CBPT (2017)

Constitutional Law 2 | Atty. Renato Galeon THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION IS

2017-2018, Second Semester A written, enacted and rigid Constitution. WRITTEN as it is
Pre-Midterm one whose precepts are embodied in one document. It is
ENACTED as it is formally struck off at a definite time and
CONSTITUTION place following a conscious or deliberate effort taken by the
Definition people through plebiscite. It is RIGID because it cannot be
A body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the changed by ordinary legislation but only by a more
powers of sovereignty are habitually exercised. cumbersome process of change (through initiative and
– Thomas M Cooley referendum)

A written instrument enacted by the direct action of the people Congress cannot pass a law with the end in view of amending
by which the fundamental powers of the government are the Constitution. Any such law contrary to the Constitution
established, limited and defined, and by which those powers should be inviolated, for the Constitution is the supreme law
are distributed among the several departments for their safe of the land to which all laws must conform and all person must
and useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic. defer.
– Justice Malcolm

Purposes Since our Constitution is Rigid

(1) To prescribe a permanent framework of a system of Congress cannot amend any of the provisions by enacting law
government seeking to change them. Any purported change or
(2) To assign or allocate to the several departments their amendment must strictly comply with the process outlined
respective powers and duties under Art 17 of the 1987 Constitution
(3) To establish certain principles on which the government is
founded Advantage of a Rigid Constitution
It can withstand capricious changes or those that are brought
Types not by legitimate needs but by passing whims and fancies.
▪ Written vs Unwritten (according to form) Hence, our politicians cannot just tinker the provisions thereof
▪ Enacted vs Evolved (according to origin) easily, in accordance with their whims and fancies.
▪ Rigid vs Flexible (according to procedure of
amendment) Disadvantage of a Rigid Constitution
It will hinder progress, instead of spurring it because it is
Written difficult to amen if there is a legitimate need to bring about a
The provisions are written but it is not the only description. The change.
provisions are embodied in a single instrument or set of
documents.
Characteristics of a Good Written Constitution
1. Broad
Unwritten 2. Brief
Does not necessarily mean that its provisions are not written. 3. Definite
The provisions are NOT embodied in a single instrument or
set of documents and are scattered in various sources (e.g. (1) Broad
judicial decisions, statutes, customs and traditions, opinions Should not only provide for the organizations of the
of jurists) government and cover all things or persons within its territory,
but should also be comprehensive to provide for contingency.
Examples of countries with an unwritten Constitution: It should not be like a history book. It should not only be an
1. England embodiment of a past, but must be able to anticipate the
2. New Zealand future.
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Australia (2) Brief
It should limit itself to the basic principles sought to be
implemented, leaving others to be supplemented by laws to
Enacted or Conventional be enacted by Congress. Should not be a codification of laws.
Formally adopted at a definite time and place following a
conscious effort of the body politic or a ruler. There is formal (3) Definite
adoption of the constitution, normally done in a plebiscite. It should appear clear and easily understood by the ordinary
people.

Evolved or Cumulative Essential Parts of A Good-Written Constitution

A product of political evolution. It is not formally adopted at a 1. Constitution of Liberty
definite and place and not formally ratified by the people (e.g. 2. Constitution of Government
England, Ireland, Australia) 3. Constitution of Sovereignty

(1) Constitution of Liberty

Rigid Refers to the part of the Constitution which sets forth the
A kind of Constitution that can be amended only by a formal fundamental, civil and political rights of the people and
and usually difficult process. imposes limitations in the exercise of government powers if
only to secure the enjoyment of the civil and political rights of
the people.
Flexible
A kind of Constitution that can easily be amended by ordinary Article 3 – Bill of Rights
legislation.

1|P a g e
 CBPT (2017)

