ARTICLE III - BILL OF RIGHTS sovereignty, for the support of gov’t and for all public

needs
Primacy of Human Rights and Enforcement  They are inherent powers – a constitution does not grant such powers to the
Three Great Powers of the Gov’t gov’t; it can only define and delimit them and allocate their exercise among
 The totality of gov’tal power is contained in 3 great powers: various gov’t agencies
1. Police Power
o Most essential, insistent and the least limitable of Bill of Rights
powers, extending as it does to all the great public  The Bill of Rights is a guarantee that there are certain areas of a person’s
needs life, liberty and property which gov’tal power may not touch. All the
o Inherent and plenary power in the State which enables powers of the gov’t are limited by the Bill of Rights. (Bernas primer)
it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety,  The set of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and political
and welfare of society rights of the individual, and imposing limitations on the powers of
o Power vested in the legislature by the constitution to government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights. The Bill
make, ordain and establish all manner of wholesome of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and security
and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either “against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour,
with penalties or without, not repugnant to the the erosion of small encroachments, and the scorn and derision of those
constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and who have no patience with general principles” (Nachura)
welfare of the commonwealth, and of the subjects of  Generally, any governmental action in violation of the Bill of Rights is
the same void. These provisions are also generally self-executing. (Nachura)
o The most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most  Restrictions found in the Bill of Rights, as constitutional law, are directed
demanding of the three powers against the state.
o May be exercised as long as the activity or the property o Relations between private persons – almost all protections against
sought to be regulated has some relevance to the public the state found in the Bill of Rights have been made applicable as
welfare civil law to relations between private persons through Article 32 of
2. Power of Eminent Domain the Civil Code:
o Power of the state to take private property for public  “Any public officer or employee, or any private
use upon payment of just compensation (ART III, Sec individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats,
9) violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the
o Possessed by the State and is exercised by the nat’l following rights and liberties of another person shall be
gov’t liable to the latter for damages:
o Plenary in scope
3. Power of Taxation xxx
o Power by which the sovereign, through its law-making
body, raises revenue to defray the necessary expenses In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or
of the gov’t not the defendant’s act or omission constitutes a criminal
o Way of apportioning the costs of gov’t among those offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an
who in some measure are privileged to enjoy its entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages,
benefits and must bear its burdens and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed
o Exercise of this power derives is source from the very independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be
existence of the state whose social contract with its instituted), and may be proved by a preponderance of
citizens obliges it to promote public interest and evidence.
common good
o Taxes – enforced proportional contributions from The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary
persons and property, levied by the State by virtue of its damages may also be adjudicated.

ANDREA CONSTI2 MIDTERMS | 1

 The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from Section 1.
a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
of the Penal Code or other penal statute.” nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Civil Rights Hierarchy of Rights

 Those rights that belong to every citizen of the state or country, or, in a “Person” refers to:
wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the  Natural persons
organization or administration of gov’t.  Juridical persons
 They include the rights to property, marriage, equal protection of the laws,  Political subdivisions
freedom of contract, etc.
 They are rights appertaining to a person by virtue of his citizenship in a Three rights that Section 1 gives basic protection to:
state or community. 1. Right to life
 Such term may also refer, in its general sense, to rights capable of being o Not just a protection of the right to be alive or to the security of
enforced or redressed in a civil action. one’s limb against physical harm, but also a right to a good life
o Puts importance on the quality of living
Political Rights 2. Right to liberty
 They refer to the right to participate, directly or indirectly, in the o Civil liberty – measure of freedom which may be enjoyed in a
establishment or administration of government, e.g.: civilized community, consistently with the peaceful enjoyment of
o Right of suffrage like freedom in others
o Right to hold public office o Right to liberty includes the right to exist and the right to be free
o Right to petition from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude
o In general, the rights appurtenant to citizenship vis-a-vis the o Also includes “the right of the citizen to be free to use his faculties
management of government in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his
livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any avocation, and for
Republic v. Sandiganbayan (Bill of Rights after EDSA Revolution) that purpose, to enter into all contracts which may be proper,
 The SC held that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not necessary, and essential to his carrying out these purposes to a
operative from the actual and effective take-over of power by the successful conclusion”
revolutionary government following the EDSA revolution until the o Chief elements: right to contract, right to choose one’s
adoption, on March 24, 1986, of the Provisional (Freedom) Constitution. employment, right to labor, right to locomotion
 During this period, the directives and orders of the revolutionary 3. Right to property
government were the supreme law, because no constitution limited the o Protected property – includes all kinds of property defined in the
extent and scope of such directives and orders. Thus, during the Civil Code; also includes vested rights
interregnum, a person could not invoke any exclusionary right under the o Also includes the right to work and the right to earn a living; one’s
Bill of Rights, because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights employment, profession, trade or calling is protected property
at the time.
 However, the protection accorded to individuals under the ICCPR and the Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Org. v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co. Inc.
UDHR remained in effect during the interregnum. (Hierarchy of Rights)
 The primacy of human rights over property rights is recognized.
 Because these freedoms are delicate and vulnerable, as well as supremely
precious in our society and the threat of sanctions may deter their exercise
almost as potently as the actual application of sanctions.
 They need breathing space to survive, permitting gov’t regulation only with
narrow specificity. Human rights are imprescriptible.

