definition of the
probable cause will change as to that wordings. Still
they are connected with one offense but there is
reasonable belief that the person sought to be arrested
committed a crime.
Regarding further information on what kind of
process vis-à-vis a criminal procedure of search
warrant, read World Wide Web vs. People, which
tells you that “a warrant of arrest or search warrant
merely constitute a process which is a special and
peculiar remedy drastic in its nature and made
necessary because of public necessity.” Although it
is akin or similar to a criminal process, it is not so
because of the weight of evidence made necessary
which is just probable cause.
The next requirement is that probable cause is
personally determined by a judge.
That requirement is found both under the provision
of the Constitution (Section 2) and also under Rule
126.
Under Section 4 of Rule 126, a search warrant shall
not issue exempt upon probable cause in connection
with one specific offense to be determined personally
by the judge after examination, under oath, or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce and particularly describing the place to
be searched and the things to be seized which may be
anywhere in the Philippines.
A lot of cases assigned under the search warrant will
tell you the kind of personal examination that a judge
must undertake in order to determine probable cause.
The procedural requirements are at no. 3. The judge
will examine in writing and under oath or affirmation
the witnesses and complainant because it’s usually
the enforcement officers or a private person which
will apply for a search warrant.
Under the rules, there are two (2) scenarios:
One is before a criminal case is filed in court. You
can actually apply for a search warrant.
Search warrants can also be applied during a criminal
trial proceeding to discover more evidence. Or when
the accused is withholding the evidence.
Under the rules in Section 2, if you want to obtain a
search warrant before a criminal procedure or before
the criminal case has been filed in court, it can be
filed at any court within the territorial jurisdiction of
the place where the crime is committed. Before the
filing of the case, you file it in a Regional Trial Court.
There are instances where in can actually be filed
outside the territorial jurisdiction of where the crime
was committed but only in compelling
circumstances.
For example, when all the courts or judges in Davao
are not available to issue a search warrant, it can be
issued in the judicial region.
Also, it can be filed in the territorial jurisdiction of
where the search warrant is to be implemented but
then it again it requires compelling circumstances.
For example, the crime was committed in Davao
City. Goliath was murdered by David with the use of
a “pintik”. David, being terrified, ran off to Tagum.
A police knows that David hid the weapon in the
drawer in his house in Tagum so he chased David. In
a murder case, it’s important that the subject of the
crime is presented in court. So for an instance there
is a compelling circumstance in Davao that there are
90
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
no courts nor judges and there is a need for the 2. Search warrant can be obtained in the place where
weapon used in the crime to be searched in the house the search warrant will be implemented (only in
of David, the search warrant can be applied in compelling circumstances)
Tagum.
Example: If the crime was committed in Davao City,
But the general rule is, if a criminal case is yet to be but the search warrant will be implemented in
filed, it should be filed where the crime was Tagum, the search warrant can be obtained in the
committed. Because in criminal cases, the venue of court of Tagum when there is no available court or
crime committed is jurisdictional. The court in other judge in Davao to issue the search warrant.
places cannot take jurisdiction because it is only
within the jurisdiction where the case or legal General rule: If no case is filed yet, the search
remedies may be filed. If the case has already been warrant must be obtained in the court who has
filed, the rule is it should be filed only in the court territorial jurisdiction (where the crime was
where the case is filed. You cannot ask for search committed). It is also in this court where the
warrant in any other court. aggrieved party can seek for legal remedies.

