School Work

Constitutional Law 2

Description
Philippines
Categories
Published
of 168
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 67  Constitutional Law 2 POLITICAL LAW Constitutional Law 1 Constitutional Law 2 Law on Public Officers Administrative Law Election Law Local Governments Public International Law A.   Fundamental Powers of the State B.   Private Acts and the Bill of Rights C.   Due Process D.   Equal Protection E.   Searches and Seizures F.   Privacy of Communications and Correspondence G.   Freedom of Expression H.   Freedom of Religion I.   Liberty of Abode and Freedom of Movement J.   Right to Information K.   Right to Association L.   Eminent Domain M.   Contract Clause N.   Legal Assistance and Free Access to Courts O.   Rights of Suspects P.   Rights of the Accused Q.   Writ of Habeas Corpus R.   Writ of Amparo S.   Self-Incrimination Clause T.   Involuntary Servitude and Political Prisoners U.   Excessive Fines and Cruel and Inhuman Punishments V.   U.Non-Imprisonment for Debts W.   Double Jeopardy X.   Ex Post Facto Laws and Bills of Attainder A. Fundamental Powers of the State 1.Concept and Application2.Requisites for Valid Exercise3.Similarities and Differences4.Delegation 1.Concept and Application Police Power a.Definition It is the inherent and plenary power of the state  which enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society.  [Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. vs. Mayor of Manila (1967)]    b.Scope and LimitationsGeneral Coverage The police power of the State, one court has said, is a power coextensive with self-protection, and is not inaptly termed the 'law of overruling necessity.' [Rubi vs. Provincial Board (1919)] It may be said to be that inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society .     [Lake View vs. Rose Hill Cemetery Co. (1873)] …the state, in order to promote the general welfare,may interfere with personal liberty, with property, and with business and occupations. Persons may be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort health and prosperity of the state   and to this fundamental aim of our Government, the rights of the individual are subordinated. [Ortigas & Co., Limited Partnership vs. Feati Bank and Trust Co. (1979)] ...has been properly characterized as the most essential, insistent and the least limitable  of powers, [Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators  Assoc. vs. Mayor of Manila (1967) Cf. Ichong v. Hernandez, (1957)]   extending as it does   to all the great public needs .     [Noble State Bank vs. Haskell, 219 U.S. 412]   Police Power cannot be bargained away through treaty or contract. [Ichong v. Hernandez (1957)]   Taxation may be used as an implement of police power [Lutz v. Araneta (1955); Tiu v. Videogram Regulatory Board, 151 SCRA 208; Gaston v. Republic Planters Bank, 158 SCRA 626; Osmena v. Orbos, 220 SCRA 703] Eminent domain may be used as an implement to attain the police objective [Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform (1989)] Police power prevails over contracts. [PNB v. Office of the President (1996)] Specific Coverage (1)   Public Health   (2)   Public Morals (3)   Public Safety (4)   Public Welfare Test of Reasonability (1)   Lawful subject (2)   Lawful means (3)   Least restrictions of individual right. The limit to police power is reasonability. The Court looks at the test of reasonability to decide whether it encroaches on the right of an individual. So long as legitimate means can reasonably lead to create that end, it is reasonable.  [Morfe vs. Mutuc (1968)]   The legislative determination “ as to what is a proper exercise of its police powers is not final or conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the court.‖  [US vs. Toribio (1910) citing Mr. Justice Brown in his opinion in the case of Lawton vs. Steele (152 U.S., 133, 136)]    The proper exercise of Police Power requires compliance with the following requisites: (a) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the interference by the State; and (b) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 68 attainment of the object sought and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.  [Lucena Grand Central Terminal v. JAC Liner (2005)] The SC Upheld the validity of Administrative Orders which converted existing mine leases and other mining agreements into production-sharing agreements within one year from effectivity. The subject sought to be governed by the AOs are germane to the object and purpose of E.O. 279 and that mining leases or agreements granted by the State are subject to alterations through a reasonable exercise of police power of the State.  [Miners  Association of the Philippines v. Factoran, 240 SCRA 100] c.   Illustrations on the Exercise of Police Power General Welfare RA 9257, the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003, is a legitimate exercise of police power. Administrative Order No. 177 issued by the Department of Health, providing that the 20% discount privilege of senior citizens shall not be limited to the purchase of unbranded generic medicine but shall extend to both prescription and non-prescription medicine, whether branded or generic, is valid. When conditions so demand, as determined by the legislature, property rights must bow to the primacy of police power because property rights, though sheltered by the due process clause, must yield to the general welfare. [Carlos Superdrug Corporation v. DSWC et al. G.R. No. 166494, June 29, 2007]    National Security SC upheld the constitutionality of RA 1180 (An Act to Regulate the Retail Business) which sought to nationalize the retail trade business by prohibiting aliens in general from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade. Aliens did not question the exercise of police power; they claim, however, that there was a violation of the due process and equal protection clauses. [Ichong vs. Hernandez (1957)]    Scope of the police power:  Since the Courts cannot foresee the needs and demands of public interest and welfare, they cannot delimit beforehand the extent or scope of the police power by which and through which the state seeks to attain or achieve public interest and welfare. Police power and national security:   ―The disputed law was enacted to remedy a real actual threat and danger to national economy posed by alien dominance and control of the retail business; the enactment clearly falls within the scope of the police power of the State, thru which and by which it protects its own personality and insures its security and future.