ANDREA CONSTI2 MIDTERMS | 2

Due Process: In General 2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented
Two aspects/kinds of due process 3. The decision must have something to support itself
1. Procedural – relates chiefly to the mode of procedure which gov’t agencies 4. The evidence must be substantial – such reasonable evidence as a
must follow in the enforcement and application of laws; guarantee of reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion
procedural fairness 5. The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at
2. Substantive – prohibition against arbitrary laws; requires the intrinsic least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected
validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life, 6. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own independent
liberty or property consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept
the views of a subordinate
Tupas v. CA (Late Petition) 7. The Board of body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision
 Procedural rules are intended to ensure orderly administration of justice and in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various
protection of substantive rights. Both substantive and procedural rights are issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered
guaranteed by due process. They complement each other.
Shu v. Dee (NBI without judicial or quasi-judicial power)
I. Procedural Due Process  Respondents cannot claim that they were denied due process during the
 Need for notice and opportunity to be heard (not actual hearing) NBI investigation. The functions of the NBI are merely investigatory and
 Guarantee of procedural fairness informational in nature. The NBI has no judicial or quasi-judicial power
 Purpose of procedural due process: and is incapable of granting any relief to any party. It cannot even
o Contribute to the accuracy and thus minimize error in deprivation determine probable cause.
o Gives a sense of rational participation in a decision than can affect
his destiny and thus enhances his dignity as a thinking person GMA v. COMELEC
 Violations may be cured by motion for reconsideration  While it is true that the COMELEC is an independent office and not a mere
administrative agency under the Executive Department, rules which apply
A. Judicial Proceedings to the latter must also be deemed to similarly apply to the former, not as a
Essential Requirements of Procedural Due Process in Courts (Banco Español v. matter of administrative convenience but as a dictate of due process.
Palanca) o And this assumes greater significance considering the important
1. There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and and pivotal role that the COMELEC plays in the life of the nation.
determine the matter  CIR v. CA Doctrine
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or o “It should be understandable that when an administrative rule is
over the property which is the subject of the proceedings merely interpretative in nature, its applicability needs nothing
3. The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard further than its bare issuance for it gives no real consequence more
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing than what the law itself has already prescribed. When, upon the
other hand, the administrative rule goes beyond merely providing
Publicity and TV Coverage for the means that can facilitate or render least cumbersome the
 Mere exposure to publicity does not affect impartiality in this case implementation of the law but substantially adds to or increases
 Person alleging must have direct proof of influence, not just mere the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at
possibility least to those directly affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter
 The public cannot be excluded, especially when the issue is of public to be duly informed, before that new issuance is given the force
interest and effect of law.” (Emphasis in the original)
 For failing to conduct prior hearing before coming up with Resolution No.
B. Administrative; Quasi-Judicial Proceedings; Arbitration 9615, said Resolution, specifically in regard to the new rule on aggregate
“Cardinal Primary” Requirements in Administrative Proceedings (Ang Tibay v. airtime is declared defective and ineffectual.
CIR)
1. The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s case and
submit evidence in support thereof
ANDREA CONSTI2 MIDTERMS | 3
Extradition Proceedings (Gov’t. of Hongkong v. Olalia) 2. They shall have the right to answer the charges against them, with the
 Considered in the nature of criminal cases because there is arrest detention assistance of counsel, if desired
and forced transfer to another state 3. They shall be informed of the evidence against them
 The SC said that it cannot ignore the modern trend in public international 4. They shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf
law which places primacy on the worth of the individual person and the 5. The evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or
sanctity of human rights. official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case
o While the UDHR is not a treaty, the principles contained therein
are now recognized as customarily binding upon the members of Cases that follow this doctrine:
the international community.  ADMU v. Capulong
 CJ Puno’s Separate Opinion: o An administrative proceeding conducted to investigate the
o The Court adopted a new standard to be used in granting bail in students’ participation in a hazing activity need not be clothed with
extradition cases, denominated “clear and convincing evidence”. the attributes of a judicial proceeding.
As CJ Puno explained, this standard should be lower than proof  Go v. Colegio de San Juan de Letran
beyond reasonable doubt, but higher than preponderance of o Where a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the
evidence. proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot [thereafter] complain of
o The potential extraditee must prove by “clear and convincing deprivation of due process.
evidence” that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the o What matters for due process purpose is notice of what is to be
orders and processes of the extradition court for entitlement to bail. explained, not the form in which the notice is given.

Arbitration (RCBC v. Banco de Oro) D. Deportation Proceedings

 When a claim of arbitrator’s evident partiality is made, “the court must Elements of Due Process in Deportation Proceedings (Lao Gi v. CA)
ascertain from such record as is available whether the arbitrators’ conduct 1. Charges against an alien must specify the acts or omissions complained of
was so biased and prejudiced as to destroy fundamental fairness.” 2. Preliminary investigation must be conducted to determine if there is
 Evident partiality sufficient cause to charge respondent with deportation
o To demonstrate evident partiality, “the challenging party must 3. Rules of Criminal Procedure should be followed (with respect to warrants,
show that a reasonable person would have to conclude that an bail, motion to quash, trial)
arbitrator was partial to the other party or the arbitration.” 4. Private prosecutors should not be allowed to intervene
 That is, “the party asserting evident partiality must
establish specific facts that indicate improper motives on E. Regulations: Fixing of Rates and Regulation of Profession
the part of the arbitrator.” (Uhl v. Komatsu Forklift Co., Rates (Maceda v. ERB)
Ltd.)  Government bodies have 2 powers:
o “It is not enough to demonstrate an amorphous institutional o Quasi-legislative – general rules, which will affect everybody in a
predisposition toward the other side.” (Andersons, Inc. v. Horton certain class; no form of notice, hearing or cross-examination
Farms, Inc.) required
o While actual bias need not be demonstrated, apparent bias is not o Quasi-judicial – applies exclusively to a specific entity or person;
enough to vacate the arbitrator’s award. any change must be made after due notice and hearing
o Awards should not be vacated “when arbitrators fail to disclose  Price fixing is considered as an exercise of a quasi-legislative function.
insubstantial relationships.” (Positive Software Solutions, Inc. v. Thus, it is not bound by strict rules on evidence.
New Century Mortgage Corp.)
Profession (Corona v. UHPAP)
C. Academic Discipline  A professional license becomes a property right after its issuance. It cannot
Minimum Standards of Procedural Due Process in School Administrative be taken away without due process, notice or hearing.
Proceedings (Guzman v. Nat’l University)
1. The students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any
accusation against them
ANDREA CONSTI2 MIDTERMS | 4
F. Dismissals, Suspensions, Reinstatements, etc. about computation but this does not render the ordinance vague
Dismissal in Private Sector (Salaw v. NLRC) and invalid.
 Requirements for a lawful dismissal of an employee under the Labor Code  Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (Plunder Law)
o Must be for a valid/authorized cause as provided by law o The Plunder Law is not void for being vague because the words
o Requirements of due process must be observed before dismissal – “combination” and “series” can be easily understood.
requirement of proper notice and hearing o Words will be interpreted in their natural, plain and ordinary usage
 Requirement of notice: inform employee of employer’s unless the legislature intended a technical meaning.
intent to dismiss him and reason for such o The use of imprecise language does not automatically make a
 Requirement of hearing: affords employee opportunity to statute vague and void.
answer charges and defend himself before dismissal is
effected Overbreadth Doctrine (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan)
 A gov”tal purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep
Preventive Suspension (Castillo-Co v. Barbers) unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of political freedoms.
 Preventive suspension can be decreed on an official under investigation
after charges are brought (even before the charges are brought and heard) H. Motion for Reconsideration
since the same is not in the nature of penalty, but merely a preliminary step
in an administrative investigation. I. Suretyship
 Suspension is not a punishment or penalty for acts of dishonesty and Stronghold Insurance v. CA
misconduct in office, but is only a preventive measure. Therefore it is not a  In surety bonds, the signee (guarantor) agrees to answer for whatever
denial of procedural due process. decision might be rendered against the principal, whether or not the surety
was impleaded in the complaint.
G. Ordinance/Statute/Memo Cir./Rules o Notice to the principal is notice to the surety, thus they have been
Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine given an opportunity to participate in litigation.
 A law that is utterly vague is defective because it fails to give notice of o If they choose not to intervene, it is deemed that they have waived
what it commands. their right to be heard.
 A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible  Notice to the principal is also notice to the surety.
standards that men “of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ as to its application.” It is repugnant to the Constitution J. Tariff and Customs Code
in two respects: Feeder v. CA
o It violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the  Forfeiture proceedings are not penal in nature therefore would only need
parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid substantial evidence.
o It leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its  There is also no need for assistance of counsel. The right to be presumed
provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government innocent is given only to an individual in criminal cases, and not to
muscle corporate entities.
 The act must be utterly vague on its face, that is, it cannot be clarified by
either a saving clause or by construction. K. Appeal

