Talaan ng mga Kaso

Filter by Subject

Text Search

There are 49 results on the current subject filter

Title	Reference #s	Summary	Background	Subject Matter
Calleja vs. Executive Secretary (7th December 2021)	G.R. No. 252578	Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA), alleging violations of free speech, due process, and other rights. The Supreme Court partially granted the petitions, striking down specific provisions as unconstitutional, including parts of Section 4 (definition of terrorism) and Sections 25 (designation powers of the Anti-Terrorism Council), while upholding most of the law.	The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA) was enacted to replace the criticized Human Security Act of 2007, aiming to strengthen counter-terrorism measures and align with international standards (e.g., UN protocols, FATF guidelines). Civil society groups, journalists, and activists filed petitions arguing the law’s vague definitions (e.g., “terrorism,” “inciting”) and expanded executive powers threatened constitutional rights, enabling state abuse through arbitrary designations and surveillance. The government asserted the law was necessary to address evolving threats from groups like Abu Sayyaf and communist rebels while avoiding international sanctions for non-compliance with anti-terrorism financing rules. The case emerged amid heightened polarization over national security policies and concerns over “red-tagging” practices linking dissenters to terrorism.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Criminal Law II
Imbong vs. Ochoa Jr. (8th April 2014)	721 SCRA 146, 732 Phil. 1, G.R. No. 204819, G.R. No. 204934, G.R. No. 204957, G.R. No. 204988, G.R. No. 205003, G.R. No. 205043, G.R. No. 205138, G.R. No. 205478, G.R. No. 205491, G.R. No. 205720, G.R. No. 206355, G.R. No. 207111, G.R. No. 207172, G.R. No. 207563	This consolidated case involves multiple petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law) in the Philippines. Petitioners argue that the RH Law violates various constitutional rights including the right to life, health, religious freedom, and due process. The Supreme Court partially granted the petitions, declaring certain provisions of the RH Law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) unconstitutional while upholding the law's general validity.	The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law) was enacted to address population growth and improve reproductive health in the Philippines. It mandates government provision of reproductive health services and supplies, including contraceptives, and requires sex education in schools. The law generated significant controversy and strong opposition, particularly from religious groups. Shortly after its enactment, various groups filed petitions challenging its constitutionality.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law
Disini vs. Secretary of Justice (11th February 2014)	727 Phil. 28, G.R. No. 203335, G.R. No. 203299, G.R. No. 203306, G.R. No. 203359, G.R. No. 203378, G.R. No. 203391, G.R. No. 203407, G.R. No. 203440, G.R. No. 203453, G.R. No. 203454, G.R. No. 203469, G.R. No. 203501, G.R. No. 203501, G.R. No. 203515, G.R. No. 203518	These consolidated petitions challenge the constitutionality of several provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, arguing that certain sections violate constitutional rights related to freedom of expression, due process, privacy, and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court partially upheld and partially struck down provisions of the law after extensive review.	The Cybercrime Prevention Act was enacted to regulate cyberspace activities, aiming to address cybercrimes while recognizing the internet's benefits. Petitioners argue that the law’s means to regulate cyberspace activities infringe upon constitutional rights. The government asserts the law is a reasonable measure to maintain order in cyberspace, prevent wrongdoings, and protect systems from attacks. A Temporary Restraining Order was initially issued and later extended, preventing the law's implementation pending adjudication.	Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
Manila Memorial Park, Inc. vs. Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (3rd December 2013)	711 SCRA 302, 722 Phil. 538, G.R. No. 175356	This case addresses the constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) No. 7432, as amended by RA 9257, specifically concerning the tax deduction scheme for businesses granting senior citizen discounts, with petitioners arguing it constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation, while the Court ultimately upholds the law as a valid exercise of police power.	Manila Memorial Park, Inc. and La Funeraria Paz-Sucat, Inc. challenged the constitutionality of the tax deduction scheme implemented for senior citizen discounts, claiming it violates the constitutional provision against taking private property for public use without just compensation.	Constitutional Law II
Belgica vs. Ochoa (19th November 2013)	710 SCRA 1, 721 Phil. 416, G.R. No. 208566, G.R. No. 208493, G.R. No. 209251	The Supreme Court declared the "Pork Barrel System," encompassing both Congressional and Presidential Pork Barrel, unconstitutional for violating the principles of separation of powers, non-delegability of legislative power, and checks and balances.	The case arose from public outrage and concern over the alleged misuse and corruption associated with the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and other lump-sum discretionary funds, particularly in light of the Commission on Audit (CoA) report and the "Napoles controversy."	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Statutory Construction