(2) Constitution of Government POWERS OF THE STATE

Refers to the part of the Constitution outlining the organization
of the government, enumerating the powers of the Three Inherent Powers
government, laying down rules for its administration and 1. Police Power
defining the illiterate. power of the State to regulate liberty and property rights of
citizens for the promotion of the general welfare
Article 6 – Legislative Department
Article 7 – Executive Department 2. Power of Eminent Domain Ex. Widening of higway in Clarin
Article 8 – Judicial Department Power of the State to take away private properties for public
Article 9 – Constitutional Commissions (COMELEC, CSC, purpose upon payment of just compensation
COA)
3. Power of Taxation Lifeblood of the government
Power of the State to demand from the members of the society
(3) Constitution of Sovereignty their proportionate contribution in the maintenance and
Refers to the part of the Constitution which outlines the operation of the State
process by which the Constitution may be amended or
revised. Common Characteristics of the 3 Inherent Powers
1. These powers are inherent in the State
Article 17 – Amendments or Revisions 2. These powers are not necessary but are indispensable
to the state
3. These powers are the means or methods by which the
Rules in Interpretation of the Provisions State can effectively interfere with private rights
1. Verba legis Words in the constitution should be given an ordinary meaning 4. These powers are primarily lodged or vested in the
2. Ratio legis et anima reason of law is its soul Congress. But by express delegation or authority, the
3. Ut magis valeat quam pereat it is better to validate a thing than to same can be exercised by other entities or bodies
invalidate it 5. The exercise of these powers presupposes payment of
(1) Verba legis just compensation
If we are to interpret the provisions of the Constitution,
ordinary words should be given ordinary meaning. (1) Powers are inherent in the State
▪ They can be exercised by the State without them having
(2) Ratio legis et anima been expressly conferred by the Constitution
When there is doubt or ambiguity in interpreting the provisions
of the Constitution, it should be interpreted in accordance with ▪ The moment that a State exists, it is already vested with
the intent of the framers (spirit and purpose of the law). But if these powers
the wordings are clear, no need to apply this principle.
▪ In fact, the provisions which may have reference to any of
(3) Ut magis valeat quam pereat the powers are far from conferring authority to the State,
The Constitution has to be interpreted as a whole. Related but rather those provisions impose limitations in the
privisions of the Constitution must be interpreted altogether. exercise of governmental authority
Provisions dealing with the same subject matter should be
construed as a whole, if only to effectuate the meaning Examples:
thereof. Where there is a seeming inconsistency between Sec 1, Art 3 – “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty
some of the provisions, there should be a conscious attempt and property without due process of law” which limits the
to harmonize such conflicting provisions, if only to give Police Power of the State
meaning to them.
Sec 9, Art 3 – Private property shall not be taken for public
In case of doubt, provisions are held to be: purpose without payment of just compensation” which
▪ Self-executing, except when the contrary appears in the does not confer the power of eminent domain but rather
context of the provision imposes limitation
▪ Mandatory rather than directory
▪ Prospective rather than retroactive Sec 28, par 3, Art 6 – “Charitable institutions, churches,
and parsonages or convents appurtent thereto, mosques,
non-profit cemeteries and all lands, buildings, and
Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy improvement actually, directly, and exclusively used for
The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. All laws religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be
enacted by Congress must conform to it. All acts, including exempt from taxation” which limits the power of taxation
that of the highest officers of the land, must conform to its
mandates. (2) Powers are not only necessary but are indispensable
Exeception to GR that all laws enacted by congress mus conform to it to the State
However, there are powers that the State may exercise ▪ Without these powers, the State may not be able to
independently of the Constitution (powers that are not function effectively
expressly granted by the Constitution).
Examples:
o without Police Power, the State cannot enact
Criminal Laws (RPC)
o without Eminent Domain, the state cannot
construct roads
o without Taxation, the State cannot provide
basic services (such as free education in public
schools, PhilHealth)

2|P a g e
 CBPT (2017)

(3) Powers are the means or methods by which the State Powers Payment of Just
can effectively interfere with private rights Compensation
▪ Police Power regulates not only property rights but also Eminent Domain Payment of sum of money
liberty of individuals Taxation Delivery of services (free
education, health services)
▪ Eminent Domain involves property rights – taking of Police Power Altruistic feeling that
private properties somehow, an individual
contributed to the
▪ Taxation imposes a mandatory payment in favor of the promotion of public welfare
State which also involves taking of private properties

(4) Powers are primarily lodged or vested in Congress POLICE POWER

But by express delegation or authority, the same can be
exercised by other entities or bodies Definition
Police Power regulates not only property rights but also liberty
MMDA vs Garin of individuals for the promotion of the public welfare or the
public good
What was at issue therein was whether or not MMDA could
issue or promulgate regulations authorizing the enforcers Characteristics
thereof to confiscate driver’s licenses. In that case, the SC 1. Most pervasive, least limitable, and the most demanding
ruled that MMDA, being a government agency, has no among all the inherent powers of the State
inherent police power because this power is primarily lodged 2. Inherent, such that this power can be exercised by the
in the Congress. State independently of any constitutional grant
3. This power cannot be bargained away with through a
medium of a treaty or a contract
(5) Power presupposes payment of just compensation 4. The power is dynamic
5. In the exercise thereof, it may utilize the other 2 inherent
powers (Eminent Domain and Taxation) as a tool thereof
Differences of the 3 Inherent Power
1. Police power involves not only property rights but also
liberty of individuals; whereas the two other powers only affect (1) Most pervasive, least limitable, and most demanding
property rights of persons among all the inherent powers of the State
While the 2 other powers involve only property rights, the
2. Police Power and Power of Taxation may only be exercised exercise of police power involves not just property rights but
by the government; whereas the Power of Eminent Domain also involves liberty of individuals
can also be exercised by private entities upon delegation of
this authority (ex. National Power Corporation) It is pervasive in the sense that practically the exercise of
police power covers and regulates almost any or every human
3. The property taken in the exercise of Police Power has to activity. It covers the activities of man from womb to tomb.
be destroyed because generally, it is regarded as a noxious Example:
or hazardous property; whereas the properties taken under ▪ Abortion – even before a child is born, it is already
the Power of Eminent Domain or Power of Taxation are protected by the State
beneficial properties. Hence, the same should be converted ▪ Death – laws pertaining to the disposition of one’s
for a public purpose (s) remains (burial), and succession rights