Cases that follow this doctrine: L. Closure Proceedings

 People v. Nazario (the term “manager”) Central Bank v. CA (Relative Constitutionality)
o Nazario, as the operator of the fishpond, is covered within the term  Lack of notice and hearing cannot be deemed acts of arbitrariness and bad
“manager.” He is the one who receives the profits of the fishpond, faith in cases of bank closures.
hence, he should pay taxes.  The “close now and hear later” scheme is grounded on practical and legal
o The ordinance is not utterly vague on its face. The ordinance considerations to prevent unwarranted dissolution of the banks assets and as
established a definite date of payment. The problem is merely valid exercise of police power to protect the depositors, creditors,
stockholders and in general the public.
ANDREA CONSTI2 MIDTERMS | 5
  Doctrine of Relative Constitutionality/Principle of Altered Circumstance
o The constitutionality of a statute cannot, in every instance, be British American Tobacco v. Camacho (Expansive Tax Category)
determined by a mere comparison of its provisions with applicable  The legislative classification under the classification freeze provision, after
provisions of the Constitution, since the statute may be having been shown to be rationally related to achieve certain legitimate
constitutionally valid as applied to one set of facts and invalid in state interests and done in good faith, must, perforce, end the inquiry of the
its application to another. SC.
o A statute valid at one time may become void at another time
because of altered circumstances. Thus, if a statute in its practical P. Administrative and Preliminary Investigation – Ombudsman
operation becomes arbitrary or confiscatory, its validity, even II. Substantive Due Process
though affirmed by a former adjudication, is open to inquiry and  This serves as a restriction on the gov’t’s law and rule-making powers
investigation in the light of changed conditions.  It requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of
the person to his life, liberty or property
M. Biddings  It must be a guarantee against the exercise of arbitrary power even when the
power is exercised according to proper forms and procedure
N. UDHA - RA 7279; Squatting; Procedure for relocation; summary abatement
Perez v. Madrona (Not nuisance per se) Requisites of Police Power
 Respondents’ fence is not a nuisance per se. 1. Lawful subject
o By its nature, it is not injurious to the health or comfort of the o The subject of the measure is within the scope of the police power,
community. It was built primarily to secure the property of i.e., that the activity or property sought to be regulated affects the
respondents and prevent intruders from entering it. public welfare
o Also, as correctly pointed out by respondents, the sidewalk still o The interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those
exists. If petitioner believes that respondents’ fence indeed of a particular class, require the interference by the State
encroaches on the sidewalk, it may be so proven in a hearing 2. Lawful means
conducted for that purpose. o The means employed are reasonably necessary for the attainment
o Not being a nuisance per se, but at most a nuisance per accidens, of the object sought and not unduly oppressive upon individuals
its summary abatement without judicial intervention is o Both the end and the means must be legitimate
unwarranted.
Requisites of a valid local ordinance (CUP-PUG tumibok ang puso)
O. Cancellation of Property Rights/Privileges  Must not Contravene the Constitution or any statute
American Inter-Fashion v. OP  Must not be Unfair or oppressive
 Cancellation of Property Rights if deemed to be a custom violates due  Must not be Partial or discriminatory
process. (Sandy Crab)  Must not Prohibit but may regulate trade
 The creditable input tax is a mere statutory privilege and not a vested right.  Must not be Unreasonable
Since these privileges were provided for by law, it can also be taken away  Must be General and consistent with public policy
or limited by subsequent law. There was no violation of due process.

ANDREA CONSTI2 MIDTERMS | 6

 Case Title and Topic Facts Valid Exercise of Police Power? Doctrine
United States v. Toribio Assailed law: Act No. 1147 – prohibits VALID The State may interfere in the property
(Carabao slaughterhouse) the slaughter of carabaos for consumption Lawful Subject – YES rights of persons wherever the public
in municipal slaughterhouses without the There was a need to protect carabaos interests demand it, and in this particular a
permit of the municipal treasurer which were means of production large discretion is necessarily vested in
especially for food production because a the legislature to determine, not only what
Luis Toribio slaughtered a carabao for disease had already threatened them with the interests of the public require, but
food. He said that the law did not apply to extinction. what measures are necessary for the
him because there was no municipal protection such interests.
slaughterhouse in his municipality of Lawful Means – YES
Carmen, Bohol. He also claims that the The means used are reasonably necessary
law deprived him of his property rights in order to prevent the slaughter of
without due process. carabaos.
Churchill v. Rafferty Assailed provision: Sec. 100 of Act No. VALID Police power cannot interfere with private
(Billboards as nuisance) 2339 – gives the Collector of Internal Lawful Subject – YES property for purely aesthetic purposes.
Revenue the power to remove billboards The billboards were offensive to the sight, But where the act is reasonably within a
which were offensive to the sight and were thus considered nuisances. proper consideration of and care for the
Police power has for its object the public health, safety or comfort, it should
A judgment was rendered in favor of improvement of social and economic not be disturbed by the courts.
plaintiffs (Churchill and Tait) where the conditions affecting the community at
respondent Collector of Internal Revenue large and collectively with a view to bring
was restrained from destroying or about the greatest good of the greatest
removing signboards and billboards which number.
are the property of plaintiffs for being
offensive to sight. Lawful Means – YES
Billboards offensive to the sight (such as
those in the case at bar) may be validly
regulated.
People v. Fajardo Assailed law: Ordinance No. 7 INVALID The State may not under the guise of
(View from plaza) (Municipality of Baao, CamSur) – Lawful Subject – YES Police Power, permanently divest owners
requires people to obtain a building permit Property may be regulated in the interest of the beneficial use of their property and
from the Municipal Mayor should they of the general welfare, and in its pursuit, practically confiscate them solely to
decide to construct a project the State may prohibit structures offensive preserve or assure the aesthetic
to the sight. The proposed building appearance of the community.
Respondents Juan Fajardo and his son-in- “destroys the view of the public plaza or
law Pedro Babilonia sent a letter to the occupies any public property”
mayor, requesting for a building permit to
construct a house on a property they Lawful Means – NO
owned. The mayor denied their request, The ordinance does not give sufficient
because the house to be built on the standards to limit the mayor’s action, thus
property blocks the view of the public allowing him arbitrary use of power. Also,
plaza. Despite the denial of their request, the ordinance allows for a taking of the
respondents still pursued the construction. right to use property without just
compensation, an unlawful confiscation of
property.

ANDREA CONSTI2 MIDTERMS | 7

Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court Assailed law: EO No. 626-A – prohibits INVALID The minimum requirements of due
(Transport of carabao) the movement and slaughter of carabaos Lawful Subject – YES process are notice and hearing, which
There is a need to protect the population generally speaking, may not be dispensed
Petitioner Restituto Ynot was caught of carabaos as these are essential to crop with because they are intended as a
transporting 6 carabaos in a pump boat production. safeguard against official arbitrariness.
from Masbate to Iloilo, a violation of
assailed EO. These carabaos were then Lawful Means – NO
confiscated by the police station The means employed are not reasonable.
commander. Ynot sued for recovery but Prohibition against the transfer of
were unable to be produced. RTC carabaos and carabeef does not prevent
sustained the confiscation, and appealed their indiscriminate slaughter. Also, the
to the IAC, upholding the same. EO is invalid for it allows for automatic
confiscation.
Balacuit v. CFI of Agusan del Norte Assailed law: Ordinance No. 640 INVALID The exercise of police power by the local
(Discount to children in movie house) (Butuan City) – penalizes Lawful Subject – NO government is valid unless it contravenes
persons/entities who will not sell movie Alleged purpose for the ordinance is to the fundamental law of the land, or an act
tickets to children aged 7-12 for half the ease the burden of parents who have to of the legislature, or unless it is against
price pay the full price for their children even if public policy or is unreasonable,
they cannot fully understand the movie. oppressive, partial, discriminating or in
Petitioners, manager of movie theaters, Such an ordinance is not justified by any derogation of a common right.
assail the validity of said ordinance. public necessity. There is nothing
immoral or injurious in charging the same
price for both children and adults.