A. Obtaining a search warrant before a criminal B. If the case is already filed:

procedure or before a criminal case has been filed in
1. The search warrant must be obtained where the
court.
case is filed
It can be obtained in any court who has territorial
2. The search warrant cannot be obtained in any other
jurisdiction over the crime (where the crime was
courts
committed).
In the case of Lahum v. People (A.M. 03-8-02-S6,
EXCEPTIONS:
Section 12, Chapter 5 of the Administrative Matter),
In compelling circumstances (no court or judge is the NBI, PNP, and Anti-Crime Task Force can apply
available in the territorial jurisdiction) - cases where for a search warrant in the RTCs of Manila and
a search warrant can be obtained in courts other than Quezon City in special criminal cases involving:
those who has the territorial jurisdiction
1. Heinous crimes
1. Search warrant can be obtained in the judicial
2. Illegal Logging
region
3. Illegal Possession of firearms
Example: If the crime was committed in Davao City,
then there is no available court or judge in Davao 4. Violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
City to issue the search warrant, the enforcing officer
can apply for a search warrant in the courts belonging 5. Intellectual Property Code
to the 11th judicial region (Davao del Sur, Davao del
Norte) 6. Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001

7. Tariff and Customs Code

91
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
They can file a case in Manila and Quezon City even
if the crime is committed anywhere in the
Philippines.
The Search warrant, if granted, can be implemented
anywhere in the Philippines
It is the supplement to Rule 126 on where you can
file the application for the search warrant.
REQUIREMENT NO. 2: The judge must be the one
to hear the witnesses.
It is either in open court when it intervenes the
propriety of the issuance of the search warrant.
Requirements under the rule
1. Apply for search warrant in courts who has
territorial jurisdiction over the case or in compelling
circumstances in judicial region courts where it
belong or in the court where the search warrant will
be implemented.
2. The judge will schedule it for hearing (he will ask
the complainant or witnesses), which the
complainant or witness will present the searching
questions.
*What are searching questions?
1. They are not template questions
2. They are based on the application for search
warrant
3. There must be personal knowledge requirement
(the complainant or witnesses must actually saw the
incident or the knowledge must be personal not
relayed by others)
4. They are based on the personal assessment of the
complainant or witnesses
5. The judge must also examine the under quoted
affirmation
6. The applicant and the witness must testify the facts
personally known to him
* The SEARCH WARRANT must specifically
describe
1. The things to be seized
This requirement does not require absolute
particularity, just a description that will make the
things to be seized identifiable from any other things
of similar kind.
2. The place to be searched
It must be specific and can be simply determined
Specificity/Particularity
Enforcement officers can determine exactly the
things to be seized and where to find these things. It
will not give them the discretion to search anywhere
else and anything else.
Right of privacy in relation to right to be secured –
right to privacy can be diminished based on your
expectation to privacy
For example:
1. In your home
If there is higher expectation of privacy because it is
your home, where you live, etc., but when you come
out of your house, when you go to school, your
expectation of privacy is diminished.
2. In the classroom setting
The teacher can approach you when you are in
school, but he cannot approach you when you are in
the house. Which means when you, a student, is
92
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
inside your house, the teacher cannot go directly to secure against unreasonable seizures. But the
inside the house, he must knock or ring the doorbell. actual implementation must also follow the rules.
The teacher should respect the privacy of your home.
But when you are in school, your expectation of If there is a description of things which is stated in
privacy is different. the search warrant but is not related to the crime, the
entity or the owner can actually question it since it is
not related to the offense. He can recover it and shall
not be used against him.

Requirement of probable cause – only needs to show

3. In the airport that the crime has been committed and it was
committed by the accused. Probable cause reminds
When you go to the airport, you must go through the
more than suspicion, it requires evidence which
xray. Else, if you don’t want to go through it, then
justifies a conviction.
you may opt not to go to the airport.
The things to be seized shall only be those related to
In different aspects of your life, expectation of
the search warrant.
privacy will lesson because the reasonableness of the
search or the seizure will also be dependent on what People v Reyes – there is a concept of articles.
your expectation of privacy is. Things which are left in public place for hours, which
gives the right for enforcement agencies and citizens
Example:
to search it for safety reasons. There is a right to be
You are using a private computer in an internet shop, searched.
you inserted your flash drive which contains love
letters then you forgot to log it out and other people
read it. Your expectation of privacy in this case is
lessened because you actually allowed your private
stuff to be entered into a public space.