Q: Whether or not beneficial property could be taken under Police power, therefore, is wider in scope than the other
police power powers

Yes. Generally, property under Police Power is a hazardous

property, hence, it is to be destroyed. But where the Police (2) Inherent, such that this power can be exercised by the
Power utilizes the other powers (Eminent Domain or Taxation) State independently of any Constitutional grant
as a tool in the exercise thereof, then in those instances, Since this is not granted by the Constitution, the basis for the
beneficial properties could be taken by the State in the power is rooted on the Latin Maxims:
concept of Police Power. a. Salus populi suprema lex – The welfare of the
people is the supreme law of the land.
Carlos Superdrug vs DOJ b. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas – One cannot
exercise his/her rights to the detriment or prejudice
There was a law granting 20% discounts to senior citizens. of the rights of another
Then it was argued that the law was confiscatory because it
would appear that establishment will be made to subsidize
more or less 6% of the 20% discounts given to senior citizens. (3) This power cannot be bargained away with through a
In that case, the SC justified the validity of that law under medium of a treaty or a contract
Police Power although it involves taking of a beneficial A. Treaty
property (profit, money) because that law was a valid exercise Ichong vs Hernandez
of Police Power using as an implement thereof the Power of
Taxation. A law was enacted prohibiting aliens from engaging in a retail
trade business. This law is known as the “Retail Trade
4. The exercise of Power of Taxation and Power of Eminent Nationalization Law”. Ichong, a Chinese, was convicted for
Domain presupposes payment of just compensation in the violating the law. He filed a case in the SC with a contention
form of tangible property; whereas for Police Power, just that the said law was in violation with the Treaty of Amity
compensation would be intangible entered into by the Philippines and China.

3|P a g e
 CBPT (2017)

The SC said that the said law was not in conflict with the questioned, but the US Supreme Court decreed that such
Treaty of Amity between the PH and China. But if at all, such franchise could be cancelled all in the name of Police Power.
was in conflict with that treaty, then our law should prevail
because that was enacted pursuant to the exercise of Police Oposa vs Factoran
Power. The SC decreed in no uncertain terms that Police The SC revoked the grant of concessions or timber licenses,
Power could not be bargained away with by a medium of a which were argued to be property rights, in the name of Police
treaty. Power.

Note: However, the SC has now shifted in that it ruled that the
Insert Lim vs Paking
Philippines must comply with its treaty obligations.
240 SCRA 649
Illustrative case:
The government of City of Manila previously issued a permit
Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch vs Commissioner of for the operation of jai alai. Later, PD 70071 was issued by
Internal Revenue [19:00] Marcos revoking the authority of the mayor to issue permits
for the operation of jai alai. Mayor Lim revoked the permit
In the case at bar, the State is enjoined to strictly comply with granted to ABC corporation.
its treaty obligations. The SC even enjoined the government
to make changes in our laws so as to ensure that we will ABC argued that it was invalid because it was an impairment
comply with our contractual obligations. of obligation of contracts but the SC disagreed. Noting again
Note: But the fact remains that when there is a conflict that PD 70071 was issued pursuant to Police Power.
between a treaty and our local laws, our local laws should
prevail in the exercise of Police Power. Police power cannot Note: Police Power can, therefore, impair obligations of
be bargained away with through a medium of a treaty. contracts, notwithstanding the provisions Art 10, Sec 3 of Art. 3 Sec. 10 of the
the Constitution, stating that, “No law shall be passed Constitution
B. Contract impairing the obligations of contract.”
Ortigas and Co. Ltd vs CA

Hermoso bought a parcel of land from Ortigas and in the (4) Power is dynamic
Contract of Sale, there was an express stipulation that the Police Power changes with time and with society.
subject matter of that sale should only be used for residential
purposes. But Mathay, who leased the lot from Hermoso, Cybercrime Law
constructed instead a commercial building thereon. He In the past, there is no such thing as cybercrime law. But
defended its action in accordance to Resolution No. 81-10, a today, there is already a cybercrime law.
zoning ordinance reclassifying the land from residential to
commercial. Ortigas, on the other hand, argued that the Family Code, Article 1 – on same sex marriage
resolution cannot be given a retroactive effect so as to impair Police Power is not static but dynamic. It will not be surprising
obligations of a contract created prior to the enactment of the if Congress will enact a law allowing same sex marriage.
resolution.
In the past, operation of vital utilities is performed by the State.
SC said that Police Power, in the form of such an ordinance, But at present, there is now a move to privatize the operation
is superior compared to the contract entered into years before of public utilities. That is why now, NPC and PNB are now
its enactment. This is because Police Power cannot be privatized.
bargained away by a medium of a contract.
(5) In the exercise thereof, it may utilize as its tool the
Insert MMDA vs Garin other powers (Eminent Domain and Taxation)
The Power of Taxation or Eminent Domain may be used as
Garin was a holder of a driver’s license. When it was an implement of Police Power for the attainment of a
confiscated, he cried foul and said that it was violative of his legitimate police objective. This is the only instance when
public right. But the high court ruled that a driver’s license is Police Power may take a property which is not noxious and is
nothing but a privilege, hence, it can be revoked by the State not destroyed.
all in the name of Police Power. Police Power cannot be
bargained away with through a medium of a contract.
A. Police Power using Taxation
Sin Tax Law
Chavez vs Romulo
The Sin Tax Law is enacted pursuant to the Police Power but
A regulation was enacted by the State cancelling the
using the Power of Taxation as its implement thereof. This
privileges of persons to carry firearms outside their
involves imposing higher tax in the hope of dissuading people
residences. Chavez questioned the validity of the law
from smoking/drinking.
contending that he already had vested rights to carry his
firearms outside his residence.
Carlos Superdrug Corp vs CA
SC, however, sustained the revocation of the permit to carry SC justified such imposition under Police Power using the
a licensed firearm outside of the residence. It is a privilege and Power of Taxation as a tool in the exercise thereof.
it can be revoked and suspended by the State pursuant to the
Police Power. Lutz vs Araneta
A law was enacted imposing special tax on sugar for the
Stone vs Mississipi rehabilitation of the ailing sugar industry. The validity of the
There was a grant of a franchise in favor of few persons for law was assailed but SC held that the said special law
them to operate lottery for a period of 25 years. But after 3 imposing taxes on sugar companies was enacted pursuant to
years, that was cancelled by the State. Such cancellation was the Police Power using the Power of Taxation as its implement
thereof. The purpose of which is to rehabilitate the ailing sugar
industry.