Fernando vs. St. Scholastica's College (12th March 2013)	693 SCRA 141, 706 Phil. 138, G.R. No. 161107	This case involves a petition challenging the validity of a Marikina City ordinance regulating fences and walls. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings, declaring Sections 3.1 and 5 of the ordinance invalid for being an ultra vires exercise of police power that amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation and violated due process and right to privacy.	The City of Marikina enacted Ordinance No. 192 aiming to regulate fence construction for public safety, security, beautification, and neighborliness. The ordinance set height limits and see-through requirements for fences and mandated a five-meter parking setback for certain establishments, including educational institutions. St. Scholastica's College, affected by this ordinance, challenged its validity.	Constitutional Law II
Madriaga, Jr. vs. China Banking Corporation (25th July 2012)	677 SCRA 560, 691 Phil. 770, G.R. No. 192377	This case involves a dispute over property ownership following a series of transactions, including a sale, a compromise agreement, an execution sale, and a mortgage foreclosure. The Supreme Court ruled that the satisfaction of the writ of possession rendered the case moot and that the issuance of the ex parte writ did not violate due process, as the petitioner had opportunities to contest it and the possession was not considered adverse to the original mortgagor.	The dispute originated from a sale of properties by Spouses Trajano to Madriaga, Sr., followed by complications involving a mortgage with Asia Trust Bank, an execution sale in favor of Madriaga, Sr., and a subsequent mortgage with China Bank that led to foreclosure.	Constitutional Law II
Marcos, Jr. vs. Republic (25th April 2012)	671 SCRA280, 686 Phil. 980, G.R. No. 189434	The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's decision to forfeit the assets of Arelma, S.A., a corporation created by Ferdinand E. Marcos, in favor of the Republic of the Philippines, holding that the Marcoses failed to prove the assets were lawfully acquired and that summary judgment was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.	This case involves the Republic's efforts to recover ill-gotten wealth allegedly acquired by the Marcoses during their time in power, specifically focusing on assets held by Arelma, S.A.	Constitutional Law II
Yusay vs. Court of Appeals (6th April 2011)	647 SCRA 269, 662 Phil. 634, G.R. No. 156684	Spouses Yusay challenged a resolution by the City of Mandaluyong authorizing expropriation of their land for low-cost housing. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, holding that certiorari and prohibition are not proper remedies to challenge a resolution authorizing expropriation, as it is a legislative act, and because expropriation requires an ordinance, not merely a resolution, to be validly initiated.	Spouses Yusay owned land in Mandaluyong City, part of which they rented out. The City Council passed a resolution authorizing the City Mayor to initiate expropriation of the land for low-cost housing. The Yusays, fearing immediate action, filed certiorari and prohibition to annul the resolution.	Constitutional Law II
General vs. Urro (29th March 2011)	646 SCRA 567, 662 Phil. 132, G.R. No. 191560	This case involves a quo warranto and certiorari/prohibition petition filed by Atty. Luis Mario General, questioning the constitutionality of appointments of Alejandro S. Urro, Constancia P. de Guzman, and Eduardo U. Escueta as Commissioners of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), alleging a violation of the prohibition against midnight appointments. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition, holding that General, as an acting appointee, lacked the cause of action to challenge the appointments of the respondents.	Then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointed several individuals to the NAPOLCOM, including General as an acting commissioner. Near the end of her term, she appointed Urro, de Guzman, and Escueta as permanent commissioners. General questioned these appointments, claiming they violated the ban on midnight appointments.	Constitutional Law II
League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) vs. Commission on Elections (15th February 2011)	643 SCRA 150, 663 Phil. 496, G.R. No. 176951	This case involves the consolidation of several petitions challenging the constitutionality of 16 Cityhood Laws enacted by the Philippine Congress. The Supreme Court, in a series of decisions and resolutions, ultimately upheld the validity of these laws, determining that they complied with the requirements for the creation of cities as provided in the Local Government Code and the Constitution.	The controversy began when Congress passed 16 laws converting municipalities into cities. These laws were challenged on the ground that they did not comply with the requirements of the Local Government Code, particularly the income requirement. The Supreme Court's decisions in these cases have evolved over time, marked by several reversals and shifts in the Court's composition.	Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
Espina vs. Zamora (21st September 2010)	631 SCRA 17, 645 Phil. 269, G.R. No. 143855	This case involves a petition filed by members of the House of Representatives challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 8762, the Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000. Petitioners argued that the law, which allows foreign participation in the retail trade sector under certain conditions, violates the constitutional mandate for a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the constitutionality of R.A. 8762, finding that while the Constitution promotes economic nationalism, it does not prohibit Congress from allowing foreign investment in certain sectors as a matter of policy and within the bounds of police power, and that the specific constitutional provisions invoked are largely non-self-executing principles.	Prior to R.A. 8762, Republic Act No. 1180 (Retail Trade Nationalization Act) enacted in 1954 absolutely prohibited foreign nationals and corporations from engaging in the retail trade business in the Philippines. R.A. 8762, signed into law in 2000, expressly repealed R.A. 1180 and liberalized the retail trade sector by allowing foreign investment under specific capitalization thresholds and categories, prompting constitutional challenges based on economic nationalism principles enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.	Constitutional Law II Due Process