Lawful Means – NO
The ordinance may have helped the
parents, but it made the petitioners bear
the costs.
Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Assailed laws (both from Cagayan de BOTH INVALID The games of chance under PAGCOR are
(Local ordinance against PAGCOR) Oro): (Test for validity of police power not allowed by law. They do not fall under the
Ordinance No. 3353 – prohibits the discussed in this case) prohibited games contemplated in the
issuance of business permit and cancels LGC.
existing business permit to any
establishment engaged in the casino
industry

Ordinance No. 3375-93 – penalizes the

operation of casino businesses

Respondent Pryce Properties, Corp., Inc.

assailed the validity of said ordinances
before the CA. CA granted the petition
and declared the ordinances invalid. MR
of petitioner Magtajas (Mayor of CDO)
was denied.

ANDREA CONSTI2 MIDTERMS | 8

Bennis v. Michigan Assailed law: §§600.3801 and 600.3825 VALID An owner’s interest in property may be
(Confiscated car) (Michigan’s Compiled Laws) – provides Lawful Subject – YES forfeited by reason of the use to which the
for the abatement of properties considered The State here sought to deter illegal property is put even though the owner did
as nuisances. activity that contributes to neighborhood not know that it was to be put to such use.
deterioration and unsafe streets. The government may not be required to
Petitioner was a joint owner, with her compensate an owner for property which
husband, of an automobile in which her Lawful Means – YES it has already lawfully acquired under the
husband engaged in sexual activity with a Forfeiture serves a deterrent purpose exercise of governmental authority other
prostitute. A Michigan court ordered the distinct from any punitive purpose. than the power of eminent domain.
automobile forfeited as a public nuisance, Forfeiture of property prevents illegal
with no offset for her interest, uses “both by preventing further illicit use
notwithstanding her lack of knowledge of of the [property] and by imposing an
her husband’s activity. economic penalty, thereby rendering
illegal behavior unprofitable.”
Chavez v. Romulo Assailed law: PNP Guidelines – VALID The possession of firearms, as well as a
(Right to bear arms) implements a ban on the carrying of Lawful Subject – YES gun license permitting the carrying of
firearms outside of residence The basis for its issuance was the need for firearms, is only a privilege and not a
peace and order in the society. Owing to right.
Petitioner Francisco I. Chavez, a licensed the proliferation of crimes, particularly
gun owner to whom a PTCFOR has been those committed by the New People’s The regulation of firearms fall within the
issued, requested the DILG to reconsider Army (NPA), which tends to disturb the police power of the State, as it regulates
the implementation of the assailed peace of the community, President Arroyo its use and protection for the public safety
Guidelines. However, his request was deemed it best to impose a nationwide and welfare of the general society.
denied. gun ban.

Lawful Means – YES

The assailed Guidelines do not entirely
prohibit possession of firearms. What they
proscribe is merely the carrying of
firearms outside of residence. However,
those who wish to carry their firearms
outside of their residences may re-apply
for a new PTCFOR.
GSIS v. Montesclaros Assailed law: Sec. 18 of PD 1146 – states INVALID Gov’t pensions do not constitute mere
(Survivorship pension claim) a person has no right to survivorship Lawful Subject – NO gratuity but form part of compensation,
pension if the surviving spouse contracted The purpose of PD 1146 is to assure because they are taken from mandatory
the marriage with the pensioner within 3 comprehensive social security and salary deductions. Employees have
years before the petitioner qualified for insurance benefits to gov’t employees and contractual/vested rights in the pension
the pension their dependents in the event of sickness, where pension is part of terms of
disability, death, retirement, etc. employment. When an employee retires
Respondent Milagros Montesclaros, after However, the classification imposed in and meets eligibility requirements, he
the death of her husband, filed for Sec. 18 of said PD is unreasonable in that acquires a vested right to benefits that is
survivorship benefits from GSIS. GSIS it is discriminatory and arbitrary, violates protected by the due process clause.
denied the claim, pursuant to said PD. equal protection clause Retirees enjoy a protected property
Respondent lodged a complaint with the interest whenever they acquire a right to

ANDREA CONSTI2 MIDTERMS | 9

 RTC who ruled in her favor. This led Lawful Means – NO immediate payment under pre-existing
GSIS to file an appeal to the CA, who Sec. 18 of PD 1146 is unduly oppressive law. No law can deprive such person of
affirmed the same. because there is outright confiscation of his pension rights without due process of
benefits due the surviving spouse without law, without notice and opportunity to be
giving the surviving spouse without heard
giving an opportunity to be heard.
Chavez v. COMELEC Assailed law: Sec. 32 of Resolution No. VALID The resolution is not violative of the non-
(Candidate billboards) 6520 (COMELEC) – states that Lawful Subject – YES impairment of contracts clause. (ART III,
propaganda materials mentioning a The lawful subject is to prohibit Sec 10) The non-impairment clause is
person’s name or containing his image, premature campaigning and to level the limited in application to laws that
who, after said placement, becomes a playing field for all candidates derogate from prior acts or contracts by
candidate for public office, shall enlarging, abridging or in any manner
immediately removed Lawful Means – YES changing the intention of the parties.
Ordering the removal of the billboards is a There is impairment if a subsequent law
Petitioner Chavez was an endorser for reasonable method to ensure that some changes the terms of a contract between
certain products with billboards along candidates, including petitioner, do not parties, imposes new conditions,
main roads. He then ran for Senator and get unfair advantage over other candidates dispenses with those agreed upon or
was directed by the COMELEC to remove in terms of exposure and publicity withdraws remedies for the enforcement
such billboards to prevent immature of the rights of the parties.
campaigning, pursuant to said Resolution.
He then assailed the constitutionality of The billboards gave the petitioner an
Sec. 32, among others, stating that it is an unfair advantage over other candidates as
invalid exercise of police power. they became political in nature.
Lucena Grand Terminal v. JAC Liner Assailed law: Ordinance No. 1631 and INVALID It is not the terminals, but the
(Exclusive franchise) 1778 – grants exclusive franchise of bus Lawful Subject – YES indiscriminate loading and unloading
operation and terminals to Lucena Grand The questioned ordinances were enacted which impedes traffic. Terminals are not
Central with the objective of relieving traffic obstacles but are legitimate businesses.
congestion in the City of Lucena. They
Respondent JAC Liner assailed said involve public interest warranting
ordinances on the ground that they interference of the State.
constitute an invalid exercise of police
power. Lawful Means – NO
The means employed are not reasonable.
They are characterized by overbreadth
because they go beyond what is
reasonably necessary.
Ermita-Malate Hotel & Motel Operator Assailed law: Ordinance No. 4760 (City VALID Persons and property may be subjected to
v. City of Manila of Manila) – imposes license fees of Lawful Subject – YES all kinds of restrains and burdens, in order
(License fee to curb immorality) P6000/year for 1st class motels and The stated purpose of the said ordinance to secure the general comfort, health, and
P4500/year for 2nd class motels; also is to curb immorality. Motels contribute a prosperity of the state.
prohibited persons younger that 18 to be great part in the rise of adultery,
accepted without his/her parents/lawful prostitution and fornication because of the
guardians clandestine entry and exit they provide.
Hence, there is a public need which needs
Petitioners hotel/motel operators assail the to be addressed.