4|P a g e
 CBPT (2017)

B. Police Power using Eminent Domain property. It would amount to taking of private property without
just compensation.
Carlos Superdrug Corp vs CA
SC justified the taking of a beneficial property (profits) all in How can we reconcile the seemingly conflicting ruling of the
the name of Police Power using Eminent Domain. Supreme Court?
What was involved in Telecommunications is a franchise to
operate the telecommunication business. Under Sec 11, Art
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
12 of the Constitution, the grant of any such franchise is
The State takes away private properties such as land to be
subject to the condition that it can be modified, altered,
distributed to farmer beneficiaries. The act of taking a property
repealed or suspended by the State. But one does not need
is under Eminent Domain; but to the extent that the CARP
such legislative franchise to be engaged in publishing
would prescribe certain limitations or retention of ownership,
business.
then there is regulation of property and liberty under Police
Power. Therefore, this law is enacted pursuant to the Police
Radio broadcast, which is a franchise or a privilege, can be
Power using the Power of Eminent Domain as a tool thereof.
regulated by the State under the Police Power, while the latter
is not.
Small Landowners vs Executive of Agriculture
The exercise of the Power of the State to distribute lands to
the landless under the CARP is justified under the Police Who can Exercise Police Power
Power, using as implement thereof the Power of Eminent Police Power is primarily lodged in the Congress. However, it
Domain. may be delegated to other government bodies. There has to
be delegation of power by Congress in favor of such body
Ortigas and Co., Ltd. vs CA because without which, then such body cannot exercise
SC said that the enactment of the zoning ordinance Police Power. (e.g. Local Government Units through the LGC) Local Government Code
(reclassifying residential area to commercial) is done not
pursuant to power of eminent domain but pursuant to police If there is a situation calling for the exercise of Police Power,
power. Because zoning ordinance will not invoke taking of Congress has the full discretion whether to act on it or not. If
private property. It only invokes reclassification of the the Congress does not act on it, it cannot be compelled by
utilization of property from residential to commercial. mandamus to act on that problem.
If, on the other hand, it decided to act on it, the remedies to be
Note: This explains why Police Power is the most pervasive pursued are also left to the sound discretion of the Congress
power of the State because it may use other powers in the (e.g. if the State decided to totally ban the use of cigarettes on
course of its implementation. the ground that it could lead to lung cancer, such prohibition
cannot be questioned
Philippine Press Institute vs COMELEC
Marijuana addiction).
There was an attempt on the part of the State, through the
SolGen to justify COMELEC’s resolution requiring
Absolute truth is not necessary. A semblance of proof would
newspapers to give free print spaces to COMELEC by
suffice.
invoking the Police Power of the State. However, such
invocation was not further elaborated by the SolGen. Jacobson vs Massachusetts
Jacobson was convicted for refusing to be vaccinated for
The SC, however, said that the COMELEC’s resolution was small pox. As to him, small pox vaccination is not that effective
invalid because it would tantamount to taking of private and could only cause health complications. But the US
property without just compensation. Supreme Court said that the ascertainment of facts attendant
to the exercise of Police Power is generally left to the sound
discretion of Congress. Such that if such action or decision by
Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Congress is supported by a semblance of proof, then that can
Philippines vs COMELEC be justified.
Issue: Validity of Sec 22 of the Omnibus Election Code,
mandating radio stations and TV networks to provide free
But if the actions or remedies of the Congress have no factual
airtime to the COMELEC.
basis at all, then they can be declared invalid.
It was assailed as invalid as this would amount to taking of
While Police Power is primarily vested in the Congress, but
private property without just compensation.
due to the expanded concept of Judicial Review, there is a
chance that the action of Congress for the exercise by the
Held: SC sustained the validity of the law as valid exercise of
State of Police Power may be reviewed by the SC to
Police Power. The SC upheld the validity of a COMELEC
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
Resolution requiring radio stations to give free air time to
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
COMELEC.
Requisites for a Valid Exercise of Police Power
Q: What’s the difference between the two cases mentioned The exercise of Police Power necessitates that there should
above when in the case of PPF, the free space (tangible) was be the existence of:
declared invalid while in the case of Telecommunications, the 1. Lawful Subject
giving of free airtime (intangible) was valid? 2. Employment of Lawful Means/Method
1. In the case of Telecomm, the air time taken was considered (1) Lawful Subject
valid because it was an intangible property and Sec 22 was a It is an activity/thing that is imbued with public interest;
valid exercise of Police Power using the Power of Eminent otherwise, such cannot be regulated by the State even in the
Domain as a tool in the exercise thereof. Hence, there was no name of Police Power
payment of just compensation. But in PPF vs Comelec, the
taking of the print space is invalid because it is a tangible

