GR.

No/Article Facts Issue Ruling

Sections 2 and 3, Article III Marti and his common law wife went SC hold in the negative. In the absence of
of the Constitution provide: to Manila export and package WON an act of a private governmental interference, the liberties
Sec. 2. The right of the people to be forwarders to send 4 packaged Individual guaranteed by the Constitution
secure in their persons, houses, papers
and effects against wrapped as a gift to a friend in Zurich cannot be invoked against the State.
unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall
Switzerland. In the case of Villanueva V. Quirubin
be inviolable, and no (since the one who “ This constitutional right (against unreasonable
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue except upon probable cause to be During the transaction, Anita Reyes, the discovered it first is the search and seizure) refers to the immunity of
determined personally by person in charged in the receiving proprietor), allegedly in one's person,whether citizen or alien, from
the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the section asked to open the packaged but violation of appellant's interference by government”
witnesses he may produce, Marti justified that what’s inside are constitutional rights, be
and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be some gifts for a friend in Zurich like invoked against the There the state, however powerful, does not as
seized. tobacco, gloves, etc. So Anita Reyes State? such have the access except under the
Sec. 3. (1) The privacy of communication
and correspondence shall be inviolable process it without further inspection. circumstances above noted,
except upon lawful order of
the court, or when public safety or order
requires otherwise as prescribed by law. When it passed by the custody of Reason behind the decision:
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of
this or the preceding section shall be Bureau of Customs and Bureau of Post, 1. It was Mr. Job Reyes (proprietor) who opened
inadmissible for any purpose in the proprietor Anita and her husband the box as part of the standard procedure before
any proceeding.
undergo the usual process where they delivering the package to Bureau of Customs.
opened the packaged for inspection. That he is the one who conducted the search
To their surprise, the packaged and infection.
contained dried leaves which turned Mr. Reyes is the one who took the sample and
out to be marijuana. The also check the sent it to NBI for checking
rest of the boxes, and the said cigar
also contained marijuana as well as the Clearly, the NBI agents made no search
other boxes. (the opening of boxes was and seizure, much less an illegal one, contrary to
done in the presence of NBI Agents) the postulate of accused/appellant.
2 the mere presence of the NBI agents did not
They try to locate the suspect, which convert the reasonable search effected by Reyes
they eventually found after series of into a warrantless search and seizure proscribed
investigation. by the Constitution. Merely to observe and look
After the result of the Forensic at that which is in plain sight is not a search.
Chemsitry Section which confirmed the
identification of the substance as the Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is
marijuana, Marti was an Information not meant to be invoked against acts of private
was filed against appellant for violation individuals finds support in the deliberations of
of RA 6425, otherwise known as the the Constitutional Commission.
Dangerous -Drugs Act.
(mine:whatever searches done by a private
person against another who discovered the
crimes of others is admissible as evidence and
could not question the constitutionality of such
act/ But if it is an act by the government, then it
is a violation to your constitutional rights and
would turn the evidence invalid.)

__
To Whom this protection is given

Protection against the state. The Bill of Rights

governs the relationship between the individual
and the state. Its concern is not the relation
between individuals, between a private
individual and other individuals. What the Bill of
Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in
the private sphere inaccessible to any power
holder. (Bernas)

Thus, The constitutional proscription against

unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies
as a restraint directed only against the
government and its agencies tasked with the
enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be
invoked against the State to whom the restraint
against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of
power is imposed.
 If request for search and seizures are done by
enforcer of law, it should have warrant first that
will pass the test of constitutionality/.

G.R. No. 188920 February 16, 2010 This case is an offshoot of former 2 Whether or not No. The requirements of administrative due
Atienza V Comelec
cases resolved already regarding the respondents Roxas, et process do not apply to the internal affairs of
election dispute occurred in the Liberal al. violated petitioners political parties.
Party. Atienza, et al.’s
constitutional right to Administrative agency or instrumentality
On March 2, 2006 petitioner Atienza due process by the "contemplates an "authority to which the state
hosted a party conference to latter’s expulsion from delegates governmental power for the
supposedly discuss local autonomy and the party. performance of a state function.
party matters but, when convened, the
assembly proceeded to declare all (They claim that the The constitutional limitations that generally
positions in the LP’s ruling body vacant NAPOLCO and the NECO apply to the exercise of the state’s powers thus,
and should have first apply too, to administrative bodies.
elected new officers, with Atienza as LP summoned them to a
president. This was questioned by hearing before The constitutional limitations on the exercise of
Franklin Drilon who raised the invalidity summarily expelling the state’s powers are found in Article III of the
of the said election since the NECO and them from the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The Bill of
NAPOLCO did not convene. party. According to Rights, which guarantees against the taking of
Atienza, et al., life, property, or liberty without due process
Since COMELEC has jurisdiction on this proceedings on party under Section 1 is generally a limitation on the
matter, it granted the petition of discipline are the state’s powers in relation to the rights of its
Drilon. Then NECO and NAPOLCO equivalent of citizens.
convened in a meeting to elect new administrative
leaders before Drilon’s expired term. proceedings) The right to due process is meant to protect
Thus, Manuel Roxas was installed as ordinary citizens against arbitrary government
the new LP President. action, but not from acts committed by
It follows from this that with the private individuals or entities.
national and local elections taking place
in May 2007, the number and In the latter case, the specific statutes that
composition of the NECO would have provide reliefs from such private acts apply.
to yield to changes brought about by The right to due process guards against
 the unwarranted encroachment by the state into the
elections. fundamental rights of its citizens and cannot be
invoked in private controversies involving
private parties.23
Although political parties play an important role
in our democratic set-up as an intermediary
between the state and its citizens, it is still a
private organization, not a state instrument. The
discipline of members by a political party does
not involve the right to life, liberty or property
within the meaning of the due process clause.
An individual has no
vested right, as against the state, to be accepted
or to prevent his removal by a political party.

WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the petition and UPHOLDS the

Resolution of the Commission on Elections
dated June 18, 2009 in COMELEC Case SPP 08-001. Therefore,
election of ROxas as LP president remains valid

The COMELEC’s jurisdiction over intra-party

disputes is limited. It does not have blanket
authority to resolve any and all controversies
involving political parties. Political parties are
generally free to conduct their activities without
interference from the state. The COMELEC may
intervene in disputes internal to a party only
when necessary to the discharge of its
constitutional functions.
Valid Exercise of Police Power

[G.R. NO. 157036. June 9, This is in line with President Gloria Whether or not the Yes. The SC held that indeed it is a valid exercise
2004] MAcapagal Arroyo’s mandate to issuance of the assailed of police power.
prohibit the carrying of firearms in Guidelines is a valid
public places outside their residency exercise of police The Solicitor General seeks the dismissal of the
provided with some exemptions such power? petition pursuant to the doctrine of hierarchy of
as those in imminent danger, those courts.
who are in line with their duties need WON THE PRESIDENTS
to carry such firearms, etc. as provided VERBAL DECLARATION Nonetheless, in refutation of petitioners
in the guidelines prepared by PNP Chief ON GUN BAN VIOLATED arguments, he contends that: (1) the PNP Chief
Ebdane based on President Arroyo’s THE PEOPLES RIGHT TO is authorized to
directive PROTECT LIFE AND issue the assailed Guidelines; (2) petitioner does
THEIR PROPERTY RIGHT not have a constitutional right to own and carry
TO CARRY firearms; (3) the assailed Guidelines do not
FIREARMS. violate the due process clause of the
Constitution; and (4)
the assailed Guidelines do not constitute an ex
post facto law.

Despite the changes in the law or in the position

like Chief of the Constabulary to PNP Chief by
virtue of Republic Act No. 6975,21 the Philippine
National Police (PNP) absorbed the Philippine
Constabulary (PC).

Consequently, the PNP Chief succeeded the

Chief of the Constabulary and, therefore,
assumed the latters licensing authority. Section
24 thereof specifies, as one of PNPs powers, the
issuance of licenses for the possession of
firearms and explosives in accordance with
law.22

This is in conjunction with the PNP Chiefs power

to issue detailed implementing policies and
instructions on such matters as may be
necessary to effectively carry out the functions,
powers and duties of the PNP.
 Thus, the provision of P.D. No. 1866 granting to
the Chief of the Constabulary the authority to
issue rules and regulations regarding firearms
remains
effective.