Legal basis of search warrant is defined in Sec. 1

Rule 126

Take note

PLDT v Alvarez – talks about particularity of the

things to be seized and requirement of application of
search warrant must pertain to a single offense and
only those particularly described which should be
related to the offense can be seized.

There is a procedure and an actual implementation.

Procedure must be followed to not violate the right

93
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
LEGITIMITATION OF A SEARCH WARRANT
Under Rule 126, it concludes the procedure on the
issuance of a search warrant and also it governs the
procedure on the implementation of a search warrant.
So, to be valid, it must comply with all the
requirements that has been discussed previously.
And it was discussed also, that it is not only the
validity of the search warrant itself but also the
implementation of the search warrant.
Under Section 9 of Rule 126 on time of making the
search, the rules provide that "[t]he warrant must
direct that it be served in the day time,” (so, the
General Rule is for it to be served at the day time)
“…unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on
the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in
which case a direction may be inserted that it be
served at any time of the day or night."
So, because the General Rule is, that a search warrant
should be implemented at a day time, if the
enforcement officer, the complainant, wants it to be
implemented on another time, maybe on a specific
time because probably the criminal activities happen
on a certain time or night time. It must be also
discussed during the hearing and the issuance of the
search warrant and it must be provided for in the
search warrant itself.
Usually when a when the thing to be seized or to be
searched is on the person, going back to the example
on David.
Q: What if David did not let go of the pintik? Dinala-
dala niya lang because it’s his “baby”. It’s very
important for him dahil pinagpaguran niya yung pag
sculpt nung pintik. “Ayoko mawala ito sa akin.” So,
because a person is mobile, even if for example is
disabled while also being in locomotion and a thing
might be in the person, and it’s difficult for him to be
searched only during the day time, because he is
always moving.
A: The search warrant may then contain a provision
that, the search warrant may be implemented anytime
of the day, because of that circumstance.
Q: Or again, what if the criminal activity happens
during nighttime or during the wee hours of the
morning?
A: So, it must be specifically implied for, and must
be contained in the search warrant. Otherwise, the
person may search; the owner or the place being
searched, may risk a violation, risk a violation on his
due process rights because of the unreasonableness
of the time when the search was conducted.
An enforcement officer may also– if it is in a house.
Remember that it is included in right to be secure,
with others being: (1) persons, (2) houses, (3) papers
and (4) effects. If it’s a house, it’s gated with Pitbull,
Bulldog, Chihuahua…
Q: If for example, the owner of the place to be
searched do not respond but the enforcement officer
has reasonable belief that they are inside, this
commonly happens when it’s there’s a “pot session”
(not personally but– based on jurisprudence) they are
usually quiet.
94
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
A: So, the rules provide under Section 7 Rule 126–
“Right to break door or window to effect search. –
The officer, if refused admittance to the place of
directed search after giving notice of his purpose and
authority,”
So, it’s usually “Ayo, ayo!” or if it’s English,
“Knock, knock! Knock, knock! I’m here to search
your house. I have a valid warrant obtained… I’m
police officer from the City of Davao…” He’s
announcing his authority as an enforcement officer
with a valid search warrant. And if he’s refuse
admittance, he has the authority to break the place.
“…may break open any outer or inner door or
window of a house or any part of a house or anything
therein to execute the warrant to liberate himself or
any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully
detained therein.”
It’s not only the entrance, what if once the officer
enters he’s being held at gunpoint. Then the officer
is authorized to break the window in order to escape.
Thus, that’s how Section 7 of Rule 126 is applied.
In drug-related cases, as supposed to have also been
discussed in Criminal Law 2 or in cases wherein
there are things to be seized, there is a ground for
Chain of Custody (RA 9165). In drug-related cases
wherein it is governed by a special law– RA 9165
and its amendments, there is a more elaborate Chain
of Custody when you already seize the item which is
a part or a subject of a crime.
Under Rule 126, there is also a Chain of Custody. For
any other case, which is not governed by any other
special law– for example, RA 9165, it will govern the
seizure of drugs, drug paraphernalia and etc. For
other crimes, Rule 126– there should be a detailed
report.
Q: What if during the implementation, peaceful