5|P a g e
 CBPT (2017)

What cannot be a lawful subject: regulations affecting the problem of prostitution. The SC held that there is no doubt that
privacy of rights of an individual, freedom of religion, freedom the purpose was noble. There was in that situation the
to think existence of a lawful subject (problem on prostitution) yet the
method employed thereby was unjust. According to the SC,
Ople vs Torres prostituted women also have rights such as that they cannot
The issue was an administrative order issued by Pres. Ramos be shipped from one place to another.
establishing a National Computerized Identification Reference
System for the expressed purpose of facilitating transactions Social Justice Society vs DSWD
with the government, particularly those providing basic GR No 157870
services and social security benefits. What was at issue is the validity of Sec 36 of RA 9165
(Dangerous Drugs Act) requiring that before a person could
SC declared that the order “pressures” the people to run for a public office especially for Congress, one has to
surrender their privacy by giving information about themselves undergo the Mandatory Drug Test. The purpose of the law
on the pretext that it will facilitate the delivery of basic services. was no doubt valid. But according to the SC, the method
employed thereby was unlawful because the qualifications for
The right to pursue a profession can be regulated by the State. one aspiring for Congress were already set forth in Article 6
PRC vs De Guzman and such qualifications cannot be further amended by simple
The passers from Fatima College were not allowed to take legislation.
their oath. The SC sustained the action of PRC because the
practice of medical profession can be regulated by the State. Office of the SolGen vs Ayala Land Inc
The health of the citizens should not be entrusted to The SolGen filed a petition to restrain owners of the Ayala
incompetent physicians. malls from collecting parking fees from its customers. The
SolGen anchored his argument on the provisions of the
Employment can also be regulated by the State National Building Code requiring owners to allocate more
JMM Promotions vs CA space as a parking area. The SolGen argued that inasmuch
There is a law requiring an artist record book before one can as that was a requirement under the National Building Code,
be deployed as entertainers in Japan. This was questioned by then the use thereof by the customers must be provided for
JMM but the law was however sustained by the SC, stating free.
that it was geared to protecting the plight of the performers
abroad. SC held that such would be unjust and confiscatory, it was
already unfair on the part of the mall owners requiring them to
allocate a space for parking area and restricting them to utilize
(2) Employment of Lawful Means/Method them fully to their benefit; such that providing the said area for
The means employed must be reasonably necessary for the free will so to speak result to double whammy.
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive
upon individuals. City Government of Quezon vs Ericta
There was an ordinance enacted by the City Council of
Ynot vs IAC Quezon to the end that private owners of cemetery should
This case involes a law authorizing the outright confiscation of allocate 60% space as burial sites for paupers of that locality.
carabos transported from one province to another which was No doubt that the purpose of the law is noble but the SC said
questioned by Ynot. His contention was that the means that such ordinance would only be confiscatory. This would
employed were not valid because the law authorizes amount to taking of property without payment of just
confiscation without trial. compensation.

SC ruled in favor of Ynot, nullifying such a law stating that

indeed, the law imposes punishment without benefit of a Police Power Must Conform to Due Process and Equal
hearing. Such law thus, amounts to bill of attainder. The Court, Protection
moreover, held that while the law has a lawful subject (the Due Process means prior notice to be heard.
regulation of the slaughter of carabaos), such does not have
lawful means. The means employed which is the prohibition Exceptions:
of transfer of carabaos from one province to another is not Property is nuisance per se
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose Cabrera vs Lapid
because carabaos may still be slaughtered even if they are Demolition of the fishpond of Cabrera without a court order. It
not transferred from one province to another. was argued that it was violative of Due Process but the SC
disagreed, noting that such property is a nuisance per se.
City of Manila vs Laguio Hence, it can be abated all in the name of Police Power.
An ordinance was enacted prohibiting the operations and
establishments of motels in Malate area. The purpose
therefore was to get rid of prostitution. But nonetheless, it was Pollution Adjudication Board vs CA
decreed as invalid by the SC because the means employed A cease and desist order was issued by PAB even without
thereby were confiscatory. The options given to the prior notice or hearing, which prohibits Solar Textile from
establishment were winding up of operation, transferring to using its defective water treatment facilities, as it already
another place or converting their business to allowable discharged untreated waters to the nearby river.
business. All these things tantamount to taking of private
property without just compensation. SC sustained its validity because after all, it was by way of
exception as provided in Sec 7 of PD 984 allowing PAB to
Villasencio vs Lukban issue ex parte a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) even the
39 Phil 7988 matter could be heard or given notice. What is important is the
The mayor rounded up 170 prostituted women and shipped hearing after the issuance of the TRO.
them out from Manila to Davao. The purpose was to solve the