ANDREA CONSTI2 MIDTERMS | 10

 said ordinance for being violative of due
process. Lower court rendered the Lawful Means – YES
ordinance unconstitutional. The means employed are reasonably
necessary. License fees can be imposed as
a form of regulation (police power).
City of Manila v. Laguio Assailed law: Ordinance No. 7783 (City INVALID The problem here is with the people who
(Sauna, massage parlors, night clubs) of Manila) – prohibits the establishment Lawful Subject – YES use these places for immoral activities.
or operation of businesses providing The ordinance was enacted with the best Eradicating these establishments will not
certain forms of amusement, of motives and shares the concern of the eradicate the problem of immoral
entertainment, services and facilities in public for the cleansing of the Ermita- activities done by the people, as these
the Ermita-Malate area (including saunas, Malate area of its social sins. could be done even in the most innocent
massage parlors, beerhouses, motels, of places.
night clubs, etc.) Lawful Means – NO
The enactment of the ordinance has no
Private respondent Malate Tourist Dev’t statutory or constitutional authority to
Corp. filed a case in the Manila RTC stand on. Aside from being a deprivation
assailing the constitutionality of said of property rights, prohibition of the
ordinance. Respondent Judge Laguio establishments would not do anything to
ruled that the ordinance was invalid. stop immorality.
White Light v. City of Manila Assailed law: Ordinance No. 7774 – INVALID Substantive due process completes the
(Wash up rates) prohibits short time admission in hotels, Lawful Subject – YES protection envisioned by the due process
motels, and similar establishments The law aims to minimize prostitution, clause. It inquires whether the government
drug use, illicit sex, and other immoral has sufficient justification for depriving a
Petitioners (hotel and motel developers) activities. person of life, liberty, or property.
went to the RTC to file a complaint with
prayer for TRO, which was granted, Lawful Means – YES
together with the ruling that the said The means used in the ordinance do not
ordinance was unconstitutional. align with the constitution (this goes
Respondents went to the CA who ruled on against the first criteria of a valid
their favor, and reversed the RTC ruling. ordinance: must not contravene the
constitution)
KMU v. Dir. Gen. of NEDA Assailed law: EO 420 – directs all gov’t VALID RE: Right to privacy – the EO provides
(Uniform ID system) agencies and GOCCs to adopt a uniform Lawful Subject – YES for sufficient standards with regard to the
data collection and format for their The purposes of the uniform ID data use of data. Privacy is therefore not
existing ID systems collection and ID format are to reduce violated.
costs, achieve efficiency and reliability,
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of insure compatibility, and provide
said EO on the grounds of it being a convenience to the people served by gov’t
usurpation of legislative power, and entities.
violative of the right to privacy.
Lawful Means – YES
It does not implement a nat’l ID system
because it only applies to agencies which
already collect personal data and issue
IDs.

ANDREA CONSTI2 MIDTERMS | 11

Mirasol v. DPWH Assailed laws: AO1 – VALID A classification can only be assailed if it
(Motorcycle prohibition) AO 1 (DPWC) – prohibits motorcycles Lawful Subject – YES is deemed invidious, that is, it is not based
on limited access facilities Real and substantial differences exist on real or substantial differences.
between a motorcycle and other forms of
DO 74, 215, 123 (DPWH) – bans transport sufficient to justify its
motorcycles in NLEX, SLEX and Coastal classification among those prohibited
Road from plying the toll ways. These rules
were designed to ensure public safety and
Petitioners Mirasol and Santiago (of the uninhibited flow of traffic within
Luzon Motorcyclists Fed.) assailed the limited access facilities.
validity of said orders.
Lawful Means – YES
The AO does not impose unreasonable
restrictions. It merely outlines several
precautionary measures, to which toll way
users must adhere.

The DOs – INVALID

DPWH has no authority to declare certain
expressways as limited access facilities.
Under the law, it is the DOTC which is
authorized to administer and enforce all
laws, rules and regulations in the field of
transportation and to regulate related
activities.
St. Luke’s v. NLRC Assailed law: RA 7431 – requires VALID While the right of workers to security of
(Regulation of profession) practicing Radiology Technologists to Lawful Subject – YES tenure is guaranteed by the Constitution,
obtain a proper certification form the The law aims to safeguard public health its exercise may be reasonably regulated
Board of Radiologic Technology and safety. pursuant to the police power of the State
to safeguard health, morals, peace,
Petitioner Maribel Santos, an x-ray Lawful Means – YES education, order, safety and the general
technician without a license, was The law requires the licensing of x-ray welfare of the people.
terminated by St. Luke’s Medical Center technicians, which is a lawful method.
for non-compliance with said RA. She
sued the hospital for illegal dismissal.
MMDA v. Viron Assailed law: EO 179 – directs the INVALID 7 Basic Metro-Wide Services provided by
(Power of MMDA) MMDA to implement a transport system Test of valid police power cannot be the MMDA:
(Greater Manila Mass Transport System) applied to this case because the MMDA  Development planning
has NO POLICE POWER.  Transport and traffic management
Pursuant to this EO, the MMDA issued  Solid waste disposal and management
orders requiring bus corporations to Assuming arguendo that police power  Flood control and sewerage
abandon their terminals. may be delegated to the MMDA: management
 Urban renewal, zoning and land use
Lawful Subject – YES planning, and shelter services
The orders were enacted with the  Health and sanitation, urban
ANDREA CONSTI2 MIDTERMS | 12
objective of relieving traffic congestion in protection and pollution control
the Metro Manila. They involve public  Public Safety
interest warranting interference of the
State.

Lawful Means – NO
The closure of the bus terminals is not a
reasonable method to decongest traffic.
Other more reasonable methods might be
more effective.

ANDREA CONSTI2 MIDTERMS | 13

The Writ of Amparo (as discussed in Sec. of DND v. Manalo) individual/entity… The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced
 Re: Amparo Rule disappearances or threats thereof”
o Surfaced as a recurring proposition in the recommendations that  Parties shall establish their claims by substantial evidence… If the
resulted from a 2-day Nat’l Consultative Summit on EJKs allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall
sponsored by the SC grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and
o Was intended to address the intractable problem of extralegal appropriate; otherwise the privilege shall be denied”
killings and enforced disappearances, and is confined to instances
or threats thereof The Writ of Habeas Data (as discussed in Mison v. Gallegos)
 Extralegal killings – committed without due process of  Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data provides:
law o “Section 1. Habeas Data. — The writ of habeas data is a remedy
 Enforced disappearances – an arrest/detention/abduction available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or
by a gov’t official or organized groups or private security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission
individuals acting with the direct/indirect acquiescence of of a public official or employee or of a private individual or entity
the gov’t; refusal of the State to disclose the engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or
fate/whereabouts of the person information regarding the person, family, home and
o Elements constituting “enforced disappearances” as defined in Sec correspondence of the aggrieved party.” (emphasis and
3(g) of RA 9851: underscoring in the case)
 That there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form  The habeas data rule, in general, is designed to protect by means of judicial
of deprivation of liberty complaint the image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of
 That it be carried out by, or with the authorization, information of an individual.
support or acquiescence of, the State or a political o It is meant to provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the truth
organization and to informational privacy, thus safeguarding the constitutional
 That it be followed by the State or political organization’s guarantees of a person’s right to life, liberty and security against
refusal to acknowledge or give information on the fate or abuse in this age of information technology.
whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo petition  Like the writ of amparo, habeas data was conceived as a response, given
 That the intention for such refusal is to remove the subject the lack of effective and available remedies, to address the extraordinary
person from the protection of the law for a prolonged rise in the number of killings and enforced disappearances. Its intent is to
period of time address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security as a
 The Writ of Amparo offers a better remedy to EJK and enforced remedy independently from those provided under prevailing Rules.
disappearances and threats thereof, provides rapid judicial relief as it
partakes of a summary proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to Jurisprudence on the Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Data
make the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner Sec. of DND v. Manalo (amparo)
 It is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond  An Amparo petition only requires substantial evidence and the testimony of
reasonable doubt/liability for damages requiring preponderance of the victims will be given great weight.
evidence/administrative responsibility requiring substantial evidence  The amparo reliefs given (i.e. order directing petitioners to give all reports
 It serves both as preventive and curative roles in addressing the problem of of the investigation; disclose present assignment of the captors; and to
EJKs and enforced disappearances, to defer further commission of such produce all medical records while in captivity) were reasonably necessary to
o Preventive: breaks the expectation of impunity in the commission protect the Manalos.
of these offenses  The writ of amparo was properly given because there is still a threat to the
o Curative: facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators as it life and liberty of the Manalo brothers since their captors remain at large.
will inevitably yield leads to subsequent investigation and action The right to security is the right to enjoyment of life.
 “Petition for writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right  The continuing threat on the life of the Manalo brothers is apparent. This
to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an threat vitiates their movements and activities. Threats to liberty, security,
unlawful act or omission of a public official/employee or of a private and life are actionable through a petition for a writ of amparo.