Office of the Solicitor General vs. Ayala Land (18th September 2009)	600 SCRA 617, 616 Phil. 587, G.R. No. 177056	This case concerns whether shopping mall operators can be compelled to provide free parking to their patrons and the general public under the National Building Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that there is no legal basis to oblige mall operators to provide free parking, as the National Building Code and its IRR do not explicitly mandate it and such a mandate would constitute unlawful taking of private property.	The case arose from a Senate investigation into the legality of shopping malls charging parking fees. The Senate Committees concluded that charging parking fees was contrary to the National Building Code and recommended the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to enjoin the practice. Subsequently, the OSG filed a petition seeking to prohibit mall operators from collecting parking fees, arguing that the National Building Code impliedly mandates free parking.	Constitutional Law II
White Light Corporation vs City of Manila (20th January 2009)	576 SCRA 416, 596 Phil. 444, G.R. No. 122846	This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of a Manila City ordinance prohibiting short-time admission rates (or "wash-up" rates) in hotels, motels, and similar establishments. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutional because it violated the due process rights of both the businesses and their patrons by infringing on their right to liberty and privacy.	The City of Manila enacted an ordinance seeking to regulate public morals by prohibiting short-time rates in establishments often associated with illicit activities. Several businesses challenged the ordinance, arguing it infringed upon their rights and the rights of their customers. The case highlights the tension between government's power to regulate for public welfare and individual rights to liberty and privacy.	Constitutional Law II
Garcillano vs. House of Representatives Committees on Public Information, Public Order and Safety, National Defense and Security, Information and Communications Technology, and Suffrage and Electoral Reforms (23rd December 2008)	575 SCRA 170, 595 Phil. 775, G.R. No. 170338	The case involves two consolidated petitions concerning the controversial "Hello Garci" tapes, which allegedly contained wiretapped conversations implicating electoral fraud in the 2004 Philippine presidential elections. The first petition sought to prohibit the House of Representatives from using the tapes in its investigations, while the second petition aimed to stop the Senate from conducting a legislative inquiry on the tapes due to non-compliance with procedural requirements.	The controversy arose from the release of wiretapped recordings allegedly involving then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and a Commission on Elections official discussing electoral manipulation. These tapes became a subject of public and legislative scrutiny, with both Houses of Congress initiating separate inquiries.	Constitutional Law II
Province of North Cotabato vs. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP) (14th October 2008)	568 SCRA 402, 589 Phil. 387, G.R. No. 183591, G.R. No. 183752, G.R. No. 183893, G.R. No. 183951, G.R. No. 183962	This case involves consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), focusing on issues of public consultation, right to information, and the extent of executive power in peace negotiations, ultimately finding the MOA-AD unconstitutional.	The MOA-AD was a proposed agreement aimed at resolving the armed conflict in Mindanao by expanding the autonomous region and granting significant powers to the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE). However, concerns arose regarding the lack of transparency and potential constitutional violations.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law
Gobenciong vs. Court of Appeals (31st March 2008)	550 SCRA 502, 573 Phil. 613, G.R. No. 159883	This consolidated case addresses whether the Ombudsman's orders for preventive suspension are immediately executory, whether the Ombudsman's disciplinary authority is merely recommendatory, and whether the Ombudsman's powers under RA 6770 constitute an unconstitutional delegation of authority or violate the equal protection clause.	Dr. Pedro Gobenciong, an administrative officer at a regional hospital, was administratively charged for falsification of public documents and misconduct related to the allegedly anomalous purchase of a hemoanalyzer, leading to preventive suspension and subsequent disciplinary action by the Ombudsman.	Constitutional Law II
Carlos Superdrug Corp. vs. DSWD (29th June 2007)	526 SCRA 130, 553 Phil. 120, G.R. No. 166494	This case is a petition for prohibition challenging the constitutionality of Section 4(a) of the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003, which mandates a 20% discount for senior citizens on medicines, arguing that the tax deduction scheme provided as reimbursement is confiscatory and violates due process and equal protection clauses. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law, ruling that it is a valid exercise of police power for the general welfare and does not constitute unjust taking of private property.	Petitioners, drugstore owners, questioned the constitutionality of Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 9257, which provides senior citizens with a 20% discount on medicines, arguing that the provided tax deduction mechanism does not fully reimburse them and results in financial losses, amounting to confiscation of property without just compensation. They contended that it violates their rights to due process and equal protection and the constitutional mandate to make essential goods available at affordable cost.	Constitutional Law II Police Power