6|P a g e
 CBPT (2017)

Nuisance per se Garcia vs Drilon case

It is “recognized as a nuisance under any and all GR No 179267
circumstances, because it constitutes a direct menace to SC said that through applying the heightened standard test,
public health or safety and, for that reason, may be abated the law was valid. SC was of the view that women are
summarily under the undefined law of necessity.” generally weaker than men.

Nuisance per accidens

That which “depends upon certain conditions and (4) Overbreadth Scrutiny Standard
circumstances. Its existence being a question of fact, it cannot Test validity of law or directive which hinges on the exercise
be declared without due hearing thereon in a tribunal on the freedom of the press.
authorized to decide whether such a thing in law constitutes a
nuisance”.
Chavez vs Gonzales
Case in point: See Knights of Rizal
Issue: Validity of directive in the exercise of freedom of the
press
Situation:
Factory situated inside a residential area
Gonzales ordered the radio stations not to air the Hello Garci
Can that be abated summarily? Is that a nuisance per se?
tape. Chavez questioned the directive of Gonzales by way of
facial challenge using the overbreadth standard. Chavez was
That is a nuisance per accidens. It is a wrong thing but at the
sustained. What was employed was this standard because
wrong place and time. Therefore, it requires prior notice and
the issue was a directive dealing with the exercise of the
hearing.
freedom of the press.

Determining the validity of the exercise of Police Power

When Police Power is directly exercised by the Congress, its
1. Strict Scrutiny Standard
exercise may be checked by checking if there is a lawful
2. Rational Basis Standard
subject or a lawful means.
3. Heightened/Intermediate Scrutiny Standard
4. Overbreadth Scrutiny Standard
But if exercised by a mere delegate of Congress, in addition
to the two mentioned above, it must be authorized by law
(1) Strict Scrutiny Standard
delegating it to such power, and if the exercise is done well
Employed to check the validity of regulations hinging on our
within the territory of that body or entity. Only after proper
freedom of mind and also those that would hinge the exercise
delegation by Congress to exercise police power, necause it
of our political rights/processes
is primarily exercised by Congress. It should only be exercised
within the jurisdiction of the agency concerned.
Point of inquiry is to inquire whether or not there is a
compelling reason for the state to come up with that legislation
and also the absence of any available less strict measures
If the Police Power is to be exercised by LGUs, such
exercise must be authorized by law
1. There should be proper delegation of authority by
(2) Rational Basis Standard
Congress through a law, because after all, this power is
Normally employed to check the validity of some
primarily lodged in Congress.
governmental regulations dealing with economics.
2. The exercise thereof must be applied only within the
territorial jurisdiction of the LGU concerned.
It is a more relaxed standard for economic legislation.
3. The ordinances must cofnform to the Constitution and
other laws.
If it is shown that any of such regulation has a lawful
governmental objective, then that is already sufficient. That
At present, there is already the Local Government Code
will already suffice to make that law valid. After all, what is
delegating Police Power to the LGUs.
merely required is the existence of a valid/lawful purpose or
objective.
Q: Can the LGC of Cebu City be exercised in Mandaue City?

No. It must only be made within the authority of the delegate

(3) Heightened/Intermediate scrutiny standard
of Congress.
Employed to test the validity of a law which is based on
classifications, based on legitimacy/gender.
Requisites of a valid ordinance:
The point of inquiry is whether or not there are available less City of Manila vs Laguio
strict measures that can be resorted to without necessarily
resulting to the measure that is proposed under a given 1. Must not contravene the Constitution or any Statute
law/legislation. If it is shown that there are still other available 2. Must not be unfair or oppressive
less strict measures, then there is a good chance that the law 3. Must not be partial or discriminatory
may be struck down as void for being violative of substantive 4. Must not prohibit but may regulate trade
due process. 5. Must be general and consistent with public policy
6. Must not be unreasonable
This is the test employed in testing the validity of RA 9262 –
VAWC, which is based on classification on the basis of one’s Note: If police power is to be exercised by Congress, they
gender or sex. only have to check the validity thereof by determining the
existence of a lawful subject and lawful means. But if police
power is to be exercised by the LGUs, in addition to that, they
also have to check the validity of the ordinance as set forth in
the case of City of Manila vs Laguio.