ANDREA CONSTI2 MIDTERMS | 14

Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo (writ of amparo/habeas corpus) aggrieved party. In this case, there was no need for the issuance of the
 Impleading the highest officials of gov’t based on command responsibility privilege of the writ of amparo, as Ku’s whereabouts were never hidden.
is wrong. It can only be done in criminal proceedings.
 The Amparo remedy of returning the belongings as well as the inspection of Zarate v. Aquino III (writ of amparo/habeas data)
Fort Magsaysay were denied because the abductors, as well as alleged place  Only ACTUAL THREATS are protected by the Amparo Rule and can
of confinement, was never proved by the petitioner. qualify as a violation that may be addressed under the Amparo Rule
 The writ of habeas data was also denied because it was not proven that o Mere membership in organizations/sectors cannot equate to an
Gen. Palparan and Alcover did have in their possession videos and photos actual threat
related to the alleged CPP-NPA ties of Roxas. o Amparo is sought individually and granted individually, requires
 The SC instructed the CHR to lead the further investigation of the case. perusal of individual circumstances of petitioners
 Habeas Data also requires substantial evidence
Meralco v. Lim (writ of habeas data) o Petitioners failed to show how their right to privacy is violated,
 Habeas data is an inappropriate remedy for this situation. It is only seeing as the information contained in the “lists” are only their
available to any person whose life, liberty or security is threatened by the names, positions in the organizations, and photographs-- all of
gathering of information about him. which are of public knowledge
 Habeas data will not be issued to protect purely property or commercial
concerns. The NLRC has jurisdiction over the case at bar. More PH Jurisprudence on Substantive Due Process:
Bayan v. Ermita (No permit, no rally)
Caram v. Segui (adoption not subject to amparo)  The right to peacably assemble and petition for redress grievances is a right
 If there is extreme urgency to secure custody of a minor who has been that enjoys primacy in the realm of constitutional protection. These rights
illegally detained, a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus may constitute the very basis of a functional and democratic polity.
be availed of, pursuant to the Rule on Custody of Minors  The right while sacrosanct, is not absolute. It may be so regulated that it
 The proper remedy would be a civil case for custody of her child accdg. to shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having equal rights,
the Family Code nor injurious to he rights of the community or society.
o However, there is no illegal detention nor does the “enforced
separation” exist because Christina signed the valid Deed of Parreño v. COA (Pension banned for US citizen)
Voluntary Separation which caused the adoption to take place  Retirement benefits of military personnel are gratuitous in character, as such
 Writ of Amparo – remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty they only gave future benefits. It is only when the employee retires and
and security is violated/threatened with violation by an unlawful becomes eligible, that he acquires a vested right to said benefits.
act/omission of a public official, employee, or of a private individual/entity
o Only covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or Remman Enterprises v. Professional Regulatory Board (real estate developer’s
threats thereof right to dispose property)
 The new requirement of engaging services of only licensed professionals in
Mison v. Gallegos (writ of amparo) the sale and marketing of properties is an unavoidable consequence of a
 The Amparo Rule requires the parties to establish their claims by substantial reasonable regulatory measure.
evidence. However, Ku was not able to present evidence that he was  No right is absolute and the proper regulation of a profession, business or
exposed to “life-threatening situations” while detained at the BI Detention trade has always been upheld as a legitimate subject of a valid exercise of
Center. Records actually show that he was afforded visitorial rights and that State’s police power. Legislature recognized the importance of
he has access to counsel. professionalizing the ranks of real estate practitioners by implementing the
 Petitioner’s fear that the BI would fabricate charges against him was licensing scheme which was aimed to fully tap the potential of the real
unfounded. Even before his arrest, deportation charges against him were estate sector for greater contribution to gross domestic income.
already filed and ruled upon by the BI.
 The RTC’s grant of the writ of amparo was improper. The fundamental Disini v. Secretary of Justice (Cybercrime Law)
function of the writ of amparo is to cause the disclosure of details
concerning the extrajudicial killing or the enforced disappearance of an
ANDREA CONSTI2 MIDTERMS | 15
  The law is reasonable in penalizing a person for acquiring a domain name in  Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is
bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy reputation, or deprive others who are fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex
not ill-motivated. couples.
 There exists a substantial distinction between crimes committed through the o The right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the
use of information and communications technology and similar crimes concept of individual autonomy.
using other means. The former allows a wider range of victims and often the o The right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person
offender may evade identification. The distinction therefore, creates a basis union unlike any other in its importance to the committed
for higher penalties for cybercrimes individuals.
o The right to marry safeguards children and families and thus draws
Imbong v. Ochoa (RH Law void for vagueness) meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and
 Provisions of RH law are not void for vagueness since the terms used are education.
defined in other portions of the law. o Marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order.
 The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed
Garcia v. Drilon (TPO) natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the
 Sec. 15 of RA 9262 (“An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their fundamental right to marry is now manifest.
Children”), providing for the ex parte issuance of a TPO, does not violate
the due process clause.
 Just like a writ of preliminary attachment which is issued without notice and
hearing because the time in which the hearing will take could be enough to
enable the defendant to abscond or dispose of the property, in the same way,
the victim of VAWC may already have suffered harrowing experiences at
the hands of her tormentor, and possibly even death, if notice and hearing
were required before such acts could be prevented.
More US Jurisprudence on Substantive Due Process:
Cruzan v. Dir. Missouri (Informed euthanasia) Equal Protection of Law
 The US SC upheld the State of Missouri’s policy. The alleged consent given  All persons or things similarly situated must be similarly treated both as to
by Cruzan was based merely on a statement to a housemate of hers. This is rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. It does not demand absolute
not a clear and convincing evidence. equality.
 The US SC also upheld the Missouri SC’s informed consent doctrine.  There is no difference between a law which actually denies equal protection
o Under the Due Process Clause, all competent persons have the of the law and a law which permits of such denial. A law may appear to be
right to refuse medical treatment. But this is subject to the fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it permits of unjust and
balancing of interests of the state against the individual’s interest. illegal discrimination, it is within the constitutional prohibitions.
o If the person is not competent, a surrogate can exercise this right.  The clause also commands the State to pass laws which positively promote
The surrogate’s action must be proven, with clear and convincing equality or reduce existing inequalities.
evidence, that they conform to the patient’s wishes, while he/she
was still competent. Requirements for a valid and reasonable classification (SGLE – She Gets Lonely
Everyday)
Lawrence v. Texas (same sex relations)  Must rest on Substantial distinctions
 The right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives the full right to  Must be Germane to purpose of the law
engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a  Must not be Limited to existing conditions only
promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which  Must apply Equally to all members of the same class
the government ay not enter.”
Three Tests in Determining Compliance with the Equal Protection Clause:
Obergfell v. Hodges (same sex marriage) 1. Rational Basis Test