Lambino vs. Commission on Elections (25th October 2006)	505 SCRA 160, 536 Phil. 1, G.R. No. 174153, G.R. No. 174299	This case involves a petition for a people’s initiative to amend the 1987 Constitution and shift from a bicameral-presidential system to a unicameral-parliamentary government. The Supreme Court ruled against the petition, holding that it did not comply with constitutional and legal requirements, particularly the requirement that amendments must be "directly proposed by the people" through a petition containing the full text of the proposed changes. The Court also reaffirmed its ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC, declaring R.A. 6735 inadequate to implement the constitutional provision on people’s initiative.	The petitioners, led by Raul Lambino and Erico Aumentado, sought to amend the 1987 Constitution via a people’s initiative by collecting signatures from registered voters. They filed a petition with the COMELEC requesting a plebiscite to ratify their proposed amendments. COMELEC dismissed their petition, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC, which declared R.A. 6735 inadequate to allow an initiative for constitutional amendments. The petitioners then sought recourse with the Supreme Court.	Constitutional Law II
David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo (3rd May 2006)	489 SCRA 160, 522 Phil. 705, G.R. No. 171396, G.R. No. 171409, G.R. No. 171485, G.R. No. 171483, G.R. No. 171400, G.R. No. 171489, G.R. No. 171424	This case involves consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation (PP) 1017 and General Order (G.O.) No. 5, issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in 2006, which declared a state of national emergency. The Supreme Court addressed the scope of presidential powers during emergencies, the validity of the declaration, and the actions taken pursuant to it, ultimately finding portions of the issuances unconstitutional while upholding the President's calling-out power.	In February 2006, amidst alleged conspiracies to destabilize the government, President Arroyo issued PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5, directing the AFP and Philippine National Police (PNP) to maintain law and order, prevent acts of terrorism and lawless violence. These actions led to arrests, dispersal of rallies, and a raid on a newspaper office, prompting several petitions questioning the constitutionality of the President's actions.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law
City of Manila vs. Laguio, Jr. (12th April 2005)	455 SCRA 308, 495 Phil. 289, G.R. No. 118127	The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, declaring Ordinance No. 7783 of the City of Manila, which prohibited the operation of certain businesses providing specific forms of amusement, entertainment, services, and facilities in the Ermita-Malate area, as unconstitutional and void due to its infringement on due process, equal protection, and for being ultra vires.	Malate Tourist Development Corporation (MTDC) questioned the validity of Ordinance No. 7783, which included motels and inns among the prohibited establishments in the Ermita-Malate area, arguing it was unconstitutional and beyond the City Council's powers.	Constitutional Law II Statutory Construction
Mirasol vs. Court of Appeals (1st February 2001)	351 SCRA 44, 403 Phil. 760, G.R. No. 128448	This case concerns sugarland owners seeking an accounting from PNB and PHILEX regarding the proceeds of sugar sales under Presidential Decree No. 579. The Supreme Court addresses the constitutionality of P.D. No. 579, the validity of foreclosure and dacion en pago, and the applicability of piercing the corporate veil, ultimately affirming the Court of Appeals' decision.	The Mirasols, as sugarland owners, had their sugar production financed by PNB. P.D. No. 579 authorized PHILEX to purchase export sugar, with PNB financing the purchases. Disputes arose regarding the accounting of sugar sale proceeds, leading to litigation.	Constitutional Law II
Integrated Bar of the Philippines vs. Zamora (15th August 2000)	338 SCRA 81, G.R. No. 141284, 392 Phil. 618	The Supreme Court dismissed the IBP's petition challenging the constitutionality of President Estrada's order deploying Philippine Marines to Metro Manila for joint visibility patrols with the PNP, finding that the President did not gravely abuse his discretion and that the deployment did not violate civilian supremacy.	Due to rising crime rates in Metro Manila, President Estrada verbally ordered the PNP and Marines to conduct joint patrols. This directive was formalized in a Memorandum and Letter of Instruction (LOI). The IBP then filed a petition questioning the deployment's constitutionality.	Constitutional Law II
Philippine Press Institute, Inc. vs. Commission on Elections (22nd May 1995)	314 Phil. 131, 244 SCRA 272, G.R. No. 119694	The Philippine Press Institute (PPI) challenged the constitutionality of COMELEC Resolution No. 2772, which mandated newspapers to provide free print space ("Comelec Space") for candidates. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 2 of the Resolution constituted an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation and was not a valid exercise of police power or eminent domain. Section 8 concerning undue reference to candidates was deemed not ripe for judicial review.	COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2772 to procure free print space in newspapers for candidates to publicize their qualifications and platforms during the 1995 elections. This was intended to be similar to the voluntary practice by some publishers in the 1992 elections. PPI, representing newspaper publishers, challenged this resolution as an unconstitutional taking of private property.	Constitutional Law II Eminent Domain
Kilosbayan, Incorporated vs. Guingona, Jr (5th May 1994)	232 SCRA 110, G.R. No. 113375	This case involves a petition to prohibit the implementation of a "Contract of Lease" between the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and the Philippine Gaming Management Corporation (PGMC) for an on-line lottery system, with the petitioners arguing that it violates the PCSO charter and other laws.	PCSO decided to establish an on-line lottery system to increase revenue, leading to a Request for Proposal (RFP). PGMC was formed by the Berjaya Group Berhad to bid on the project. The resulting contract was challenged by Kilosbayan, Inc. and others.	Constitutional Law II
Republic vs. Court of Appeals (8th November 1993)	277 SCRA 509, 298 Phil. 291, G.R. No. 79732	The Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed the issue of retroactivity of judicial declarations of unconstitutionality, particularly concerning just compensation in expropriation cases. The Court held that such declarations should apply retroactively to pending cases, ensuring consistency and fairness in legal application.	This case involved the expropriation of land for a highway project where the government wanted to use a method of compensation that had been declared unconstitutional in a previous case.	Constitutional Law II
Brocka vs. Enrile (10th December 1990)	192 SCRA 183, 270 Phil. 271, G.R. Nos. 69863-65	Petitioners, who were arrested and charged with Illegal Assembly, sought their release on habeas corpus and a permanent injunction against the City Fiscal of Quezon City to prevent the investigation of charges of "Inciting to Sedition." The case explores the legality of enjoining criminal prosecution under certain circumstances, particularly in cases of manifest bad faith and harassment by state officials.	The case arose during a period of political unrest in the Philippines, marked by demonstrations and strikes against the government. Petitioners, including prominent filmmakers and activists, were arrested during a jeepney strike and subsequently charged with Illegal Assembly and Inciting to Sedition. The case highlights the tension between the government's authority to maintain order and the protection of individual rights and freedoms.	Constitutional Law II
Department of Education, Culture and Sports vs. San Diego (21st December 1989)	180 SCRA 533, 259 Phil. 1016, G.R. No. 89572	This case centers on the right of a student to take the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) for a fourth time after failing it thrice, challenging the constitutionality of the "three-flunk rule" on the grounds of academic freedom, quality education, due process, and equal protection.	The case arose from the DECS's rejection of San Diego's application to take the NMAT for the fourth time, citing the "three-flunk rule". San Diego challenged this decision in court, arguing it infringed on his constitutional rights.	Constitutional Law II
Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform (14th July 1989)	175 SCRA 343, 256 Phil. 777, G.R. No. 78742, G.R. No. 79310, G.R. No. 79744, G.R. No. 79777	This landmark case consolidated several petitions challenging the constitutionality of Presidential Decrees, Executive Orders, and Republic Acts related to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of these agrarian reform measures, addressing concerns about due process, just compensation, and the exercise of eminent domain and police power.	The case arose from the government's efforts to implement agrarian reform, aimed at redistributing agricultural lands to landless farmers. Landowners challenged the legal basis and specific provisions of the agrarian reform laws, arguing that they violated constitutional rights.	Constitutional Law II Police Power
Aberca vs. Ver (15th April 1988)	160 SCRA 590, 243 Phil. 735, G.R. No. 69866, No. L-69866	This case addresses whether the suspension of habeas corpus bars civil actions for damages due to illegal searches and constitutional rights violations by military personnel, and determines the liability of both direct actors and superior officers in such violations.	The case arose from alleged illegal searches, seizures, arrests, and torture committed by the Armed Forces of the Philippines' Task Force Makabansa (TFM) under the command of General Fabian Ver, purportedly targeting communist-terrorist underground houses.	Constitutional Law II
Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Dulay (29th April 1987)	149 SCRA 305, 233 Phil. 313, No. L-59603	This case addresses whether Presidential Decrees limiting just compensation in expropriation cases to the owner's declared value or assessor's value, whichever is lower, validly superseded the judicial process of determining just compensation through court-appointed commissioners under Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court. The Supreme Court declared these decrees unconstitutional, reaffirming the judiciary's role in determining just compensation in eminent domain cases.	The Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) sought to expropriate private land owned by San Antonio Development Corporation for the Mactan Export Processing Zone. EPZA attempted to base just compensation on valuations stipulated in Presidential Decrees, which were significantly lower than the market value. The trial court appointed commissioners to determine just compensation under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, prompting EPZA to file this petition questioning the court's authority to do so.	Constitutional Law II Eminent Domain
Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (20th March 1987)	148 SCRA 659, 232 Phil. 615, G.R. No. 74457	This landmark case challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 626-A which prohibited the interprovincial transportation of carabaos and carabeef, with the penalty of outright confiscation. The Supreme Court declared the executive order unconstitutional for violating due process, improperly delegating legislative power, and constituting an invalid exercise of police power.	The case arose during the Marcos regime when the government sought to protect carabaos (water buffalos) as essential farm animals by prohibiting their transportation across provincial boundaries, with the aim of preventing their indiscriminate slaughter.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Police Power
Javier vs. Commission on Elections (22nd September 1986)	144 SCRA 194, 228 Phil. 193, G.R. Nos. L-68379-81	The Supreme Court addressed jurisdictional and due process issues in a politically charged election dispute involving the Batasang Pambansa seat in Antique. While the case was rendered moot by the abolition of the Batasang Pambansa and the petitioner’s assassination, the Court clarified that pre-proclamation controversies for Batasang members must be decided by COMELEC en banc, not divisions.	The 1984 Antique elections were marred by violence, including the killing of petitioner Evelio Javier’s supporters. Javier challenged irregularities in the canvass, but COMELEC’s Second Division dismissed his claims and proclaimed Arturo Pacificador winner. Javier’s assassination in 1986 and the Batasang’s abolition under the post-Marcos Freedom Constitution rendered the case moot.	Constitutional Law II
City Government of Quezon City vs. Ericta (24th June 1983)	207 Phil. 648, 122 SCRA 759, No. L-34915	This case involves a petition by the City Government of Quezon City to reverse the decision of the lower court that declared Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64, requiring private cemeteries to allocate 6% of their area for pauper burials, as null and void. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision, finding the ordinance to be an invalid exercise of police power as it constituted confiscation without just compensation and lacked a clear reasonable relation to public welfare.	Quezon City enacted an ordinance regulating private cemeteries, including a provision (Section 9) requiring a 6% set-aside for pauper burials. This provision was not initially enforced, but seven years later, the City Council resolved to enforce it, directing the City Engineer to stop land transactions in cemeteries not complying with the 6% requirement. Himlayang Pilipino, Inc., a cemetery operator, challenged the ordinance in court.	Constitutional Law II
Republic vs, Vda. de Castellvi (15th August 1974)	58 SCRA 336, 157 Phil. 329, No. L-20620	This case involves an appeal regarding the just compensation for land expropriated by the Republic of the Philippines for the expansion of Basa Air Base. The central issues are the determination of the "taking" date for valuation purposes and the appropriate fair market value of the residential lands. The Supreme Court affirmed that the taking occurred upon the filing of the expropriation complaint and adjusted the just compensation to P5.00 per square meter, while also modifying the interest payment period for Defendant Castellvi.	The Republic needed to expand the Basa Air Base and initiated expropriation proceedings against Carmen M. Vda. de Castellvi and Maria Nieves Toledo-Gozun, landowners of adjacent properties. The Republic had previously leased Castellvi’s land since 1947. Disagreement arose over the just compensation, with landowners claiming a much higher value (P15.00 per square meter) compared to the Republic's initial valuation (P0.20 per square meter).	Constitutional Law II
Javellana vs. The Executive Secretary (31st March 1973)	50 SCRA 30, 151-A Phil. 35, 69 OG 7975, No. L-36142	This case involves multiple petitions questioning the validity of the 1973 Constitution's ratification via Citizens Assemblies and its implementation, arguing that it violated the 1935 Constitution. The Supreme Court addresses the justiciability of such issues, the validity of Proclamation No. 1102, and the authority to implement the new Constitution.	Following the declaration of Martial Law and the drafting of a new Constitution by the 1971 Constitutional Convention, President Marcos submitted the proposed constitution for ratification via Citizens Assemblies, bypassing a traditional plebiscite. This prompted several legal challenges questioning the process and the President's authority.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II
Republic vs. PLDT (27th January 1969)	136 Phil. 20, 26 SCRA 620, No. L-18841	This case concerns the right of the Republic of the Philippines, through the Bureau of Telecommunications, to interconnect its government telephone system with the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company's (PLDT) network. The Supreme Court ruled that while the Republic cannot compel PLDT to enter into a contract on mutually agreeable terms, it can, through eminent domain, require interconnection for public interest, subject to just compensation.	The Bureau of Telecommunications, a government entity, sought to interconnect its Government Telephone System (GTS) with PLDT's telephone network to provide broader telecommunication services to the public, including overseas calls. PLDT initially allowed interconnection through leased trunk lines but later severed these connections, citing unauthorized commercial use and competition from the Bureau. The Republic then filed suit to compel interconnection.	Constitutional Law II Eminent Domain
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. vs. City Mayor of Manila (31st July 1967)	20 SCRA 849, 128 Phil. 473, No. L-24693	The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, upholding the constitutionality of Manila Ordinance No. 4760, which regulated the operations of hotels and motels. The Court emphasized the presumption of validity of ordinances, the necessity of evidence to challenge such validity, and the broad scope of police power to promote public morals and welfare.	The Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association challenged Ordinance No. 4760, arguing it was unconstitutional and beyond the powers of the Manila Municipal Board. They claimed the ordinance violated due process by imposing unreasonable fees and regulations, invading privacy, and lacking certainty. The City Mayor defended the ordinance as a valid exercise of police power to curb immorality.	Constitutional Law II
Republic vs. La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas (28th February 1961)	1 SCRA 646, 111 Phil. 230, No. L-12792	This case involves the Republic of the Philippines' attempt to expropriate a portion of land owned by La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas (San Beda College) to extend Azcarraga Street and ease traffic congestion. The trial court dismissed the expropriation case based on a perceived lack of necessity. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, holding that the necessity of expropriation is a factual issue requiring evidence and remanded the case for further proceedings.	To alleviate traffic congestion on Legarda Street, the government planned to extend Azcarraga Street. This extension required acquiring a portion of land owned by La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas, where San Beda College is located. Negotiations failed, leading the government to initiate expropriation proceedings.	Constitutional Law II
Ichong, etc., et al. vs. Hernandez (31st May 1957)	101 Phil. 1155, G.R. No. L-7995	This case involves a petition challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1180, known as the Retail Trade Nationalization Law, which prohibited aliens (with certain exceptions) from engaging in the retail business in the Philippines. Petitioner, an alien retailer, argued the Act violated due process, equal protection, treaty obligations, and constitutional requirements regarding the title of bills. The Supreme Court upheld the law's constitutionality, concluding it was a valid exercise of the State's police power aimed at achieving economic independence and protecting the nation from perceived alien dominance in the retail sector, and that the distinctions made by the law were based on reasonable grounds.	he enactment of Republic Act No. 1180 stemmed from a deep-seated nationalistic concern, present since the 1935 Constitutional Convention and amplified over time, regarding the perceived economic dominance and control exerted by aliens, particularly in the vital retail trade sector, which was viewed as a threat to the Philippines' economic independence, national security, and the welfare of Filipino retailers and consumers.	Constitutional Law II Due Process
United States vs. Causby (27th May 1946)	[]	This article analyzes the landmark Supreme Court case, United States v. Causby, which significantly altered common law property rights regarding airspace. It examines how the Causby decision recognized an "aerial easement" as a form of taking under the Fifth Amendment when government aircraft flights at low altitudes interfere with the use of private property. The article further explores the implications of Causby for aviation law, eminent domain, and the balance between individual property rights and national defense, particularly in the context of military air operations and the evolving concept of airspace ownership.	Historically, common law adhered to the doctrine cujus est solum ejus usque ad coelum et ad infernos, granting property owners rights to the heavens and to the depths below. However, the advent of aviation in the 20th century rendered this archaic rule impractical and necessitated a re-evaluation of airspace rights. Early courts initially resisted change, but the necessity of flight for transportation and national defense forced a legal evolution recognizing that the airspace above "usable heights" was not exclusively owned by the landowner.	Constitutional Law II
Tileston vs. Ullman (1st February 1943)	318 U.S. 44 (1943)	The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by a physician challenging the constitutionality of a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives, holding that the physician lacked standing to assert the constitutional rights of his patients.	A physician brought a suit seeking a declaratory judgment that a Connecticut law banning contraception was unconstitutional. The physician argued that the law prevented him from providing necessary medical advice to patients whose lives would be endangered by pregnancy.	Constitutional Law II
Buck vs. Bell (2nd May 1927)	274 U.S. 200	This case involved a constitutional challenge to a Virginia state law that authorized the compulsory sterilization (salpingectomy) of individuals deemed "feeble minded" and institutionalized in state facilities. Carrie Buck, an inmate found to be "feeble minded" and the daughter of a "feeble minded" mother and mother of an illegitimate "feeble minded" child, challenged the order for her sterilization under the statute, arguing it violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Virginia statute, finding that the state's interest in preventing the procreation of "unfit" individuals outweighed Buck's personal rights, drawing an analogy to compulsory vaccination laws and concluding the procedural safeguards were adequate.	* The case arose in the context of the eugenics movement in the early 20th century, which promoted the idea that societal problems could be reduced by preventing reproduction among individuals considered genetically unfit or "defective." * Virginia enacted a statute in 1924 reflecting these views, allowing for the sterilization of inmates of certain state institutions if deemed beneficial for the patient and society, based on concerns about heredity and the societal burden of supporting "defective persons."	Constitutional Law II Due Process