‖ Public Safety   Agustin questions President Marcos‘ Letter of Instruction No. 229 compelling owners of motor vehicles to install specific early warning devices to reduce road accidents. Agustin already installed warning devices in his car but they were not the same ones specified in the LOI. He argued that the said LOI violated the police power of the state for being oppressive, arbitrary and unconscionable. Police power, public safety: The Court identified police power as a dynamic agency, suitably vague and far from precisely defined, rooted in the conception that men in organizing the state and imposing upon its government limitations to safeguard constitutional rights did not intend to enable an individual citizen or a group of citizens to obstruct unreasonably the enactment of such salutary measures calculated to communal peace, safety, good order, and welfare. According to the Court, a heavy burden lies in the hands of the petitioner who questions the state‘s police power if it was clearly intended to promote public safety. [Agustin vs. Edu, (1979)]    Public Morals  Ermita Malate Hotel and Motel Operations Assoc. assails the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 4760. The grounds adduced were: (1) unreasonable and violative of due process insofar as it would impose different fees for different classes of hotels/motels and prohibit 18 year-olds from being accepted in such hotels, 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 more than twice every 24 hours, and (2) invasion of the right to privacy and the guaranty against self-incrimination because it requires clients to fill up the prescribed form in a lobby open to public view at all times and in his presence, wherein personal information are mandated to be divulged. Police power, public morals:  The mantle of protection associated with the due process guaranty does not cover petitioners. This particular manifestation of a police power measure being specifically aimed to safeguard public morals is immune from such imputation of nullity resting purely on conjecture and unsupported by anything of substance. Police power is that inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society xxx There is no question but that the challenged ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize certain practices hurtful to public morals. [Ermita-Malate Motel and Motel Operators  Assn. vs. City Mayor of Manila (1967)] The case of White Light vs. City of Manila was termed by Justice Tinga as a ―middle case‖. It was meant to identify its case within a spectrum of cases decided by the Supreme Court which dealt with ordinances which has for its view the regulation of public morals. It is called a ―middle case‖ because unlike its predecessors where the issue is either a wholesale  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 69 ban against hotels and motels or a reasonable regulatory device as the one found in Ermita-Malate vs. City of Manila, this is a case where the ordinance in question severely restricts the services of the abovementioned establishments. The rationale started with an outline of the test of a valid ordinance i.e. it must be within the corporate powers of the local government to enact and pass and it must conform with substantive requirements. A reading of the ordinance at bar would yield that it prohibits two practices: the wash-up rate admission and renting out a room more than twice per day. These prohibitions are anchored in the power of the LGU to implement ordinances hinged on the general welfare clause — the devolved aspect of police power. This case churned out three standards for judicial review: the STRICT SCRUTINY TEST for laws dealing with freedom of the mind and curtailment of political process and the RATIONAL BASIS STANDARD OF REVIEW for economic legislation. A third standard was created known as the IMMEDIATE SCRUTINY for evaluating standards based on gender and legitimacy. The Supreme Court justified the application of the strict scrutiny test to this particular ordinance despite its lack of political significance by saying that it is not gravitas alone which is sheltered by the Bill of Rights. It is precisely these reflexive exercises of fundamental acts which best reflect the degree of liberty enjoyed. Sexual behavior is one of these fundamental acts covered by the penumbra of rights. While the reality of illicit activity is judicially recognized, it cannot be denied that sexual behavior between consenting adults is constitutionally protected. Apart from the right to privacy, the ordinance also proscribes other legitimate activities most of which are grounded on the convenience of having a place to stay during the short intervals between travels. The Ordinance was struck down as an arbitrary intrusion to private rights. It made no distinction between lodgings and placed every establishment as susceptible to illicit patronage. [Cf. White Light Corporation, et al vs. City of Manila (2009)] Eminent Domain a.   Definition and Scope The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the State to condemn private property to public use upon payment of just compensation. It also known as the power of expropriation. It is well settled that eminent domain is an inherent power of the state that need not be granted even by the fundamental law. Sec. 9, Art. III merely imposes a limit on the government ‘s exercise of this power. [Republic v. Tagle, G.R. No. 129079, Dec. 2, 1998]. b.   