7|P a g e
 CBPT (2017)

EMINENT DOMAIN Eminent Domain Destruction of Private

Property Due to
Definition Necessity
The State will take away private property for a public purpose Involves the taking of private There can be a taking if it was
but with the payment for just compensation. property for a public purpose not done pursuant to the
power of eminent domain
This power is inherent in the State. It may be exercised by the
State independently of any Constitutional provision. The Civil Code dictates that
the owner of the property
Sec 9, Art 3 – “private property cannot be taken for public use may demand indemnification
without payment of just compensation.” This provides a from those who were
benefited (not demand
limitation to the exercise of Police Power.
justification but demand
payment from person who
The Power of Eminent Domain is coercive in the sense that benefited, any such
even if the property owner is not willing to part with his compensation would not be
property, it can be taken from him, but there has to be just from the government but
compensation. from private person)

However, just because the State has this power does not
mean that when every state needs a private property for a
public purpose, the State will at once get the property. Illustrative case:
American Print Works vs Lawrence
Methods
US SC held taking was done through police power and not
In PH jurisdiction, the State must:
1. Negotiate with the property owner for an amicable power of eminent domain.
settlement
2. When the property owner refuses to sell, the State may What if that case will happen in the PH? Let us assume you
exercise its power of Eminent Domain are a property owner of a densely populated area and that
there is a fire in your place, such that the authorities have to
Situation: If the acquisition of the private property is for demolish your house to pass through. Can you demand
resettlement purposes, there is a need to comply with the payment of just compensation?
provisions of Section 9 and 10 of RA 7279 (UDHA) – there
is a hierarchy in the acquisition of land. It depends. If your demand for payment is addressed to the
government, you cannot demand payment from the
“There must first be an attempt to acquire government lands,
government.
alienable lands of public domain, unregistered land, and lastly,
private lands.
There is taking of property, but such taking is not pursuant to
Rule 1. The acquisition of private lands must be the last eminent domain. Such is akin to destruction of property by
priority reason of necessity.

Rule 2. Resort to eminent domain must be the last recourse However, under 432 of the CC, owner of the property may
demand indemnity from those who may have been benefited
Lagcao vs Labra thereby. You cannot pay just compensation from the State but
SC said that where the purpose of taking the property is for you can demand payment from those persons whose houses
urban development or housing purposes, then the authority were saved by the destruction of your property.
must strictly comply with the provisions under Sec 9 and 10
under RA 7279 (UDHA). Who can Exercise Power of Eminent Domain
▪ Primarily lodged in Congress
Sec 9 – taking of private property for urban development and ▪ When there is a valid delegation of authority from
housing purposes is in the last order of priority. Congress (there must be law empowering them to do the
same):
Sec 10 – expropriation must be resorted thereto as a last o Office of the President
recourse where efforts in acquiring property had already been o LGUs
pursued but failed. o Public corporations
o Quasi-public corporations (Meralco,
City of Mandaluyong vs Francisco PLDT, among others)

SC ordained that the rights of small property owners must be Moday vs CA

respected. Where the only property to the person does not The SC held that municipalities can validly exercise the
exceed the area of 300sqm in rural areas and 800sqm in delegated power of Eminent Domain in line with the provisions
urban areas, then that property is exempt from the coverage of the Local Government Code (LGC).
of eminent domain.

Yusay vs CA

SC ordained that if Eminent Domain exercised by a local

government, it has to be done through an enactment of a local
ordinance. This cannot be done by a mere expedient
enactment of a resolution.

8|P a g e
 CBPT (2017)

In order for there to be valid delegation, such exercise (3) Taking should be of strict Constitutional sense
must adhere to the following requirements:
1. There has to be necessity of the taking For taking to be valid, it should comply with the requirements
2. What should be taken is a private property set forth in Republic vs Castellvi:
3. Taking should be of strict Constitutional sense 1. That the expropriator must enter the property
4. Payment of just compensation 2. The entrance must be for more than a momentary period
5. Property devoted for public purpose (not met in Castellvi case)
6. Observance of due process 3. The entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority
4. The property must be for a public purpose or otherwise
(1) There has to be necessity of the taking informally appropriated or injuriously affected
If Congress is the one directly exercising this power, the 5. The entry must be of such manner as to oust the owner
necessity of the taking is not open to judicial scrutiny unless if therefrom or to deprive him of the use of his property (not
there is abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of obtained in case at bar)
jurisdiction.
GR: Taking, in Eminent Domain, entails actual dispossession
If it is exercised by a mere delegate, any issue regarding to of property
the necessity may be under judicial scrutiny.
XPN: There can still be taking if there is a (1) material
impairment of the value of the property or (2) deprivation of
Chinese Community vs City of Manila the ordinary use of which the property was intended or (3)
trespassing without necessarily evicting the owner
SC nullified an ordinance of the City of Manila to expropriate
a cemetery owned by the Chinese Community on the ground Illustrative cases:
that there was no necessity of the taking of such property.
US vs Cosby
The US Supreme Court held that there was taking of
(2) What should be taken is a private property the property of Cosby, which is near an airport,
because he cannot construct a high rise building on
a. Property is anything that is contracted within the such property due to the danger of flying and landing
commerce of man – both real and personal property airplanes. Cosby was allowed to recover just
compensation.
b. Service can be under the contemplation of eminent
domain PP vs Fajardo
The SC held that there was taking of the property of
Insert PLDT vs NTC Fajardo, which was near the national highway,
because the municipality prohibited him through an
SC said that services may be expropriated by the ordinance from constructing any building that obstructs
State or may become the subject matter in the the view of the public plaza from the national highway.
exercise of the power of eminent domain. Fajardo was allowed to recover just compensation.