Clearly, both P.D. No. 1866 and R.A. No. 6975

authorize the PNP Chief to issue the assailed
guidelines.
Petition dismissed.
G.R. No. L-24693 July 31, 1967 on June 13, 1963, the Municipal Board whether Yes. The statute here questioned deals with a
Ermita Malate Vs City Mayor
of the City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 4760 of subject clearly within the scope of the police
Ordinance No. 4760, which was the City of Manila is a power. The presumption of constitutionality
approved on June 14, 1963, by Vice- valid exercise of police must prevail in the absence of some factual
Mayor Herminio Astorga, then the power. foundation of record for overthrowing the
acting City Mayor of Manila, in the statute.".
absence of the respondent regular City
Mayor, amending sections 661, 662,
668-a, 668-b and 669 of the The mantle of protection associated with the
compilation of the ordinances of the due process guaranty does not cover petitioners.
City of Manila besides inserting therein This particular manifestation of a police power
three new sections. This measure being specifically aimed to safeguard
ordinance is similar to the one vetoed public morals is immune from such imputation
by the respondent Mayor (Annex A) for of nullity resting purely on conjecture and
the reasons stated in its 4th unsupported by anything of
Indorsement dated February 15, 1963 substance.
(Annex B);
explanatory note of the Councilor Herminio
Then petition for prohibition was files Astorga included as annex to the stipulation of
by the petitioners, Ermita-Malate facts,
Hotel and Motel Operators Association, speaks of the alarming increase in the rate of
one of its members, Hotel del Mar Inc., prostitution, adultery and fornication in Manila
and a certain Go Chiu being beyond the traceable in great part to the existence of
powers of the Municipal Board of the motels, which "provide a necessary atmosphere
City of Manila to enact insofar as it for clandestine entry, presence and exit" and
would regulate motels, on the ground thus become the "ideal haven for prostitutes
that in the revised charter of the City of and thrill-seekers police power is "that inherent
Manila or in any other law. and plenary power in the State which enables it
to prohibit all that is hurt full to the comfort,
That the challenged ordinance the safety, and welfare of society
challenged ordinance is
unconstitutional and void for being Mayor is the duly elected and incumbent City
unreasonable and violative of due Mayor and chief executive of the City of
process which require the owner, Manila charged with the general power and duty
manager, keeper or duly authorized to enforce ordinances of the City of Manila and
representative of a hotel, motel, or to give the
lodging house to refrain from necessary orders for the faithful execution and
entertaining or accepting any guest or enforcement of such ordinances;
customer or letting any room or other Justice Malcolm: "The
quarter to any person or persons presumption is all in favor of validity x x x . The
without his filling up the prescribed local
form in a lobby open legislative body, by enacting the ordinance, has
to public view at all times and in his in effect given notice that the regulations are
presence essential to the well being of the people x x x .
The Judiciary should not lightly set aside
require the owner, manager, keeper or legislative action when there is not a clear
duly authorized representative of a invasion of personal or property rights under the
hotel, motel, or lodging house to guise of police regulation.2
refrain from entertaining or accepting
any guest or customer or letting any
room or other quarter to any person or
persons without his filling up the
prescribed form in a lobby open to
public view at all times and in his
presence

challenged ordinance prohibiting a

person less than 18 years old from
 being
accepted in such hotels, motels,
lodging houses, tavern or common inn
unless accompanied by parents or a
lawful
guardian and making it unlawful for the
owner, manager, keeper or duly
authorized representative of such
establishments to lease any room or
portion thereof more than twice every
24 hour
G.R. No. L-34915 June 24, 198 The city government of Quezon City WON taking of the No. Ordinance No. 6118, Series of 1964 of
City government v ericta
issued Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, respondent's property is Quezon City is not a mere police regulation but
S-64, entitled "ORDINANCE a valid and reasonable an outright confiscation. It deprives a person of
REGULATING THE ESTABLISHMENT, exercise of police his private property without due process of law,
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF power? nay, even without compensation.
PRIVATE MEMORIAL TYPE CEMETERY
OR BURIAL GROUND WITHIN no reasonable relation between the setting
THE JURISDICTION OF QUEZON CITY aside of at least six (6) percent of the total area
AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE of an private
VIOLATION THEREOF" cemeteries for charity burial grounds of
provides: deceased paupers and the promotion of health,
1. that 6% of the total area of a private morals, good order, safety, or the general
owned memorial park shall be allotted welfare of the people. The ordinance is actually
for charity burial of paupers to be a taking without compensation of a certain area
determined by competent city from a private cemetery to benefit paupers who
authorities are charges of the municipal corporation.
Instead of building or maintaining a public
But seven years after its enactment, cemetery for this purpose, the city passes the
they issued this: RESOLVED by the burden to private cemeteries.
council of Quezon assembled, to
request, as it does hereby request the Police power is defined by Freund as 'the power
City Engineer, Quezon City, to stop any of promoting the public welfare by restraining
further selling and/or transaction of and
 memorial park lots in Quezon City regulating the use of liberty and property
where the owners thereof have failed
to donate the required 6% space If he is deprived of his property outright, it is not
intended for paupers burial. taken for public use but rather to destroy in
order to promote
In response, Himlayang Pilipino reacted the general welfare. owner does not recover
by filing a petition for declaratory relief from the government for injury sustained in
as is contrary to the consequence thereof (12 C.J. 623).
Constitution, the Quezon City Charter,
the Local Autonomy Act, and the police power is the most essential of
Revised Administrative Code. government powers, at times the most insistent,
and always one of the least limitable of
thepowers of government

Supreme Court has said that police power is so

far-reaching in scope that it has almost become
impossible to limit its sweep. derives its
existence from the very existence of the state
itself, it does not need to be expressed or
defined in its scope. Being coextensive with self-
preservation and survival itself, it is the most
positive and active of all governmental
processes, the most essential insistent and
illimitable Especially
G.R. No. 89572 December The private respondent is a graduate of WON NMAT is a valid he power is validly
21, 1989 the University of the East with a degree exercise of police power exercised if (a) the interests of the public
Decs V SB of Bachelor of Science in Zoology. The generally, as distinguished from those of a
petitioner claims that he took the particular class, require the interference of the
NMAT three times and flunked it as State, and (b) the means employed are
many times.1 When he applied to take reasonably necessary to the attainment of the
it object sought to be accomplished and not
again, the petitioner rejected his unduly oppressive upon individuals.
pplication on the basis of the aforesaid
rule. He then went to the Regional Trial the proper exercise of the police power requires
Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, to the concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful
compel his admission to the test. method.

In his original petition for mandamus, subject of the challenged regulation is certainly
he first invoked his constitutional rights within the ambit of the police power. It is the
to academic freedom and quality right and indeed
education. the responsibility of the State to insure that the
medical profession is not infiltrated by
he squarely challenged the incompetents to whom
constitutionality of MECS Order No. 12, patients may unwarily entrust their lives and
Series of 1972, containing the above- health.
cited rule. The
additional grounds raised were due The three-flunk rule is intended to insulate the
process and equal protection. medical schools and ultimately the medical
profession
from the intrusion of those not qualified to be
doctors

right to quality education invoked by the private

respondent is not absolute. The Constitution
also provides that
"every citizen has the right to choose a
profession or course of study, subject to fair,
reasonable and equitable admission and
academic requirements

medical profession directly affects the very lives

of the
people, unlike other careers which, for this
reason, do not require more vigilant regulation

The private respondent

has failed the NMAT five times. While his
persistence is noteworthy, to say the least, it is
 certainly misplaced, like a hopeless love.

State took decisive steps to regulate and enrich

our system of education by directing the
student to the course for which he is best suited
as determined by initial tests and evaluations
Otherwise, we may
be "swamped with mediocrity," in the words of
Justice Holmes
G.R. No. 105323 July 3, 1992 Public respondents, on the other hand, WON Comelec acted No. As aptly observed by the
Chavez V Comelec include the Department of Social capriciously and Solicitor General, respondent Comelec can
Welfare and Development (DSWD), the whimsically and with administratively undo what it has
Department of Health (DOH), the grave abuse of administratively left undone
Department of Finance (DOF), the discretion
Department of Justice (DOJ), and the and therefore prays respondent Comelec has in fact, on May 6, 1992
Department of Interior and Local that the Comelec be to be exact, ordered the deletion of
Government (DILG) which have been enjoined from Melchor Chavez's name not only on the official
specifically tasked to monitor the proclaiming the 24th list of candidates, but also on the election
drugstores’ compliance with the law; winning senatorial returns, tally sheet and certificate of canvass
promulgate the implementing rules and candidate until after
regulations for the effective his petition before the pre-proclamation cases (are) not allowed in
implementation of the Commission is resolved. elections for President,Vice-President, Senator
law; and prosecute and revoke the and Member of the House of Representatives.''
licenses of erring drugstore What is allowed is the correction of "manifest
stablishments. errors in the certificate of canvass or election
returns."
delete the name of Melchor Chavez as petitioner's prayer does not call for the
printed in the certified list of correction of "manifest errors in the certificates
candidates tally sheets, of canvass or election returns" before the
Comelec but for the re-opening of the ballot
boxes and appreciation of the
ballots contained therein. is therefore crystal
clear that this Court has no jurisdiction to
entertain the instant petition. It is the Senate
 Electoral Tribunal which has exclusive
jurisdiction to act on the complaint of petitioner
involving, as it does, contest relating to the
election of a member of the Senate. As
aforesaid, petitioner's proper recourse is to file a
regular election protest before the Senate
Electoral Tribunal
after the winning senatorial candidates have
been proclaimed.

petitioner's allegation that "Chavez" votes were

either invalidated or declared stray has no
relation
to the correctness or authenticity of the election
returns canvasses. Petition dismissed.

G.R. No. 166494 June 29, On February 26, 2004, R.A. No. 9257, WON Section 4(a) of the law is a legitimate exercise of police power
2007 amending R.A. No. 7432,3 was signed law is unconstitutional which, similar to the power of eminent domain,
Superdrug VS DSWD into law by President Gloria because it constitutes has general welfare for its object. Police power is
Macapagal-Arroyo and it became deprivation of private not capable of an exact definition, but has been
effective on March 21, 2004. property. / won it is an purposely veiled in general terms to underscore
invalid exercise of rights its comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies
SEC. 4. Privileges for the Senior Citizens. and provide enough room for an efficient and
– The senior citizens shall be entitled to flexible response to conditions and
the circumstances, thus assuring the greatest
twenty percent (20%) discount from all benefits.
establishments relative to the
utilization of services in hotels property rights must bow to the
and similar lodging establishments, primacy of police power because property
restaurants and recreation centers, and rights, though sheltered by due process, must
purchase of medicines in all yield to general welfare.
establishments for the exclusive use or
enjoyment of senior citizens, including Police power as an attribute to promote the
funeral and burial services for the common good would be diluted considerably if
 death of senior citizens; on the mere plea of
petitioners that they will suffer loss of earnings
and capital, the questioned provision is
invalidated. Moreover, in the
absence of evidence demonstrating the alleged
confiscatory effect of the provision in question,
there is no basis for its nullification in view of the
presumption of validity which every law has in
its favor
Beltran v. Secretary of RA 7719 (National Blood Services Act) 1. NO. One, RA 7719 is based on substantial
Health was enacted in 1994, seeking to provide an distinctions. Nonprofit blood banks operate for purely
adequate supply of safe blood by promoting . W/N RA 7719 violates humanitarian reasons and as a medical service, and
voluntary blood donation and by regulating the equal protection clause. encourage voluntary blood donation. On the other
blood banks in the country. Section 7 2. W/N Section 7 of RA hand, commercial blood banks are motivated by profit
thereof provided for the phase-out of all 7719 constitutes unlawful and treat blood as a sale of commodity.
commercial blood banks within 2 years after deprivation of personal
its effectivity. liberty and property. Two, the classification and the consequent phase-out
of blood banks is germane to the purpose of the law,
The Act was passed after studies showed which is to provide the nation with an adequate supply
that blood transfusions could lead to of safe blood by promoting voluntary blood donation
transmission of diseases, and that blood sold and treating blood transfusion as a humanitarian or
by persons to commercial blood banks are medical service rather than a commodity. This
three times more likely to have blood necessarily involves the phase-out of commercial
transfusion transmissible diseases than blood banks based on the fact that they operate as a
those donated to the Philippine National business enterprise, and they source their blood supply
Red Cross. from paid blood donors who are considered unsafe.

Prior to the expiration of the commercial Three, the Legislature intended for the general
blood banks’ licenses, they filed a petition application of the law. Its enactment was not solely to
assailing the constitutionality and validity of address the peculiar circumstances of the situation nor
RA 7719 and its Implementing Rules and was it intended to apply only to existing conditions.
Regulations, for discriminating against Four, the law applies equally to all commercial blood
freestanding blood banks in a manner, banks without exception.
which is not germane to the purpose of the
law. 2. NO. In serving the interest of the public, and to give
meaning to the purpose of the law, the Legislature
deemed it necessary to phase-out commercial blood
banks. This action may seriously affect the owners
and operators, as well as the employees, of
 commercial blood banks but their interests must give
way to serve a higher end for the interest of the public.

DOCTRINE: Class legislation, discriminating against

some and favoring others is prohibited; but
classification on a reasonable basis and not made
arbitrarily or capriciously is permitted.
SJS v Atienza Social Justice Societ y v. Atienza, Jr WON it a valid exercise No. The Court described Ordinance No. 8027 as a
., February 13,2008, Corona, J. measure enacted pursuant to the delegated police
of police power power of local government units “to promote the
The Supreme Court denied the motions for order, safety, and health, morals, and general
reconsideration filed by the Department welfare of the society.” It explained that “based on
of Energy and oil giants Chevron, Petron, and the hierarchy of constitutionally protected rights, the
Shell; and reiterated its March 7, 2007 right to life enjoys precedence over the right to
decisionordering the Manila City mayor to property. The reason is obvious: life is irreplaceable,
enforce Ordinance No. 8027 directing the property is not.
removal of theterminals from Pandacan by the
said oil companies. The said Ordinance When the state or [local government unit] LGU’s
reclassified portionsof the Manila districts of exercise of police power clashes with a few
Pandacan and Sta. Ana from industrial to individuals’ right to property, the former should
commercial and directedcertain business owners prevail.” (GR No. 156052, Social Justice Society, et
and operators, including the three oil giants to al. v. Atienza, Jr., February 13, 2008)
cease and desistfrom operating their businesses
there. Ordinance No. 8027 visit fellester.blogspot.com was
enacted right after the Philippines, along with the
Ordinance No. 8027, approved by Manila rest of the world, witnessed the horror of the
City Council on November 28, 2001 and September 11, 2001 attack on the Twin Towers of the
effective December 28, 2001, reclassifies World Trade Center in New York City.
portions of Pandacan and Sta. Ana from
industrial to commercial and directs the The objective of the ordinance is to protect the
owners and operators of businesses to residents of Manila from the catastrophic devastation
cease and desist from operating their that will surely occur in case of a terrorist attack on
businesses within 6 months from the the Pandacan Terminals. No reason exists why such a
ordinance’s effectivity. Among the protective measure should be delayed.
businesses in the area are the so-called
Pandacan Terminals of Chevron, Petron, NOTES:
and Shell.
In 2007, the SC ruled that the Local Government Code
Chevron, Petron and Shell, questioned imposes upon Mayor Atienza, to “enforce all laws and
the validity of the said ordinance. They ordinances relative to the governance of the city.”
argued that they are fighting for their One of these is Ordinance No. 8027. As the chief
right to property alleging that they stand executive of the city, he has the duty to enforce
to lose billions of pesos if forced [to] Ordinance No. 8027 as long as it has not been
relocate. Are the contentions of the oil
 companies tenable? repealed by the Sanggunian or annulled by the
courts. He has no other choice. (GR No. 156052,
Social Justice Society, et al. v. Atienza, Jr., March 7,
2007)

In 2008, The Supreme Court denied the motions for

reconsideration filed by Chevron, Petron, and Shell,
and instead reiterated its March 7, 2007 decision. (GR
No. 156052, Social Justice Society, et al. v. Atienza,
Jr., February 13, 2008)

In 2009, the SC recently denied with finality the

second motion for reconsideration of the three big oil
players. The Court stressed that the second motion
for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading pursuant
to sec. 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court. It said that it
already passed upon the basic issues in its February
13, 2008 resolution and noted that the arguments of
the oil firms were a mere rehash of their arguments
raised in the first motion for reconsideration. (Min.
Res., GR No. 156052, Social Justice Society, et al. v.
Atienza, Jr., April 28, 2009)

ROMEO P. GEROCHI, RA 9136, otherwise known as the W/N the universal NO. The assailed universal charge is not a tax,
KATULONG NG BAYAN Electric Power Industry Reform Act of charge is a tax but an exaction in the exercise of the State’s
(KB) and 2001 (EPIRA), which sought to impose police power. That public welfare is promoted
ENVIRONMENTALIST a universal charge on all end-users of may be gleaned from Sec. 2 of the EPIRA, which
CONSUMERS electricity for the purpose of funding enumerates the policies of the State regarding
NETWORK, INC. (ECN), NAPOCOR’s projects, was enacted and electrification. Moreover, the Special Trust Fund
Petitioners took effect in 2001. feature of the universal charge reasonably serves
vs. and assures the attainment and perpetuity of the
DEPARTMENT OF Petitioners contest the constitutionality purposes for which the universal charge is
ENERGY (DOE) of the EPIRA, stating that the imposed (e.g. to ensure the viability of the
imposition of the universal charge on all country’s electric power industry), further
end-users is oppressive and confiscatory boosting the position that the same is an exaction
and amounts to taxation without primarily in pursuit of the State’s police
representation for not giving the objectives.
consumers a chance to be heard and be
represented. If generation of revenue is the primary purpose
 and regulation is merely incidental, the
imposition is a tax; but if regulation is the
primary purpose, the fact that revenue is
incidentally raised does not make the imposition
a tax.

The taxing power may be used as an implement

of police power.

The theory behind the exercise of the power to

tax emanates from necessity; without taxes,
government cannot fulfill its mandate of
promoting the general welfare and well-being of
the people.

Invalid exercise of police power

G.R. No. 122846 January On December 3, 1992, City Mayor Whether Ordinance No. No. Ordinance No. 7774 cannot be considered as
20, 2009 Alfredo S. Lim signed into law Manila 7774 is a valid exercise a valid exercise of police power, and as such, it is
WHITE LIGHT City Ordinance No. 7774 entitled “An of police power of the unconstitutional.
CORPORATION, TITANIUM Ordinance Prohibiting Short-Time State. The facts of this case will recall to mind not only
CORPORATION and STA. Admission, Short-Time Admission the recent City of Manila v Laguio Jr ruling, but
MESA TOURIST & Rates, and Wash-Up Rate Schemes in the 1967 decision in Ermita-Malate Hotel and
DEVELOPMENT Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses, Motel Operations Association, Inc., v. Hon. City
CORPORATION, Petitioners, Pension Houses, and Similar Mayor of Manila. The common thread that runs
vs. Establishments in the City of Manila” through those decisions and the case at bar goes
CITY OF MANILA, (the Ordinance).” The ordinance beyond the singularity of the localities covered
represented by DE CASTRO, sanctions any person or corporation under the respective ordinances. All three
MAYOR ALFREDO S. who will allow the admission and ordinances were enacted with a view of
LIM, Respondent. charging of room rates for less than 12 regulating public morals including particular
hours or the renting of rooms more illicit activity in transient lodging establishments.
than twice a day. This could be described as the middle case,
wherein there is no wholesale ban on motels
The petitioners White Light and hotels but the services offered by these
Corporation (WLC), Titanium establishments have been severely restricted. At
Corporation (TC), and Sta. Mesa Tourist its core, this is another case about the extent to
and Development Corporation (STDC), which the State can intrude into and regulate
who own and operate several hotels the lives of its citizens
and motels in Metro Manila, filed a The test of a valid ordinance is well established.
motion to intervene and to admit A long line of decisions including City of Manila
attached complaint-in-intervention on has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it
the ground that the ordinance will must not only be within the corporate powers of
affect their business interests as the local government unit to enact and pass
operators. The respondents, in turn, according to the procedure prescribed by law, it
alleged that the ordinance is a must also conform to the following substantive
legitimate exercise of police power. requirements: (1) must not contravene the
Constitution or any statute; (2) must not be
RTC declared Ordinance No. 7774 null unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or
and void as it “strikes at the personal discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may
liberty of the individual guaranteed and regulate trade; (5) must be general and
jealously guarded by the Constitution.” consistent with public policy; and (6) must not
Reference was made to the provisions be unreasonable.
of the Constitution encouraging private The ordinance in this case prohibits two specific
enterprises and the incentive to and distinct business practices, namely wash
needed investment, as well as the right rate admissions and renting out a room more
to operate economic enterprises. than twice a day. The ban is evidently sought to
Finally, from the observation that the be rooted in the police power as conferred on
illicit relationships the Ordinance local government units by the Local Government
sought to dissuade could nonetheless Code through such implements as the general
be consummated by simply paying for a welfare clause.
12-hour stay, Police power is based upon the concept of
When elevated to CA, the respondents necessity of the State and its corresponding right
asserted that the ordinance is a valid to protect itself and its people. Police power has
exercise of police power pursuant to been used as justification for numerous and
Section 458 (4)(iv) of the Local varied actions by the State.
Government Code which confers on The apparent goal of the ordinance is to
cities the power to regulate the minimize if not eliminate the use of the covered
establishment, operation and establishments for illicit sex, prostitution, drug
maintenance of cafes, restaurants, use and alike. These goals, by themselves, are
beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, unimpeachable and certainly fall within the
pension houses, lodging houses and ambit of the police power of the State. Yet the
other similar establishments, including desirability of these ends do not sanctify any and
tourist guides and transports. Also, all means for their achievement. Those means
they contended that under Art III Sec must align with the Constitution.
18 of Revised Manila Charter, they SC contended that if they were to take the
have the power to enact all ordinances myopic view that an ordinance should be
it may deem necessary and proper for analyzed strictly as to its effect only on the
the sanitation and safety, the petitioners at bar, then it would seem that the
furtherance of the prosperity and the only restraint imposed by the law that they were
promotion of the morality, peace, good capacitated to act upon is the injury to property
order, comfort, convenience and sustained by the petitioners. Yet, they also
general welfare of the city and its recognized the capacity of the petitioners to
inhabitants and to fix penalties for the invoke as well the constitutional rights of their
violation of ordinances. patrons – those persons who would be deprived
of availing short time access or wash-up rates to
Petitioners argued that the ordinance is the lodging establishments in question. The
unconstitutional and void since it rights at stake herein fell within the same
violates the right to privacy and fundamental rights to liberty. Liberty as
freedom of movement; it is an invalid guaranteed by the Constitution was defined by
exercise of police power; and it is Justice Malcolm to include “the right to exist and
unreasonable and oppressive the right to be free from arbitrary restraint or
interference in their business. servitude. The term cannot be dwarfed into
CA, in turn, reversed the decision of mere freedom from physical restraint of the
RTC and affirmed the constitutionality person of the citizen, but is deemed to embrace
of the ordinance. First, it held that the the right of man to enjoy the facilities with
ordinance did not violate the right to which he has been endowed by his Creator,
privacy or the freedom of movement, subject only to such restraint as are necessary
as it only penalizes the owners or for the common welfare,
operators of establishments that admit Indeed, the right to privacy as a constitutional
individuals for short time stays. Second, right must be recognized and the invasion of it
the virtually limitless reach of police should be justified by a compelling state
power is only constrained by having a interest. Jurisprudence accorded recognition to
lawful object obtained through a lawful the right to privacy independently of its
method. The lawful objective of the identification with liberty; in itself it is fully
ordinance is satisfied since it aims to deserving of constitutional protection.
curb immoral activities. There is a Governmental powers should stop short of
lawful method since the establishments certain intrusions into the personal life of the
are still allowed to operate. Third, the citizen.
adverse effect on the establishments is An ordinance which prevents the lawful uses of
justified by the well-being of its a wash rate depriving patrons of a product and
constituents in general. the petitioners of lucrative business ties in with
another constitutional requisite for the
Hence, the petitioners appeared before legitimacy of the ordinance as a police power
the SC measure. It must appear that the interests of the
public generally, as distinguished from those of a
particular class, require an interference with
private rights and the means must be reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose and not unduly oppressive of private
rights. It must also be evident that no other
alternative for the accomplishment of the
purpose less intrusive of private rights can work.
More importantly, a reasonable relation must
exist between the purposes of the measure and
the means employed for its accomplishment, for
even under the guise of protecting the public
interest, personal rights and those pertaining to
private property will not be permitted to be
arbitrarily invaded.
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.
SC reiterated that individual rights may be
adversely affected only to the extent that may
fairly be required by the legitimate demands of
public interest or public welfare. The State is a
leviathan that must be restrained from
needlessly intruding into the lives of its citizens.
However well¬-intentioned the ordinance may
be, it is in effect an arbitrary and whimsical
intrusion into the rights of the establishments as
well as their patrons. The ordinance needlessly
restrains the operation of the businesses of the
petitioners as well as restricting the rights of
their patrons without sufficient justification. The
ordinance rashly equates wash rates and renting
out a room more than twice a day with
immorality without accommodating innocuous
intentions.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED,
and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
 Manila, Branch 9, is REINSTATED. Ordinance No.
7774 is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. No
pronouncement as to costs.