Who may exercise the power Congress and, by delegation, the President, administrative bodies, local government units, and even private enterprises performing public services may exercise the power of eminent domain. The exercise of the right of eminent domain, whether directly by the state or by its authorized agents, is necessarily in derogation of private rights. Hence, strict construction will be made against the agency exercising the power. [Jesus is the Lord Christian School Foundation v. Mun. of Pasig, G.R. No. 152230, Aug. 9, 2005]    Taxation a.   Definition and Scope It is the enforced proportional contributions from persons and property, levied by the State by virtue of its sovereignty, for the support of the government and for all public needs. It is as broad as the purpose for which it is given. Purpose: (1)   To raise revenue (2)   Tool for regulation (3)   Protection/power to keep alive Tax for special purpose [Sec. 29 (3), Art. VI]  : Treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only; when purpose is fulfilled, the balance, if any shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government. See: Osmena v. Orbos, 220 SCRA 703 Scope and Limitation General Limitations (1)   Power to tax exists  for the general welfare ; should be exercised only  for a public  purpose  (2)   might be justified as for public purpose even if the immediate beneficiaries are private individuals   (3)   Tax should not be confiscatory : If a tax measure is so unconscionable as to amount to confiscation of property, the Court will invalidate it. But invalidating a tax measure must be exercised with utmost caution, otherwise, the State‘s power to legislate for the public welfare might be seriously curtailed   (4)   Taxes should be uniform and equitable [Sec. 28(1), Art. VI]    The legislature has discretion to determine the nature, object, extent, coverage, and situs of taxation. But where a tax measure becomes so unconscionable and unjust as to amount to confiscation of property, courts will not hesitate to strike it down, for despite all its plenitude, the power to tax cannot override constitutional prescriptions. [Tan v. del Rosario, 237 SCRA 324]  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 70 Specific Limitations (1)   Uniformity of taxation: GENERAL RULE: simply  geographical  uniformity , meaning it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found EXCEPTION:  rule does not prohibit classification for purposes of taxation, provided the ff requisites are met: ( SNAGAE ) (a)   standards used are s ubstantial and n ot a rbitrary (b)   if the classification is g ermane to achieve the legislative purpose (c)   if that classification a pplies to both present and future conditions, other circumstances being equal (d)   applies e qually to members of the same class. [Pepsi Cola v. City of Butuan].  (2)   Tax Exemptions No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of Congress [Sec. 28 (4), Art. VI] A corollary power but must be for a public purpose, uniform and equitable and in conformity with the equal protection clause Tax exemptions are granted gratuitously and may be revoked at will, except when it was granted for valuable consideration May either be constitutional or statutory If statutory , it has to have been passed by majority of all the members of Congress [sec. 28 (4), Art. VI] Constitutional exemptions [sec. 28(3), Art. VI] (a)   Educational institutions  (both profit and non-profit): Benefits redound to students, but only applied to property taxes and not excise taxes All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties. xxx Proprietary educational institutions, including those co-operatively owned, may likewise be entitled to such exemptions subject to the limitations provided by law including restrictions on dividends and provisions for reinvestment. [Sec. 4(3), Art. XIV] Subject to conditions prescribed by law, all grants, endowments, donations, or contributions used actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from tax. (b)   Charitable institutions : Religious and charitable institutions give considerable assistance to the State in the improvement of the morality of the people and the care of the indigent and the handicapped (c)   Religious property: Charitable Institutions, churches, and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings and improvements, actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. [Sec. 28 (3),  Art. VI]    2. Requisites for Valid Exercise Police Power Tests for Validity of Exercise of Police Power (1)   LAWFUL SUBJECT: Interest of the general public (as distinguished from a particular class required exercise). This means that the activity or property sought to be regulated affects the general welfare. [see Taxicab Operators v. Board of Transportation, 119 SCRA 597]   (2)   LAWFUL MEANS: Means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and are not unduly oppressive. [see Tablarin v. Gutierrez, 152 SCRA 730]   (3)   Least restrictions of individual rights. Additional Limitations when police power is delegated. (1)   Express grant by law [e.g. Secs. 16, 391, 447, 458 and 468, R.A. 7160, for LGUs] (2)   Limited within its territorial jurisdiction [for local government units] (3)   Must not be contrary to law. Eminent Domain   a. Requisites for a valid taking [Republic v. Castelvi, 58 SCRA 336]  : (1)   The expropriator must enter a  private  property All private property capable of ownership may be expropriated, except money and choses in action. [Republic v. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620]   (2)   Entry must be for more than a momentary  period (3)   Entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks