Political Law Review Notes

Honey Joy Bellen

Professor: Atty. Bong Lopez

Bill of Rights
The State has inherent powers

1. Police power – means: limit; purpose: for the promotion of general welfare
2. Eminent Domain – means: take property purpose: for public use
3. Taxation – means – exact contributions; purpose: for revenue raising; maintenance of the government

Similarities
1. Inherent
2. Society is benefited
3. A person’s right is adversely affected
4. It is legislative in nature

When a state is governed purely by authority, there is tyranny

When purely by rights, there is anarchy
Thus, there is Bill of Rights

Not all rights are created equal. They are group in a hierarchy.

As to Source:
1. Natural – innate. No need to be put in a law or in the Constitution. For example: the right to live; the right to talk
2. Constitutional – enshrined in the Constitution. For example, the right to bail; the right to vote
3. Statutory – given through a law or statute.

There are rights which are both natural and constitutional. The reason is to guarantee these rights. The whole Constitution is
a limitation to the powers of the state.
There are rights which are both constitutional and statutory. Laws enable the rights given via the Constitution
What about rights which are natural, constitutional, and statutory. For example, the right to privacy. Under the Constitution,
there are only zones of privacy which the Constitution guarantee an individual. Statutes prescribe penalties in case of
violation which the Constitution does not provide.

As to Nature:
Civil, Political, Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
Civil – given to citizens in a political community. Like the right to enter a contract, the right to vote, enter into business
Political – participate in the governance of the state, like the right to information
Social – right to belong, Section 8, Article III
Economic Rights – personal growth
Cultural – practice, preserve, develop values, mores, norms, way of life

As to International Law
Generations – not stages, but development in terms of recognition
First generation – civil and political rights ; these are negative rights. “Not to” rights
Second generation – social, economic, cultural rights, enshrined in Articles XIII and XIV of Constitution

Article III – self-executing

Article XIII, XIV – not self-executing, generally.
Third generation – solidarity rights, rights we share as part of humanity – pangMs. Universe

Life, Liberty, Property – General Rights

Life – right to live, against harm, right to good life, happiness
Liberty – 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation rights
Property – jus utendi, jus abutendi, jus ponendi, jus disponendi, jus fruendi

Treatment to these rights are not the same. There are preferred rights. Doctrine of preferred freedoms

Can the State deprive you of your right to life, liberty, property? Generally, no. Unless: due process of law. The State has the
burden to prove that it can deprive you of these.

Due Process – definition is not given; it depends on the Court

But the Court has judicial standards of review to ensure that there is DP.
In essence, DP means that the law hears before it condemns.
There are two parts of DP:
Substantive – law in itself, must be reasonable.
Standards-
Reasonable connection test -
Purpose of the law – valid
Means employed – in itself, is valid; lawful

Purpose:
-public safety
-public health
-public morals
-public welfare
-public convenience and comfort
-public policy

What if the purpose is aesthetics? Hindi valid purpose.

What if-- ordinance is passed requiring that residential houses be built with their gates facing the roads. Purpose: public
safety. Pwede? Yes, valid na purpose

Means employed: only two ways – prohibit or regulate

If it is lawful-only regulate
Unlawful, like crime – prohibit!

NB! The law sometimes uses the word ‘prohibit’ although it really means ‘regulate’

The means employed must have connection with the purpose

The connection must be reasonable. It must be supported by empirical, statistical, medical data. It must be based on reason.

In summary, reasonable connection looks into the validity of the purpose and means employed and if these two have
reasonable connection.

This standard applies to property rights

But what about life and liberty? Another test is used – the clear and present danger.
Clear and Present Danger = if there is a clear (real) and present (immediate_ danger of substantive evil that the state must
prevent or prohibit.
For example: law – persons with diseases that are airborne cannot travel using public transportation. Pasok ‘to sa RC test.
Pero right to travel is right to liberty, so use C&P.
Yung disease ba, malala na?

Dangerous tendency – kahit walang clear and present danger, basta may tendency na maging dangerous. Effect: binaba sa
level ng property rights ang right to life and liberty

Balancing of Interests – when what is involved are rights between citizens.

Life/Property – life prevails
Life/Life – case to case

1. Danielle – work – A. Contract: 10k per month. Danielle stopped working. A sued D for damages and specific performance.
Pwede specific performance? No. Violation of Right Against Involuntary Servitude. What about damages? Pwede

2. Cerwin – A contract – Cerwin cannot enter unions. Cerwin – sumali. A dismissed Cerwin. Pwede ba? Hindi. Kasi yung right
to associate ni Cerwin, mas mataas kaysa sa property right ni A. Yellow dog contract

3. Cerwin – A contract – closed shop agreement with Union. Cerwin – umalis ng union. Dismissed. Can he invoke that his
liberty right is more superior? No. Kasi yung closed shop agreement in line with state policy of unionism.