REVIEW CENTER On 11 and 12 June 2006, the Whether EO 566 is an The petition has merit.
ASSOCIATION OF Professional Regulation Commission unconstitutional The propensity of litigants and lawyers to
PHILIPPINES v. EXECUTIVE (PRC) conducted the Nursing Board exercise by the disregard the hierarchy of courts in our judicial
SECRETARY EDUARDO Examinations nationwide. In June 2006, Executive of legislative system by seeking relief directly from this Court
ERMITA, GR No. 180046, licensure applicants wrote the PRC to power as it expands the must be put to a halt for two reasons: (1) it
2009-04-02 report that handwritten copies of two CHED's jurisdiction; and would be an imposition upon the precious time
sets of examinations were circulated Whether the RIRR is an of this Court; and (2) it would... cause an
during the examination period... among invalid exercise of the inevitable and resultant delay, intended or
the examinees reviewing at the R.A. Executive's rule-making otherwise, in the adjudication of cases, which in
Gapuz Review Center and Inress power some instances had to be remanded or referred
Review Center. to the lower court as the proper forum under
George Cordero, Inress Review Center's the rules of procedure, or as better equipped to
President, was then the incumbent resolve the issues because this
President of the Philippine Nurses Court is not a trier of facts.
Association. The rule, however, is not absolute, as when
On 18 August 2006, the Court of exceptional and compelling circumstances justify
Appeals restrained the PRC from the exercise of this Court of its primary
proceeding with the oath-taking of the jurisdiction
successful examinees set on 22 August The alleged violation of the Constitution by the
2006. Executive Department when it issued EO 566
Consequently, President Gloria justifies the exercise by the Court of its primary
Macapagal-Arroyo (President Arroyo) jurisdiction over the case. The Court is not
replaced all the members of the PRC's precluded from brushing aside technicalities and
Board of Nursing. President Arroyo also taking cognizance of an... action due to its
ordered the examinees to re-take the importance to the public and in keeping with its
Nursing Board Examinations. duty to determine whether the other branches
On 8 September 2006, President of the Government have kept themselves within
Arroyo issued EO 566 which authorized the limits of the Constitution.
the CHED to supervise the EO 566 Expands the Coverage of RA 7722
establishment and operation of all The OSG justifies its stand by claiming that the
review centers and similar entities in term "programs x x x of higher learning" is broad
the Philippines. enough to include programs offered by review
the Review Center Association of the centers.
Philippines (petitioner), an organization We do not agree.
of independent review centers, asked Section 3 of RA 7722 provides:
the CHED to "amend, if not withdraw" Sec. 3. Creation of Commission on Higher
the IRR arguing, among other things, Education. - In pursuance of the
that giving permits to... operate a abovementioned policies, the Commission on
review center to Higher Education Higher Education is hereby created, hereinafter
Institutions (HEIs) or consortia of HEIs referred to as the Commission.
and professional organizations will The Commission shall be independent and
effectively abolish independent review separate from the Department of Education,
centers. Culture and Sports (DECS), and attached to the
EO 566- authorized ched to supervise Office of the President for administrative
the establishment and operation of all purposes only. Its coverage shall be both public
review centers and private institutions of higher education as
In a letter dated 3 January 2007,[6] well... as degree-granting programs in all post-
Chairman Puno wrote petitioner, secondary educational institutions, public and
through its President Jose Antonio private. (Emphasis supplied)
Fudolig (Fudolig), that to suspend the Neither RA 7722 nor CHED Order No. 3, series of
implementation of the IRR would be 1994 (Implementing Rules of RA 7722)[24]
inconsistent with the mandate of EO defines an institution of higher learning or a
566. program of higher learning.
On 7 May 2007, the CHED approved the Further, Articles 6 and 7 of the Implementing
RIRR. On 22 August 2007, petitioner Rules provide:
filed before the CHED a Petition to Article 6. Scope of Application. - The coverage of
Clarify/Amend Revised Implementing the Commission shall be both public and private
Rules and Regulations[8] praying for a institutions of higher education as well as degree
ruling: granting programs in all post-secondary
Amending the RIRR by excluding educational institutions, public and private.
independent review centers from the These Rules shall apply to all public and private
coverage of the CHED; educational institutions offering tertiary degree
Clarifying the meaning of the programs.
requirement for existing review centers The establishment, conversion, or elevation of
to tie-up or be integrated with HEIs, degree-granting institutions shall be within the
consortium or HEIs and PRC-recognized responsibility of the Commission.
professional associations with Clearly, HEIs refer to degree-granting
recognized programs, or in the institutions, or those offering tertiary degree or
alternative, to convert into schools; and post-secondary programs. In fact, Republic Act
Revising the rules to make it conform No. 8292 or the Higher Education Modernization
with Republic Act No. 7722 (RA Act of 1997 covers chartered state universities
7722)[9] limiting the CHED's coverage and colleges. State universities and colleges...
to public and private institutions of primarily offer degree courses and programs.
higher education as well as degree- The scopes of EO 566 and the RIRR clearly
granting programs in post-secondary expand the CHED's coverage under RA 7722. The
educational institutions. CHED's coverage under RA 7722 is limited to
CHED was given the authority to public and private institutions of higher
regulate and establish review centers education and degree-granting programs in all
uner EO 566 public and private post-secondary educational...
While it may be true that regulation of institutions. EO 566 directed the CHED to
review centers is not one of the formulate a framework for the regulation of
mandates of CHED under Republic Act review centers and similar entities
7722, however, on September 8, 2006, Usurpation of Legislative Power
Her Excellency, President Gloria The President has no inherent or delegated
Macapagal-Arroyo, issued Executive legislative power to amend the functions of the
Order No. 566 directing the CHED under RA 7722. Legislative power is the
Commission on Higher authority to make laws and to alter or repeal
Education to regulate the them,[32] and this power is vested with the
establishment and operation of review Congress under Section 1,... Article VI of the
centers and similar entities in the entire 1987 Constitution which states:
country. Section 1. The legislative power shall be vested
With the issuance of the aforesaid in the Congress of the Philippines which shall
Executive Order, the CHED now is the consist of a Senate and a House of
agency that is mandated to regulate Representatives, except to the extent reserved
the establishment and operation of all to the people by the provision on initiative and
review centers as provided for under referendum.
Section 4 of the Executive Order which The line that delineates Legislative and Executive
provides that "No review center or power is not indistinct. Legislative power is "the
similar... entities shall be established authority, under the Constitution, to make laws,
and/or operate review classes without and to alter and repeal them."
the favorable expressed indorsement The Constitution, as the will of the people in
of the CHED and without the issuance their original, sovereign and... unlimited
of the necessary permits or capacity, has vested this power in the Congress
authorizations to conduct review of the Philippines.
classes. x x x" Main issue relating to Art. VII
pertinent provision of the IRR As head of the Executive Department, the
Section 1. Authority to Establish and President is the Chief Executive. He represents
Operate - Only CHED recognized, the government as a whole and sees to it that all
accredited and reputable HEIs may be laws are enforced by the officials and employees
authorized to establish and operate of his department. He has control over the
review center/course by the CHED executive department, bureaus and offices.
upon full compliance with the This... means that he has the authority to
conditions and requirements provided assume directly the functions of the executive
herein and in other pertinent laws,... department, bureau and office, or interfere with
rules and regulations. In addition, a the discretion of its officials. Corollary to the
consortium or consortia of qualified power of control, the President also has the duty
schools and/or entities may establish of supervising the enforcement of laws for the...
and operate review centers or conduct maintenance of general peace and public order.
review classes upon compliance with Thus, he is granted administrative power over
the provisions of these Rules. bureaus and offices under his control to enable
him to discharge his duties effectively.
Administrative power is concerned with the
work of applying policies and enforcing orders as
determined by proper governmental organs. It
enables the President to fix a uniform standard
of administrative efficiency and check the official
conduct of his agents. To this end, he... can issue
administrative orders, rules and regulations.
"Sec. 3. Administrative Orders. - Acts of the
President which relate to particular aspects of
governmental operation in pursuance of his
duties as administrative head shall be
promulgated in administrative orders."
An administrative order is an ordinance issued
by the President which relates to specific aspects
in the administrative operation of government.
It must be in harmony with the law and should
be for the sole purpose of implementing the law
and carrying out the legislative... policy. x x x.
Since EO 566 is an invalid exercise of legislative
power, the RIRR is also an invalid exercise of the
CHED's quasi-legislative power.
Administrative agencies exercise their quasi-
legislative or rule-making power through the
promulgation of rules and regulations.[36] The
CHED may only exercise its rule-making power
within the confines of its jurisdiction under RA
7722. The RIRR covers... review centers and
similar entities which are neither institutions of
higher education nor institutions offering
degree-granting programs.
Exercise of Police Power
Police power primarily rests with the legislature
although it may be exercised by the President
and administrative boards by virtue of a valid
delegation
Here, no delegation of police power exists under
RA 7722 authorizing the President... to regulate
the operations of non-degree granting review
centers.
Republic Act No. 8981 is Not the Appropriate
Law
There is no doubt that a principal mandate of
the PRC is to preserve the integrity of licensure
examinations. The PRC has the power to adopt
measures to preserve the integrity and
 inviolability of licensure examinations. However,
this power should properly be interpreted to...
refer to the conduct of the examinations
These powers of the PRC have nothing to do at
all with the regulation of review centers.
However, this power has nothing to do with the
regulation of review centers. The PRC has the
power to bar PRB members from conducting
review classes in review centers. However, to...
interpret this power to extend to the power to
regulate review centers is clearly an
unwarranted interpretation of RA 8981.
Section 7(y) of RA 8981 giving the PRC the power
to perform "such other functions and duties as
may be necessary to carry out the provisions" of
RA 8981 does not extend to the regulation of
review centers. There is absolutely nothing in RA
8981 that mentions regulation by the
PRC of review centers.
Similarly, the PRC has no mandate to regulate
similar entities whose reviewees will not even...
take any licensure examination given by the PRC.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition and the
petition-in-intervention. We DECLARE Executive
Order No. 566 and Commission on Higher
Education Memorandum Order No. 30, series of
2007 VOID for being unconstitutional.
SO ORDERED.
Principles:

Ynot vs Intermediate In 1980 President Marcos amended Whether or not police NO. The protection of the general welfare is
Appellate Court Executive Order No. 626-A which power is properly the particular function of the police power
orders that no carabao and carabeef enforced which both restraints and is restrained by due
GR No. L-74457, March shall be transported from one process. The police power is simply defined
 20, 1987 province to another; such violation as the power inherent in the State to
shall be subject to confiscation and regulate liberty and property for the
forfeiture by the government, to be promotion of the general welfare. As long as
distributed to charitable institutions the activity or the property has some
and other similar institutions as the relevance to the public welfare, its regulation
Chairman of the National Meat under the police power is not only proper but
Inspection Commission may see fit necessary. In the case at bar, E.O. 626-A has
for the carabeef and to deserving the same lawful subject as the original
farmers through dispersal as the executive order (E.O. 626 as cited in Toribio
Director of Animal Industry may see case) but NOT the same lawful method. The
fit in the case of the carabaos. reasonable connection between the means
employed and the purpose sought to be
On January 13, 1984, achieved by the questioned measure is
Petitioner’s 6 carabaos were missing. The challenged measure is an
confiscated by the police station invalid exercise of the police power because
commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo the method employed to conserve the
for having been transported from carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the
Masbate to Iloilo in violation of EO purpose of the law and, worse, is unduly
626-A. He issued a writ for replevin, oppressive.
challenging the constitutionality of
said EO. The trial court sustained the
confiscation of the animals and
declined to rule on the validity of the
law on the ground that it lacked
authority to do so. Its decision was
affirmed by the IAC. Hence, this
petition for review filed by
Petitioner.

HON. RENATO C. Administrative Order No. 04-92 (PPA- WON Administrative NO

CORONA VS UNITED AO No. 04-92) provides that all Order No.04-92 is
HARBOR PILOTS appointments to harbor pilot positions constitutional The Court is convinced that PPA No. 04-92 was
ASSOCIATION OF THE in all pilotage districts shall, henceforth, issued in stark disregard of respondents’ right
PHILIPPINES be only for a term of one year from against deprivation of property without due
G.R. No. 111953 date of effectivity subject to yearly process law. The Supreme Court said that in
December 12, renewal or cancellation by the order to fall within the aegis of the provision,
1997 Authority after conduct of a rigid two conditions must concur, namely, that there
evaluation of performance. is a deprivation and that such deprivation is
done without proper observance of due process.
PPA General Manager Rogelio Dayan
issued PPA-AO No. 04-92 whose Neither does that the pilots themselves were not
avowed policy was to instill effective consulted in any way taint the validity of the
discipline and thereby afford better administrative order. As general rule, notice and
protection to the port users through hearing, as the fundamental requirement of
the improvement of pilotage services. procedural due process, are essential only when
administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial
On Aug 12, 1992, respondent, through function. In the performance of its executive or
Capt. Alberto C. Compas, questioned legislative functions, such as issuing rules and
PPA-AO No. 04-92 before the Dept of regulations, an Administrative body needs to
Transportation and Communication. comply with the requirement of notice and
hearing.
On December 23, 1992, the Office of
the President (OP) issued an order There is no dispute that pilotage as a profession has taken
directing the PPA to hold abeyance the on the nature of a property right. It is readily apparent that
implementation of the said the said administrative order unduly restricts the right of
administrative order. PPA countered harbour pilots to enjoy their profession before their right
that the said order was issued in the of harbor pilots to enjoy their respective profession before
exercise of its administrative control their compulsory retirement.
and supervision over harbor pilots
under Section 6, Article I of P.D. 857.

On March 17, 1993, the OP, through

Assistant Executive Secretary Renato
Corona, dismissed the appeal and lifted
the restraining order issued. He
concluded that the said order applied
to all harbor pilots and, for all intents
 and purposes, was not an act of Dayan,
but of the PPA, which was merely
implementing P.D. 857, mandating it to
control, regulate and supervise pilotage
and conduct of pilots in any port
district.

Respondents filed a petition for

certiorari, prohibition and injunction
with prayer for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order and
damages before the Regional Trial
Court.
Balacuit et al., v. Court of This involves a Petition for Whether
It is already settled that the operation of
First Instance of Agusan Review questioning the validity and Ordinance No. 640
theaters, cinematographs and other places of
del Norte and Butuan City constitutionality of Ordinance No. 640 passed by the Municipal public exhibition are subject to regulation by the
passed by the Municipal Board of the Board of the City of
G.R. No. L-38429 (E) municipal council in the exercise of delegated
City of Butuan on April 21, 1969, Butuan is valid and
30 June 1988 police power by the local government.
penalizing any person, group of constitutional and was However, to invoke the exercise of police power,
persons, entity or corporation engaged the Ordinance a valid not only must it appear that the interest of the
in the business of selling admission exercise of police power. public generally requires an interference with
tickets to any movie or other public private rights, but the means adopted must be
exhibitions, games, contests or other reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of
performances to require children the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon
between 7 and 12 years of age to pay individuals. The legislature may not, under the
full payment for tickets intended for guise of protecting the public interest, arbitrarily
adults but should charge only one-half interfere with private business, or impose
of the said ticket. unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful
occupations. In other words, the determination as
Petitioners who are managers to what is a proper exercise of its police power is
of theaters, affected by the ordinance, not final or conclusive, but is subject to the
supervision of the courts.
filed a Complaint before the Court of
First Instance of Agusan del Norte and
The Court likewise ruled in the negative
Butuan City docketed as Special Civil
 No. 237 on June 30, 1969, praying that as to the question of the subject ordinance being
the subject ordinance be declared a valid exercise of police power. While it is true
that a business may be regulated, it is equally
unconstitutional and, therefore, void
true that such regulation must be within the
and unenforceable. The Court bounds of reason, that is, the regulatory
rendered judgment declaring Ordinance ordinance must be reasonable, and its provisions
No. 640 of the City of Butuan cannot be oppressive amounting to an arbitrary
constitutional and valid. interference with the business or calling subject
of regulation. The proprietors of a theater have
a right to manage their property in their own way,
to fix what prices of admission they think most for
their own advantage, and that any person who
did not approve could stay away.

The exercise of police power by the local

government is valid unless it contravenes the
fundamental law of the land, or an act of the
legislature, or unless it is against public policy or
is unreasonable, oppressive, partial,
discriminating or in derogation of a common right.
For being unreasonable and an undue restraint
of trade, it cannot, under the guise of exercising
police power, be upheld as valid.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial

court in Special Civil Case No. 237 is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new
judgment is hereby rendered declaring
Ordinance No. 640 unconstitutional and,
therefore, null and void. This decision is
immediately executory.
Facts On or about October 6, 1986, WON it is constitutional Held: It is not Constitutional.
Lupangco V CA herein respondent Professional the questioned resolution was adopted for a
Regulation Commission (PRC) issued commendable purpose which is "to preserve the
Resolution No. 105 as parts of its integrity and purity of the licensure
"Additional Instructions to Examiness," examinations." However, its good aim cannot be
to all those applying for admission to a cloak to conceal its constitutional infirmities
take the licensure examinations in The unreasonableness is more obvious in that
accountancy one who is caught committing the prohibited acts
No examinee shall attend any review even without any ill motives will be barred from
class, briefing, conference or the like taking future examinations conducted by the
conducted by, or shall receive any respondent PRC
hand-out, review material, or any tip Resolution No. 105 is not only unreasonable and
from any school, college or university, arbitrary, it also infringes on the examinees' right
or any review center or the like or any to liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.
reviewer, lecturer, instructor official or Respondent PRC has no authority to dictate on
employee of any of the aforementioned the reviewees as to how they should prepare
or similars institutions during the three themselves for the licensure examinations. They
days immediately proceeding every cannot be restrained from taking all the lawful
examination day including examination steps needed to assure the fulfillment of their
day. ambition to become public accountants. They
Any examinee violating this instruction have every right to make use of their faculties in
shall be subject to the sanctions attaining success in their endeavors. They should
prescribed by Sec. 8, Art. III of the be allowed to enjoy their freedom to acquire
Rules and Regulations of the useful knowledge that will promote their personal
Commission growth
On October 16, 1986, herein
petitioners, all reviewees preparing to
take the licensure examinations in
accountancy schedule on October 25
and November 2 of the same year, filed
on their own behalf of all others similarly
situated like them, with the Regional
Trial Court of Manila a complaint for
injuction with a prayer with the issuance
of a writ of a preliminary injunction
against respondent PRC to restrain the
latter from enforcing the above-
mentioned resolution and to declare the
same unconstitution.