naman? The police enforcement officers were then
allowed to search the house, the room, or the place,
peacefully.
A: Section 11 provides that, “The officer seizing the
property under the warrant must give a detailed
receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of the
premises in whose presence the search and seizure
were made, or in the absence of such occupant, must,
in the presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient
age and discretion residing in the same locality, leave
a receipt in the place in which he found the seized
property.”
So, the General Rule is when peaceful, dapat nandun
ang lawful occupant, they should accompany the
enforcement officer in the conduct of the search.
After that, a receipt will be given to him on whatever
was seized in the place where it was seized.
In more sophisticated cases, usually the enforcement
agencies coordinate to the counsels of either– in
house counsels, or private counsels, of the persons or
entity being searched. Such that during the search,
their lawyers are present.
So, in the one I (Sir) experienced, we just have to
follow the enforcement officers– “Sir, ano yan?” But
you don’t really have to tamper because that is
Obstruction of Justice. So, one may raise their
objections by only saying, “I don’t think that’s part
of the search warrant.” In a nice way, because they
are still in control of the situation. You won’t want
them to be offended. But if there’s no presence of a
lawyer, as long as there are two (2) lawful occupant–
that is what we call the Two-Witness rule
(“…witnesses of sufficient age and discretion
residing in the same locality...”). The purpose is to
make sure that the search was done properly. So that
in any objection, they could stand as witnesses–
whether or not the objection or what happened is true
or not.
95
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
The validity of a search warrant is 10 days from date
of issuance not from date of the receipt of the
enforcement officers. After that, the search warrant
shall be void. The complainant must apply again. But
in the case of a warrant of arrest, it is different.
Assuming there is a valid implementation of the
search warrant, the things which must be seized are
in Sec 3 of Rule 126. Even if the thing is specified in
the warrant, it must still conform to one of these
three.
1. It must be the subject of the offense
For murder, the murder weapon; for possession of
illegal firearms, it must be the ammunition;
2. The stolen proceeds or fruits of the offense
This involves offenses relating to property or money.
For example, if it earns interest.
3. Those used or intended to be used as a means
of committing an offense.
For example, it is the weapon intended to be used to
murder.
The general rule is, for a search to be valid there must
be a valid search warrant. However, a search may
still be considered reasonable and is not a violation
to the right to be secure if it is among the exceptions.
Valid warrantless searches or seizures
1. Search of a moving vehicle
This may be confused with checkpoints. But a search
of a moving vehicle is allowed because of the nature
of a moving vehicle-it is moving. The most important
element that the enforcer or citizen who implements
this warrantless search is reasonable suspicion of a
criminal offense. There should be an initial
determination of reasonable suspicion that there is
criminal activity. It can be said that the determination
is a determination of probable cause but reasonable
suspicion is less than that. Most probable cause cases
are used in processes-application for warrant of
arrest; the determination of the judge, etc. Usually
there is prior information given to an enforcer that
there is a criminal activity or they tell him that there
is marijuana or illegal drugs. But this is not enough;
there must still be a personal determination by the
officer that there is criminal activity. During the
search of a moving vehicle, the first thing that
officers must do is visual search of the car. ‘Sir, mag-
inspect lang ko.’ If there is reasonable suspicion
again, kunware my eyes are bloodshot, fidgeting,
they can inspect and ask you to alight from the
vehicle. They can ask you to open your compartment,
but you have the choice not to. But if through their
visual search they see a gun, and ask you for a copy
of the permit to carry and you cannot show it, that is
already a crime. In this case, from a visual search,
they can now conduct a warrantless arrest.
In the case of Epie v. Ulat-Marredo, they flagged
down a truck, but instead of stopping, the truck sped.
That is already reasonable suspicion, so here they
saw illegal lumber.
Search incident to a valid arrest:
This falls under either a valid warrant of arrest or a
valid warrantless arrest.
Under valid warrantless arrest:
First: Under Sec 5 of rule 113: Arrest without
warrant when lawful, a peace officer or a private
person without warrant may arrest a person when in
his presence the person to be arrested has committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