Yu Cong Eng vs. Trinidad (6th February 1925)	47 Phil. 385, G.R. No. L-20479	Chinese merchants petitioned the Supreme Court to prohibit the enforcement of Act No. 2972 (the "Chinese Bookkeeping Law"), which required account books to be kept in English, Spanish, or a local dialect, arguing it was unconstitutional. The government defended the law as a necessary measure under police power and the power of taxation to prevent tax fraud. Applying the principle that courts should adopt a construction that upholds constitutionality if possible, the Supreme Court interpreted the Act not as a complete prohibition on keeping books in Chinese, but as requiring only those books essential for tax inspection (like sales books and specified records/returns) to be kept in one of the permitted languages. Under this construction, the Court declared Act No. 2972 constitutional and denied the petition.	* The case arose from the Philippine government's efforts to effectively collect sales and income taxes, particularly from Chinese merchants, many of whom kept their account books exclusively in Chinese, making inspection difficult for revenue agents. * An earlier attempt by the Collector of Internal Revenue to mandate bookkeeping in English or Spanish via administrative circular was invalidated by the Supreme Court (_Young vs. Rafferty_) for exceeding administrative authority, prompting the Legislature to enact Act No. 2972. * The Act faced significant opposition from the Chinese community and diplomatic channels, and its enforcement was initially suspended before being pursued, leading to the arrest of petitioner Yu Cong Eng and this challenge.	Constitutional Law II Due Process
Kwong Sing vs. City of Manila (11th October 1920)	41 Phil. 103, G. R. No. 15972	This case involves a challenge by Kwong Sing, representing Chinese laundry owners in Manila, against the validity of City Ordinance No. 532, which required laundry establishments to issue duplicate receipts in English and Spanish detailing the items received. The Supreme Court upheld the ordinance, ruling that it was a valid exercise of the City of Manila's police power under its charter, aimed at promoting peace, preventing fraud, and protecting the public welfare, and that it was neither discriminatory nor unreasonably oppressive despite the difficulties it posed for laundry owners unfamiliar with English or Spanish.	The City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 532, which mandated that all laundries, dyeing, and cleaning establishments issue signed duplicate receipts in English and Spanish, specifying the kind and number of articles received for service, aiming to regulate the delivery and return of clothes and prevent disputes and fraud, particularly targeting issues arising from receipts issued in Chinese characters.	Constitutional Law II Due Process
City of Manila vs. Chinese Community of Manila (31st October 1919)	40 Phil. 349, No. 14355	This case concerns the City of Manila's attempt to expropriate land owned by the Chinese Community of Manila for the extension of Rizal Avenue. The central issue is whether courts can inquire into the necessity of expropriation when the city asserts its right to take private land for public use. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Chinese Community, holding that courts are not limited to simply valuing the land but can also examine the necessity and public purpose of the expropriation.	The City of Manila sought to extend Rizal Avenue and filed a petition to expropriate certain parcels of land in Binondo, Manila, owned by the Chinese Community of Manila, which included a cemetery. The Chinese Community opposed the expropriation, arguing it was unnecessary, would desecrate a cemetery, and alternative routes were available.	Constitutional Law II
Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro (7th March 1919)	39 Phil. 660, G.R. No. 14078	This landmark case addressed the constitutionality of provisions in the Administrative Code that allowed provincial officials to require "non-Christian" inhabitants to live within reservations. The Supreme Court upheld the law as a valid exercise of police power analogous to the U.S. government's policy toward American Indians.	Rubi and other Manguianes (indigenous people of Mindoro) were ordered by the provincial governor to leave their native habitats and establish residence on a reservation at Tigbao in Mindoro. One Manguian named Dabalos escaped and was imprisoned. The Manguianes filed for habeas corpus, challenging the provincial governor's authority to confine them to reservations.	Constitutional Law II
United States vs. Toribio (26th January 1910)	15 Phil. 85, G.R. No. 5060	The case involved the defendant, Luis Toribio, who slaughtered a carabao without a permit, violating Act No. 1147. The Supreme Court ruled that the Act prohibits the slaughter of large cattle for human consumption anywhere in the Philippines without a permit, even in municipalities without a slaughterhouse. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act, stating that it was a valid exercise of police power to protect the general welfare and prevent the depletion of work animals.	The case arose during a period when a contagious disease threatened the carabao population in the Philippines, impacting agriculture and the economy. Act No. 1147 was enacted to regulate the registration, branding, and slaughter of large cattle, aiming to protect the ownership and use of these animals.	Constitutional Law II
American Print Works vs. Lawrence (15th October 1847)	21 N.J.L. 248 (N.J. 1847)	This case involves an action of trespass brought by American Print Works against Cornelius W. Lawrence, then Mayor of New York City, for ordering the destruction of their goods during the Great Fire of 1835. Lawrence argued his actions were justified by both a New York statute and common law necessity to prevent the fire's spread and save the city. The court proceedings at the Essex Circuit in New Jersey in 1852 examined these defenses, focusing on whether Lawrence acted lawfully and whether the destruction of goods was a necessary consequence of preventing a larger catastrophe. Ultimately, the jury sided with the defendant, finding his actions justified.	In December 1835, a devastating fire broke out in New York City, rapidly spreading and threatening to consume a large portion of the city. Mayor Cornelius W. Lawrence, in consultation with city officials and military experts, ordered the destruction of several buildings using gunpowder to create firebreaks and halt the conflagration. Among the destroyed buildings were stores containing goods belonging to American Print Works.	Constitutional Law II