ANDREA CONSTI2 MIDTERMS | 16

 o The guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by
legislation based on reasonable classification
o The standard of review is typically quite deferential; legislative
classifications are “presumed to be valid” largely for the reason
that “the drawing of lines that create distinctions is peculiarly a
legislative task and unavoidable one”
2. Intermediate Scrutiny Test
o It is used as a test for evaluating classification based on gender and
legitimacy
o The gov’t must show that the challenged classification serves an
important state interest and that the classification is at least
substantially related to serving that interest
3. Strict Scrutiny Test
o It is applied when the challenged statute is either:
 Classifies on the basis of an inherently suspect
characteristic
 Infringes fundamental constitutional rights
o A legislative classification which impermissibly interferes with the
exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar
disadvantage of a suspect class is presumed unconstitutional, and
the burden is upon the gov’t to prove that the classification is
necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that it is the
least restrictive means to protect such interest.

Rational Basis Test Intermediate Scrutiny Strict Scrutiny Test

Test
As to applicability
Legislative Legislative classification Legislative classifications
classifications in general, based on gender or affecting fundamental
such as those pertaining to illegitimacy rights or suspect classes
economic or social
legislation, which do not
affect fundamental rights
or suspect classes; or is
not based on gender or
illegitimacy
As to legislative purpose
Must be legitimate Must be important Must be compelling
As to relationship of classification to the purpose
Classification must be Classification must be Classification must be
rationally related to the substantially related to necessary and narrowly
legislative purpose the legislative purpose tailored

ANDREA CONSTI2 MIDTERMS | 17

Valid Classification Test as applied in the ff cases:
Case Title and Topic Facts Valid Classification Test Doctrine
Villegas v. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho Assailed law: Ordinance No. 6537 (City INVALID The protection the Equal Protection
(Employment permit) of Manila) – does not allow non-Filipinos Substantial Distinction – NO Clause guarantees is applicable to both
to be employed or engaged in any The 50.00 fee is unreasonable not only citizens and aliens.
occupation within the City of Manila because it is excessive but also because it
without first securing an employment fails to consider valid substantial
permit (with respective costs) from the distinctions among individual aliens who
Mayor of Manila (petitioner Villegas) are required to pay it.

Respondent Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho Germane to the purpose of the law – NO
assails the constitutionality of said There is no logic or justification in
ordinance claiming that it is violative of exacting a fee from aliens who have been
the equal protection clause. cleared for employment.

Not limited to existing conditions – YES

The law applies to present and future
conditions.

Equal application – NO
Once a person has been admitted to the
country, he cannot be deprived of life
(livelihood included) without due process
of law.
Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City Assailed law: Ordinance No. 4 (Ormoc INVALID Tax should not be passed for specific
(Law specific for Ormoc Sugar Central) City) – provides that Ormoc Sugar Substantial Distinction – N/A companies/entities only, for it will not be
Company shall pay a municipal tax This requirement cannot apply as the applicable to future conditions, and will
equivalent to 1% for everything exported petitioner was the only sugar central in serve to exclude any subsequently
to foreign countries Ormoc City. established sugar central, of the same
class as plaintiff, from the coverage of the
Ormoc Sugar Central assails the Germane to the purpose of the law – Not tax.
constitutionality of said ordinance for discussed in the case
violation of the equal protection clause.
Not limited to existing conditions – NO
Taxing ordinances should not be singular
and exclusive as to exclude any
subsequently established sugar central.

Equal application – NO
Taxing ordinances should not be singular
and exclusive as to exclude any
subsequently established sugar central.
Central Bank Employees Association v. Assailed law: Sec. 15(c), Art. II of RA INVALID Different classifications of employees in
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas 7653 – states that compensation and wage Substantial Distinction – NO terms of their respective wage structures
(Classification based on salary) structure of employees whose position There is no substantial distinction so as to violates the Equal Protection Clause if no

ANDREA CONSTI2 MIDTERMS | 18

 fall under Salary Grade 19 and below differentiate the BSP rank-and-file from substantial distinctions are shown
shall be in accordance with the rates the rank-and-file of the 7 other GFIs. between groups.
prescribed under RA 6758 or the Salary
Standardization Law Germane to the purpose of the law – NO Relative Constitutionality
The distinction made is not germane to A statute valid at one time may become
The petitioners assail the constitutionality the purpose of the law, which is to void at another time because of altered
of said provision, as it exempts those who promote professionalism and excellence circumstances; thus if in its practical
fall under Salary Grade 20 and above at all levels of the BSP, and to hire and operation a statute becomes
from the application of the Salary retain qualified and effective personnel. arbitrary/confiscatory, its validity is open
Standardization Law. to inquiry/investigation in the light of
Not limited to existing conditions – Not changed conditions. A statute
discussed nondiscriminatory on its face may be
grossly discriminatory in its operation.
Equal application – NO
The enactment of subsequent laws
renders the continued application of the
proviso a violation of the equal protection
clause, as laws exempting all other rank-
and-file employees of GFIs from the SSL
were enacted.
Yrasuegi v. PAL Assailed law: Article 282(e) of the VALID There is substantial distinction between
(Obese flight attendant) Labor Code – provides reasons that Substantial Distinction – YES obese cabin attendants against others
justify an employee’s dismissal from Being overweight necessarily impedes given that the former’s immobility can
service by his employer mobility. In emergency situations, it is impede passengers from evacuating the
critical that cabin crew make the most of aircraft in cases of emergency.
Petitioner Yrasuegi was a former flight the limited time and demonstrate agility –
attendant at PAL, who was dismissed for that which an obese flight attendant may
being overweight. He alleges that his not possess.
obesity, being not intended willfully, does
not fall under the “analogous cases” Germane to the purpose of the law – YES
provided as reasons for just dismissal as PAL as a common carrier, has the
provided in said provision of the Labor obligation to safely transport its
Code. passengers with extraordinary diligence.
Pursuant to this, it imposed weight
standards for cabin crew with the primary
objective of flight safety.

Not limited to existing conditions – YES

The law applies to present and future
conditions.

Equal application – YES

Petitioner cannot establish discrimination
by simply naming supposed cabin crew
allegedly similarly situated with him.

ANDREA CONSTI2 MIDTERMS | 19

 Substantial proof must be shown as to
how and to prove the differential
treatment between them.
People v. Siton Assailed law: Article 202 of the RPC – VALID Penal statutes do not go against the Equal
(Vagrancy) punishes any person found loitering about The test for valid classification does not Protection Clause as they do not punish
public or semi-public buildings or places apply here because no classification was people for who they are, rather, what is
or tramping or wandering about the made. Offenders of public order laws are punished is what they do or how they
country or streets without visible means punished not for their status as poor or conduct themselves.
of support unemployed, but for conducting
themselves under such circumstances as
Petitioners Siton and Sagarano were to endanger the public peace.
charged with vagrancy after wandering
and loitering around San Pedro and
Legaspi Streets, without any visible
means to support themselves. They then
assailed Art 202(2) anti-vagrancy law as
unconstitutional for being violative of the
equal protection clause.
League of Cities v. COMELEC Assailed law: various RAs – laws VALID The cities enumerated in the cityhood
(Pending bills for cities – cityhood laws) enacted converting municipalities to cities Substantial Distinction – YES laws have substantial difference against
Favorable treatment accorded to the 16 those not enumerated given their
Petitioners contend that the cityhood municipalities by the cityhood laws rests capability to become component cities of
laws, by granting special treatment to on substantial distinction. They are their respective provinces.
municipalities/LGUs by way of substantially different because they had
exemption from the standard P100M pending cityhood bills before passage of
minimum requirements violates the equal RA 9009, and had already met the income
protection clause. criterion under LGC of 1991.