the offense.
96
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
Second: When the offense has just been committed,
and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that
the person to be arrested has committed it. ( this case
is a hot pursuit )
Here, when the person to be arrested has committed
a crime within a reasonable amount of time, then
arresting him without a search warrant is okay.
Because if you wait or go on the process of applying
for a warrant then the person in question might
escape for good.
Third: When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
who has escaped from prison or is serving final
judgement or is temporary confined during a pending
case or when he has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another. (This is arrest of
an escapee )
Under valid warrant of arrest:
A search may be conducted after a valid arrest. There
are following requirements for the search namely:
1. The arrest must be lawful: The search rests on
the validity of the arrest. Arrest must be proper and
proven to be so or else the search becomes
invalidated.
2. The search must be limited to space and time:
It must be made at closest possible opportunity after
the arrest and there must be no considerable lapse of
time. The reason for this is to protect the person
being searched and to prevent the enforcement
officer to commit any violation of the law such as
planting of evidence. Limited as to space where the
person being arrested is in a vicinity where he has
effective control so that he cannot cart away evidence
or conceal weapons.
Drug use is drug possession. Is cellphone material?
The case is drug use and drug possession. The answer
is no. When it is drug pushing, cellphone is material.
Only those which are material. What if you see an
ammunition, what should you do? You should ask
for the permit to carry or the license. Because you are
under violation, you have to do the process again. If
it is another violation, you have to look up to the law
if it is violated or not., this is already reasonable
suspicion of pushing.
The requirement for a search incident to a valid arrest
1. A valid arrest
2. The search must be limited to time and space
Most of the cases cited under search incident to valid
arrest will discuss, first and foremost, the validity of
the arrest. And if there is such valid arrest, they will
discuss whether the search incident to a valid arrest
is properly claimed.
The rule is, when there is one violation, all the seized
items are no longer considered “fruit to the poisonous
tree”. It is each violation. The court will look at it
singly and not as a whole. Only the parts of operation
can be considered invalid and not the whole
operation. If it is not the case, it is unduly burden to
the enforcement police officers.
Plain View Doctrine
When the seized items are in plain view. It has
requisites and you just have to memorize it. Plain
view is you will see the evidence to be seized in plain
view.
Requisites
1. The law enforcement officer in search of the
evidence has a prior justification for intrusion or is in
position from which he can view the particular area.
• There are two elements in one requisite. First,
prior justification or he has authority to be there. Or,
97
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- ATTY. JOHN FREDERICK E. DERIJE
1-ESTRELLADO 2019-2020
he has no authority to enter yet, his viewpoint, he can plain view but it could be search incident to a valid
already see the papers, effects, or evidence of a arrest because it was in his immediate control.
possible crime.

What are the instances where there is prior

justification? When is there valid search warrant. For
example, in search incident to a valid the arrest, in
the immediate place where he has control. You have
prior justification when you enter.

2. The discovery of the evidence in plain view

is in advertent.

• Meaning, it was not intentional. Advertent is

when you chance upon the evidence, effects or paper
or whatever subject of the crime

3. It is immediately apparent to the officer that

the items he observes maybe evidence of a crime,
contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure.

• That is why it is plan view because he can see

it.

The questions in the Bar exam relating to plain view

are usually to test whether it is in plain view.

One instance, the marijuana is discovered in a plastic

and put inside the box and seized by the police. The
question is, whether there is a valid search or seizure
because of plain view? The answer is no because it
was not in plain view. But of course, do not stop
there, when you learn all the valid searches, there are
maybe other valid justification for the search and not
only plain view.

Another, during the search, there was a hanged

cellophane on the wall. The cellophane was not see-
through. But the police officer can smell the
marijuana. Was it justified under the plain view
doctrine? The answer is no. It is no longer advertent
because you have to check whether it is marijuana or
not. Plan view is you just have to see it. Smell is not

98