Respondent PRC filed a motion to

dismiss on October 21, 1987 on the
ground that the lower court had no
jurisdiction to review and to enjoin the
enforcement of its resolution

In an Order of October 21, 1987, the

lower court declared that it had
jurisdiction to try the case and enjoined
 the respondent commission from
enforcing and giving effect to Resolution
No. 105 which it found to be
unconstitutional
Not satisfied therewith, respondent
PRC, on November 10, 1986, filed with
the Court of Appeals
GSIS V Monteclaros WON the proviso in
Nicolas filed and was approved an Section 18 of PD 1146 is It is void for being violative of the
application for retirement benefits valid and constitutional. constitutional guarantees of due process and
under PD No. 1146 or the Revised equal protection of the law. The GSIS cannot
Government Service Insurance Act of deny the claim of Milagros for survivorship
1977. Milagros, as wife and benefits based on this invalid proviso.
designated beneficiary, filed with GSIS
a claim for survivorship pension. GSIS Denial of Due Process. The proviso is contrary
denied the claim because under to Section 1, Article III of the Constitution,
Section 18 of PD 1146, the surviving which provides that “[n]o person shall be deprived
spouse has no right to survivorship of life, liberty, or property without due process of
pension “if the surviving spouse law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
contracted the marriage with the protection of the laws.” The proviso (Sec. 18, PD
pensioner within three years before 1146) is unduly oppressive in outrightly denying a
the pensioner qualified for the dependent spouse’s claim for survivorship
pension.” According to GSIS, Nicolas pension if the dependent spouse contracted
wed Milagros on 10 July 1983, less than marriage to the pensioner within the three-year
one year from his date of retirement on prohibited period. There is outright confiscation
“17 February 1984.” of benefits due the surviving spouse without
giving the surviving spouse an opportunity to
be heard. The proviso undermines the
purpose of PD 1146, which is to assure
comprehensive and integrated social security
and insurance benefits to government
employees and their dependents in the event
of sickness, disability, death, and retirement
of the government employees. (Karla Deles)
Planters v Fertiphil Petitioner PPI and private respondent (1) Whether LOI 1465 (1) No;
Fertiphil are private corporations constitutes a valid Even if We consider LOI No. 1695 enacted under the police
incorporated under Philippine laws. They legislation pursuant power of the State, it would still be invalid for failing to
are both engaged in the importation and to the exercise of comply with the test of "lawful subjects" and "lawful
distribution of fertilizers, pesticides and police power. means." Jurisprudence states the test as follows: (1) the
agricultural chemicals. interest of the public generally, as distinguished from those of
particular class, requires its exercise; and (2) the means
On 3 June 1985, then President Ferdinand employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of
Marcos, exercising his legislative powers, the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
issued LOI No. 1465 which provided,
among others, for the imposition of a For the same reasons as discussed, LOI No. 1695 is invalid
capital recovery component (CRC) on the because it did not promote public interest. The law was
domestic sale of all grades of fertilizers in enacted to give undue advantage to a private corporation.
the Philippines. The LOI provides:
Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
3. The Administrator of the Fertilizer The Court of Appeals Decision dated November 28, 2003 is
Pesticide Authority to include in its AFFIRMED.
fertilizer pricing formula
a capital contribution component
of not less than P10 per bag. This
capital contribution shall be collected
until adequate capital is raised to
make PPI viable. Such capital
contribution shall be applied by FPA
to all domestic sales of fertilizers
in the Philippines. (Underscoring
supplied)

Pursuant to the LOI, Fertiphil paid P10 for

every bag of fertilizer it sold in the
domestic market to the Fertilizer and
Pesticide Authority (FPA). FPA then
remitted the amount collected to the Far
East Bank and Trust Company, the
depositary bank of PPI.Fertiphil
paid P6,689,144 to FPA from July 8, 1985 to
January 24, 1986

After the 1986 Edsa Revolution, FPA

voluntarily stopped the imposition of
the P10 levy. With the return of democracy,
Fertiphil demanded from PPI a refund of
the amounts it paid under LOI No. 1465,
but PPI refused to accede to the demand.

Fertiphil filed a complaint for collection

and damagesagainst FPA and PPI with the
RTC in Makati. It questioned the constitutionality
of LOI No. 1465 for being unjust, unreasonable,
oppressive, invalid and an unlawful imposition
that amounted to a denial of due process of
law.Fertiphil alleged that the LOI solely
favored PPI, a privately owned
corporation, which used the proceeds to
maintain its monopoly of the fertilizer
industry.

In its Answer, FPA, through the Solicitor

General, countered that the issuance of
LOI No. 1465 was a valid exercise of the
police power of the State in ensuring the
stability of the fertilizer industry in the
country. It also averred that Fertiphil did not
sustain any damage from the LOI because the
burden imposed by the levy fell on the ultimate
consumer, not the seller.

RTC: the imposition of the P10 CRC was an

exercise of the State’s inherent power of
taxation; invalidated the levy for violating
the basic principle that taxes can only be
levied for public purpose. (PPI filed a M.R. ->
denied; In a separate but related proceeding, SC
allowed appeal but remanded to CA)

CA: affirmed with modification; even on the

assumption that LOI No. 1465 was issued
under the police power of the state, it is
still unconstitutional because it did not
promote public welfare; the levy was NOT
for the benefit, as alleged, of Planters
Foundation, Inc. (on the strength of the
Letter of Understanding (LOU) issued by
then Prime Minister Cesar Virata on 18
April 1985 and affirmed by the Secretary of
 Justice in an Opinion dated 12 October
1987.(PPI filed a M.R. -> denied)

City of manila v laguio The City Council of Manila encated on 9 Whether or not Ordinance
7783 is valid on the ground The Ordinance violates Equal Protection Clause.
March 1993 and approved on 30 March
1993 an ordinance entitled: AN that it is violates the equal Equal protection requires that all persons or things
protection clause similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to
ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE
rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. Similar
ESTABLISHMENT OR OPERATION OF
subjects, in other words, should not be treated
BUSINESSES PROVIDING CERTAIN differently, so as to give undue favor to some and
FORMS OF AMUSEMENT, unjustly discriminate against others. The guarantee
ENTERTAINMENT, SERVICES AND means that no person or class of persons shall be
FACILITIES IN THE ERMITA-MALATE denied the same protection of laws which is enjoyed
AREA, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR by other persons or other classes in like
VIOLATION THEREOF, AND FOR OTHER circumstances. ]The “equal protection of the laws is a
pledge of the protection of equal laws. It limits
PURPOSES.
governmental discrimination. The equal protection
clause extends to artificial persons but only insofar as
It prohibited establishments such as bars, their property is concerned.
karaoke bars, motels and hotels from
operating in the Malate District which was To quote from J.M. Tuason & Co. v. Land Tenure
notoriously viewed as a red light district Administration: “The ideal situation is for the law’s
harboring thrill seekers. This was expressly benefits to be available to all, that none be placed
provided under Section 1 of the ordinance: outside the sphere of its coverage. Only thus could
chance and favor be excluded and the affairs of men
Private respondent Malate Tourist governed by that serene and impartial uniformity,
Development Corporation (MTDC) is a which is of the very essence of the idea of law.” There
corporation engaged in the business of is recognition, however, in the opinion that what in fact
operating hotels, motels, hostels and exists “cannot approximate the ideal. Nor is the law
lodging houses. It built and opened Victoria susceptible to the reproach that it does not take into
account the realities of the situation. The constitutional
Court in Malate which was licensed as a
guarantee then is not to be given a meaning that
motel although duly accredited with the disregards what is, what does in fact exist. To assure
Department of Tourism as a hotel. MTDC that the general welfare be promoted, which is the end
prayed that the Ordinance, insofar as it of law, a regulatory measure may cut into the rights
includes motels and inns as among its to liberty and property. Those adversely affected
prohibited establishments, be declared may under such circumstances invoke the equal
invalid and unconstitutional. protection clause only if they can show that the
governmental act assailed, far from being inspired
One of the reasons raised by MTDC by the attainment of the common weal was
on why the ordinance was invalid and prompted by the spirit of hostility, or at the very
unconstitutional is that the least, discrimination that finds no support in
Ordinance constitutes a denial of equal reason.” Classification is thus not ruled out, it being
protection under the law as no reasonable sufficient to quote from the Tuason decision anew
basis exists for prohibiting the operation of “that the laws operate equally and uniformly on all
motels and inns, but not pension houses, persons under similar circumstances or that all
hotels, lodging houses or other similar persons must be treated in the same manner, the
establishments, and for prohibiting said conditions not being different, both in the
business in the Ermita-Malate area but not privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed.
outside of this area. Favoritism and undue preference cannot be allowed.
For the principle is that equal protection and
Petitioners asserted that security shall be given to every person under
the Ordinance is valid because it was circumstances which, if not identical, are
enacted in order to protect the social and analogous. If law be looked upon in terms of
moral welfare of the community in burden or charges, those that fall within a class
conjunction with its police power. Petitioners should be treated in the same fashion, whatever
also maintained that the Ordinance is not restrictions cast on some in the group equally
unconstitutional because it did not infringe binding on the rest.[102]
the equal protection clause and cannot be
denounced as class legislation as there
Legislative bodies are allowed to classify the
existed substantial and real differences
subjects of legislation. If the classification is
between the Ermita-Malate area and other
reasonable, the law may operate only on some and
places in the City of Manila.
not all of the people without violating the equal
On 28 June 1993, Judge Laguio protection clause.[103] The classification must, as an
issued an ex-parte temporary restraining indispensable requisite, not be arbitrary. To be valid, it
order against the enforcement of must conform to the following requirements:
the Ordinance. And on 16 July 1993, he
1) It must be based on substantial
granted the writ of preliminary injunction
distinctions.
prayed for by MTDC. The ordinance was
declared null and void. 2) It must be germane to the purposes of
the law.
Petitioners made an appeal on the
grounds that it It erred in concluding that 3) It must not be limited to existing
the subject ordinance is ultra vires, or conditions only.
otherwise, unfair, unreasonable and
oppressive exercise of police power and that 4) It must apply equally to all members of
it erred in declaring the Ordinance void and the class.]
unconstitutional. In the Court’s view, there are no substantial
However, respondents reiterate that distinctions between motels, inns, pension houses,
the questioned Ordinance is not a valid hotels, lodging houses or other similar establishments.
exercise of police power; that it is violative of By definition, all are commercial establishments
due process and is violative of the equal providing lodging and usually meals and other services
protection clause. for the public. No reason exists for prohibiting motels
and inns but not pension houses, hotels, lodging
houses or other similar establishments. The
classification in the instant case is invalid as similar
subjects are not similarly treated, both as to rights
conferred and obligations imposed. It is arbitrary as it
does not rest on substantial distinctions bearing a just
and fair relation to the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Court likewise cannot see the logic for
prohibiting the business and operation of motels in the
Ermita-Malate area but not outside of this area. A
noxious establishment does not become any less
noxious if located outside the area.
The standard “where women are used as tools for
entertainment” is also discriminatory as prostitution
one of the hinted ills the Ordinance aims to banish is
not a profession exclusive to women. Both men and
women have an equal propensity to engage in
prostitution. This discrimination based on gender
violates equal protection as it is not substantially
related to important government objectives. Thus, the
discrimination is invalid.