Germane to the purpose of the law – YES

The purpose of the law is to create a more
responsive and accountable local gov’t
structure instituted through a system of
decentralization whereby LGUs shall be
given more powers, authority,
responsibilities and resources.

Not limited to existing conditions – YES

The law applies to present and future
conditions.

Equal application – YES

The law applies equally to all members of
the same class.
Quinto v. COMELEC (2010 MR) Assailed law: Sec. 66 of BP 881 VALID (Decision reversed) There is substantial difference between
(Appointive official) (Omnibus Election Code), Sec. 4(a) of Substantial Distinction – YES appointive and elective officials as the

ANDREA CONSTI2 MIDTERMS | 20

 COMELEC Resolution 8678, RA 9369 There is substantial difference between former hold their office by virtue of their
– provide that any appointive public appointive and elective officials as the designation thereto by an appointing
official shall be considered ipso facto former hold their office by virtue of their authority while the latter occupy their
resigned upon filing his/her certificate of designation thereto by an appointing office by virtue of the mandate of the
candidacy for an elective position authority while the latter occupy their electorate.
office by virtue of the mandate of the
Petitioners hold appointive positions in electorate.
the gov’t. Wanting to run for the next
elections, they assail the constitutionality Germane to the purpose of the law – YES
of the provisions of said laws. (In the previous decision, this requirement
was not met) The burden show that the
Their SC, in their previous decision law creates a classification that is
granted the petition, and held that the law “palpably arbitrary or capricious,” is upon
does not pass the standards under the the person who challenges the law as
equal protection clause. violative of the equal protection clause.
This person must refute all possible
rational bases for the differing treatment,
W/N the Legislature cited those bases as
reasons for the enactment.

Not limited to existing conditions – YES

The law applies to present and future
conditions.

Equal application – YES

The law applies equally to all members of
the same class.
People v. Jumawan Assailed law: RA 8353 (Anti-Rape Law VALID To treat marital rape cases differently
(Marital rape) of 1997) – reclassified rape as a crime The test for valid classification does not from non-marital rape cases in terms of
against a person and removed it from the apply here because no classification was the elements that constitute the crime and
ambit of crimes against chastity made. There is no substantial distinction in the rules for their proof, infringes on
between non-marital and marital rape. the equal protection clause. The
KKK claims that her husband, Edgar Constitutional right to equal protection of
Jumawan, raped her twice. She therefore the laws ordains that similar subjects
filed rape cases against him. Defendant should not be treated differently, so as to
Jumawan claims that sexual community is give undue favor to some and unjustly
a legal right between husbands and wives. discriminate against others; no person or
(He does not actually assail said law. class of persons shall be denied the same
What he claims is that rape cannot occur protection of laws, which is enjoyed, by
in marriages.) other persons or other classes in like
circumstances.
Villanueva v. JBC Assailed law: One of the policies of JBC VALID Placing a premium on many years of
(5-year requirement of JBC) – requires that one must first render 5 Substantial Distinction – YES judicial experience, the JBC is merely
years of service as a judge of a first-level Substantial distinctions do exist between applying one of the stringent
court before he/she can qualify as an lower court judges with 5 years constitutional standards requiring that a

ANDREA CONSTI2 MIDTERMS | 21

 applicant to second-level courts experience and those with less than 5 member of the judiciary be of “proven
years of experience, like the petitioner. competence.” In determining
Petitioner Judge Villanueva, a MCTC The number of years of service provides a competence, the JBC considers, among
judge, applied for the vacant position of relevant basis to determine proven other qualifications, experience and
Presiding Judge in several RTCs. His competence which may be measured by performance.
applications were denied on the ground experience, among other factors.
that he has worked for only 1 year as a
MCTC judge. He then assailed the Germane to the purpose of the law – YES
constitutionality of said policy of the JBC The classification enshrined in the
for being violative of the equal protection assailed policy is reasonable and relevant
clause. to its legitimate purpose, that is, to
employ applicants of proven competence.

Not limited to existing conditions – YES

The law applies to present and future
conditions.

Equal application – YES

The law applies equally to all members of
the same class.
Ferrer v. Bautista Assailed laws: SHT – VALID Equal protection requires that all persons
(Ordinances of QC) Ordinance No. SP-2095, s. 2011 Substantial Distinction – YES or things similarly situated should be
(Socialized Housing Tax/SHT of QC) – For the purpose of undertaking a treated alike, both as to rights conferred
imposes a special assessment that will comprehensive and continuing urban and responsibilities imposed. The
collect 0.5% on the assessed value of land development and housing program, the guarantee means that no person or class
in excess of Php 100,000 (which goes to a disparities between a real property owner of persons shall be denied the same
General Fund under a special account) and an informal settler as two distinct protection of laws which is enjoyed by
classes are too obvious and need not be other persons or other classes in like
Ordinance No. SP-2235, s. 2013 (QC) – discussed at length. circumstances.
imposes garbage collection fees on
residential properties based on the Germane to the purpose of the law – YES
land/floor area The public purpose of a tax may legally
exist even if the motive which impelled
Jose Ferrer Jr. owns property in QC. He the legislature to impose the tax was to
questions the validity of the 2 city favor one over another. It is inherent in
ordinances. the power to tax that a State is free to
select the subjects of taxation.

Not limited to existing conditions – YES

The law applies to present and future
conditions.

Equal application – YES

The law applies equally to all members of
the same class.

ANDREA CONSTI2 MIDTERMS | 22

 Garbage Fee – INVALID
Substantial Distinction – NO
For the purpose of garbage collection,
there is no substantial distinction between
an occupant of a lot, on one hand, from an
occupant of a unit in a condominium,
socialized housing project or apartment,
on the other hand.

Germane to the purpose of the law – NO

The classifications under the ordinance
are not germane to its declared purpose of
“promoting shared responsibility with the
residents to attack their common mindless
attitude in over-consuming the present
resources and in generating waste.”

Not limited to existing conditions – Not

discussed

Equal application – Not discussed

1-United v. COMELEC Assailed law: Section 7 (f) of INVALID Superficial differences do not make for a
(Election propaganda in PUVs) COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 – Substantial Distinction – NO valid classification.
prohibits the posting of election There is no substantial distinction
propaganda in PUVs and public transport between owners of PUVs and transport
terminals terminals and owners of private vehicles
and other properties. The ownership of
Petitioner 1-UTAK assails the validity of PUVs and transport terminals, though
said provision for being violative of the made available for use by the public,
equal protection clause and the free remains private.
speech clause.
Germane to the purpose of the law – NO
Classifying owners of PUVs and transport
terminals apart from owners of private
vehicles and other properties bears no
relation to the purpose providing equal
time, space and opportunity to candidates
in elections.

Not limited to existing conditions – Not

discussed

Equal application – Not discussed

ANDREA CONSTI2 MIDTERMS | 23