Except: Iglesia ni Cristo at Jehovah’s Witnesses. They cannot be compelled to join. Reason: the state must accommodate
them; treat them with benevolent neutrality. But in the case where SM hired INC employees who later on created their own
union, Court held that they will not interfere with it – separation of church and state. Isa pa, it was SM who invoked their
employees’ right to religion and their supposed violation of it? Parang ewan.
The case of Ople v Torres – national ID system – created by the President through an EO. Hindi pwede yun, ultra vires. Isa
pa, against right to privacy yun, hindi commensurate yung interference sa purpose, which was para isahang ID na lang ang
gagamitin ng tao. The government will have all our details, para lang sa convenience?

But compare this with the case of Arroyo who issued a regulation where all government employees will only use 1 ID for all
their transactions. Ito, pwede pa. Kasi only government employees and yung details naman ay hawak na ng government.

Property Rights can be interfered with as long as there is a lawful purpose, lawful means to do it, and reasonable connection
between the two. Dapat may batas, kasi kung wala, grabe naman.

Tanada v Tuvera – laws must be published. To inform the public of the laws will govern it. Hindi pwedeng magkasala ang
isang tao hindi alam na nagkakasala na pala siya kasi siya ni minsang sinabihan.

Remember, that delegated power cannot be delegated. Only the Legislative can create laws! But administrative agencies are
given rule making power to issue R and R that will carry out the provisions of the law. The IRRs are not laws. But they have
the force and effect of a law.

GMA v MTRCB – administrative issuances that affect the public must be published and registered with the ONAR. Except for
internal rules. Unless such internal rules would affect the public.

Cases:
Ermita Malate v City of Manila – Ordinance – establishments required to keep a logbook where visitors must sign.. Minors
must be accompanied by guardians or parents. Rooms cannot be checked in more than twice in 24 hours. Valid? Yes.
Purpose: curb prostitution. Foster public morals.
Means: logbook, etc.
Connection: logbook – mahihiya silang magsign in, kapag involved sa prostitution. Minors – curb child prostitution. Not more
than twice requirement – para di makarami ng clients

Cruz v Paras – Ordinance by Bocaue prohibition of night clubs, dance halls, dancers, GROs. Revocation of existing permits
and licenses.
Purpose: curb prostitution
Means: not valid. No one can prohibit a lawful undertaking

City of Manila v Laguio

Purpose: curb prostitution; to prevent the usage of women as tools for entertainment.
Means: not valid. Same with Cruz v Paras

White Light
Purpose: curb prostitution
Means: prohibit short time and wash up rates
Connection: Wala. Kasi kahit naman ipagbawal ‘to, hindi naman macucurb yung prostitution or illicit relations. Can be easily
circumvented

Knights v DMCI

In the first place, there is no law which interferes with the right of DMCI to build on its property. Also, the ordinance governing
historic sites do not apply to Torre de Manila. It will be built 870 meters away from Rizal park, in a place which is not historic.
Not also nuisance per se.

Evasco v Montanez

Ordinance regulating the construction, erection, repairs of billboards in Davao City

Purpose: public safety – due to typhoons
Means: permit
Reasonable connection: empirical – PH is thoroughly visited by typhoons. Billboards must be able to withstand them.

Fernando v Scholastica – reread. Important for the Bar

Ordinance: setback requirement and fence height and see thru requirement
Purpose: security, beautification
Means: demolish its fence and move it back about 6 meters to provide parking spaces for vehicles and to make such fence
80% see-thru
Reasonable? No – demolition – amounted to unlawful taking. Beautification – not lawful purpose. It is not sufficient to forego
the respondents’ right to privacy
It must be noted that polic power is an inherent power of the state. LGUs do not have this, but it is delegated to them. Thus,
LGUs cannot create ordinance without a law.

But in the case of Rubi v Provincial Board of Mindoro, the Court held that an LGU can create an ordinance if it is to promote
the general welfare of its people because it has been doing that since time immemorial.

And also in the case of US v Soliverio (?) There are two branches of Police Power – Police Power Proper and General
Welfare Clause

Police Power Proper-enact and implement Constitution, statutes, national policies

General Welfare Clause – as long as it is for health, morals, safety, kahit walang law.

Precautionary Principle
It is notable, therefore, that the precautionary principle shall only be relevant if there is concurrence of three elements,
namely: uncertainty, threat of environmental damage and serious or irreversible harm. In situations where the threat is
relatively certain, or that the causal link between an action and environmental damage can be established, or the probability
of occurrence can be calculated, only preventive, not precautionary measures, may be taken. Neither will the precautionary
principle apply if there is no indication of a threat of environmental harm; or if the threatened harm is trivial or easily
reversible.

RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Section 4. (f) Precautionary principle states that when human
activities may lead to threats of serious and irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but
uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that threat.