Note: Other reason why the ordinance is invalid

and unconstitutional (not related to the current topic)-
Requisites for the valid exercise of Police Power are
not met.

In the exercise of police power, a reasonable

relation must exist between the purposes of the police
measure and the means employed for its
accomplishment, for even under the guise of
protecting the public interest, personal rights and those
pertaining to private property will not be permitted to
be arbitrarily invaded.
The Ordinance was enacted to address and
arrest the social ills purportedly spawned by the
establishments in the Ermita-Malate area which are
allegedly operated under the deceptive veneer of
legitimate, licensed and tax-paying nightclubs, bars,
karaoke bars, girlie houses, cocktail lounges, hotels
and motels. Petitioners insist that even the Court in
the case of Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators
Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila[63] had already
taken judicial notice of the “alarming increase in the
rate of prostitution, adultery and fornication in Manila
traceable in great part to existence of motels, which
provide a necessary atmosphere for clandestine entry,
presence and exit and thus become the ideal haven
for prostitutes and thrill-seekers.”[64]

The object of the Ordinance was, accordingly,

the promotion and protection of the social and moral
values of the community. Granting for the sake of
argument that the objectives of theOrdinance are
within the scope of the City Council’s police powers,
the means employed for the accomplishment thereof
were unreasonable and unduly oppressive.

The closing down and transfer of businesses or

their conversion into businesses “allowed” under
 the Ordinance have no reasonable relation to the
accomplishment of its purposes. Otherwise stated, the
prohibition of the enumerated establishments will
not per se protect and promote the social and moral
welfare of the community; it will not in itself eradicate
the alluded social ills of prostitution, adultery,
fornication nor will it arrest the spread of sexual
disease in Manila
Conceding for the nonce that the Ermita-Malate
area teems with houses of ill-repute and
establishments of the like which the City Council may
lawfully prohibit,[65] it is baseless and insupportable to
bring within that classification sauna parlors, massage
parlors, karaoke bars, night clubs, day clubs, super
clubs, discotheques, cabarets, dance halls, motels and
inns. This is not warranted under the accepted
definitions of these terms. The enumerated
establishments are lawful pursuits which are not per
se offensive to the moral welfare of the community.
The City Council instead should regulate human
conduct that occurs inside the establishments, but not
to the detriment of liberty and privacy which are
covenants, premiums and blessings of democracy.

In the instant case, there is a clear invasion of

personal or property rights, personal in the case of
those individuals desirous of owning, operating and
patronizing those motels and property in terms of the
investments made and the salaries to be paid to those
therein employed

MMDA V Viron  The present petition for 1) the MMDA’s The MMDA cannot order the closure
transportation review on certiorari, rooted power to regulate of respondents’ terminals not only because
in the traffic congestion traffic in Metro no authority to implement the Project has
problem, questions the Manila included the been granted nor legislative or police power
 authority of the Metropolitan power to direct been delegated to it, but also because the
Manila Development provincial bus elimination of the terminals does not satisfy
Authority (MMDA) to order operators to abandon the standards of a valid police power
the closure of provincial bus and close their duly measure.
terminals along Epifanio de established and It is the DOTC ─ as the primary
los Santos Avenue (EDSA) existing bus terminals policy, planning, programming, coordinating,
and major thoroughfares of in order to conduct implementing, regulating and administrative
Metro Manila. business in a common entity to promote, develop and regulate
terminal; networks of transportation and
 Challenged are two Orders (2) the E.O. is communications ─ which has the power to
issued by Judge Silvino T. consistent with the establish and administer a transportation
Pampilo, Jr. of the Regional Public Service Act project like the Project subject of the case at
Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. and the Constitution; bar.
(3) the provincial bus The trial court sustained the
The first assailed Order of operators would be constitutionality and legality of the E.O.
September 8, 2005, deprived of their real pursuant to R.A. No. 7924, which
Executive Order (E.O.) No. properties without due empowered the MMDA to administer Metro
179, hereafter referred to as process of law should Manila’s basic services including those of
the E.O., "unconstitutional as they be required to use transport and traffic management. The E.O.
it constitutes an unreasonable the common bus was a valid exercise of the police power of
exercise of police power." terminals; and the State as it satisfied the two tests of lawful
(4) the President has subject matter and lawful means, hence,
The second assailed Order of the authority to Viron’s and Mencorp’s property rights must
November 23, 20053 denied undertake or to cause yield to police power.
petitioners’ motion for the implementation of
reconsideration. the Project. The President’s authority to order the
implementation of the Project in the exercise
 President Gloria Macapagal of the police power of the State have been so
Arroyo issued the E.O. on delegated for the good and welfare of the
February 10, 2003, people. Hence, these powers partake of the
"Providing for the nature of police power.
Establishment of Greater
Manila Mass Transport ANNOTATIONS:
 System."  Police power is the plenary power
vested in the legislature to make,
 The MMDA has ordain, and establish wholesome and
recommended a plan to reasonable laws, statutes and
decongest traffic by ordinances, not repugnant to the
eliminating the bus terminals Constitution, for the good and welfare
now located along major of the people.
Metro Manila thoroughfares. This power to prescribe regulations to
promote the health, morals,
 The Metropolitan Manila education, good order or safety, and
Development Authority general welfare of the people flows
(MMDA), is hereby from the recognition that salus populi
designated as the est suprema lex ─ the welfare of the
implementing Agency for the people is the supreme law.
project.  Police power rests primarily with the
legislature, such power may be
 The E.O. noted the primary delegated, as it is in fact increasingly
cause of traffic congestion in being delegated.
Metro Manila has been the
numerous buses plying the  The power may be exercised by the
streets and the inefficient President and administrative boards
connectivity of the different as well as by the lawmaking bodies of
transport modes. municipal corporations or local
governments under an express
 Viron Transport Co., Inc. delegation by the Local Government
(Viron), a domestic Code of 1991.
corporation engaged in the
business of public  Two tests of a valid police power
transportation with a measure:
provincial bus operation, (1) the interest of the public
filed a petition for generally, as distinguished from that
declaratory relief10 before of a particular class, requires its
the RTC11 of Manila. exercise; and
 (2) the means employed are
 Mencorp Transportation reasonably necessary for the
System, Inc. (Mencorp), accomplishment of the purpose and
another provincial bus not unduly oppressive upon
operator, asked the court to individuals.
declare the E.O.  The police power legislation must be
unconstitutional and illegal firmly grounded on public interest
for transgressing the and welfare and a reasonable relation
possessory rights of owners must exist between the purposes and
and operators of public land the means.
transportation units over
their respective terminals.  In Luque v. Villegas, public welfare
lies at the bottom of any regulatory
measure designed "to relieve
congestion of traffic, which is, to say
the least, a menace to public safety."
As such, measures calculated to
promote the safety and convenience
of the people using the thoroughfares
by the regulation of vehicular traffic
present a proper subject for the
exercise of police power.

 The true role of Constitutional Law is

to effect an equilibrium between
authority and liberty so that rights are
exercised within the framework of the
law and the laws are enacted with due
deference to rights.