Situation:
c. Charitable institutions, church buildings, cemeteries, etc If you own a parcel of land and NPC among others
are not exempt from being expropriated. constructed transition lines traversing your property, can you
demand payment of just compensation when you remain as
d. Properties already devoted for public use can still be owner of the property?
expropriated if done by Congress; If expropriation is
done by a delegate of Congress, it can still be Yes. (Explanation was cut from the recording. Sorry.)
expropriated but there must be a special delegation of
authority, meaning a general law will not suffice. Republic vs Salem Investment
The mere passage of law to expropriation is not akin to actual
Note: It needs a special grant of authority enacted by taking.
Congress
Summary: there may be taking without dispossessing
For example, a public cemetery. Can it be expropriated owner of its property. Take note, not all taking of property
by the government? It is possible, but a general done by the government is compensable.
authority pursuant to the LGC is not sufficient. It needs
a special authority in the form of a special law to be Cabrera vs Lapid
enacted by Congress. In the instanct case, it is not taking pursuant to Eminent
Domain. If you own a concrete wall on the verge of collapsing,
e. Money and promissory notes cannot be expropriated. it can be demolished without receiving just compensation.

It is an absurd situation where the State takes your

money and in return compensates you. Similarly, the (4) Payment of Just Compensation
State cannot expropriate a right to demand payment or a. Taking that is not compensable – damnum absque injuria
to collect something from another person. (damage without injury but not applicable when one person
stands to suffer more than others)
Example: Gravador amounts a loan of 50 pesos. Can
the State expropriate right of Galeon to demand
payment from Gravador?
No.

9|P a g e
 CBPT (2017)

Richards vs Washington Tunnel

(6) Observance of Due Process
The US Supreme Court held that there was taking on the
house of Richards, which was near a government tunnel, JUST COMPENSATION
because of the smoke from the tunnel that goes into Term owner in eminent domain is given a broader meaning.
Richard’s house as a result of an exhaust fan which was SC decreed that the term owner may also include persons
installed in the tunnel. Although other members of the who may have actual interest in the property that is taken by
community are also burdened by the smoke, it was the State.
Richards who suffered the most. Richards was allowed to
recover just compensation Example: If you are the owner of a commercial land and we
entered into a contract of lease and pursuant to which, I
constructed a building on the land. If your land will be
b. Taking under Police Power and not pursuant to expropriated by the State, the Building will also be included.
Eminent Domain Where that happens, the State shold include just
compensation for the land and any such payment shall be
▪ Destruction by necessity under Art 432 of the Civil Code. tendered to the land owner but the payment of the building
The aggrieved property owner can demand payment from must be given to the lessee.
those who benefited and not from the State
▪ If the burden is shared equally by the members of the Term owner is not restrictive to a situation where the payment
community, it is not considered taking under Eminent should only be given to the person whose name appears as
Domain. the registered owner of the property. However, take note of
the discussion in the cases of LBP vs AMS and Heirs of
However, if there is one person who suffered more, it is Banaag.
otherwise (therefore, pay just compensation).
Stages in Expropriation Cases
c. Taking under Sec 17, Art 12 of the Constitution which Stage 1: Determination of the necessity of the taking
provides that in times of national emergency, the State may Stage 2: Payment of the Just Compensation
temporarily take over privately owned public utilities or
business affected with public interest
Form of Just Compensation
Exception: But in Section 18, Art 12, there can be compensation which GR: Just compensation is taken in the form of money: cash or
states that, “The State may, in the interest of national welfare check
or defense, establish and operate vital industries and, upon
payment of just compensation, transfer to public ownership XPN: Agrarian cases. In the implementation of Agrarian
utilities and other private enterprises to be operated by the Reform Law, payment of just compensation may take in the
Government. form of Land Bank of the Philippines Bonds

In the case of Philippine press Institute, the donation of 1/2 of Q: Who is entitled to receive the payment of just
print space to be used by COMELEC was invalid because it compensation?
would amount to taking under Eminent Domain without just The property owner.
compensation. In Telecommunications, giving of free airtime
was valid. Q: What if the State expropriates a parcel of land but there is
an improvement thereon and that improvement is owned by
another person (land lesee)?
(5) Public Purpose
The converted property is directly available to the general The land owner (land lessor) will receive the payment for the
public as a matter of right or redounds to their indirect land. In our jurisdiction, owner may include the lesee. In LBP
advantage or benefit. vs AMS as cited in the book of Cruz, lessee of an agricultural
land is not entitled for the payment of just compensation
Still, public use even if it is not for free and even if not (but the way it is cited is misleading). Lessee may ask for just
everyone can avail or make use of the property. compensation, but not from the government, but from the
owner.
NHA vs Reyes
LBP vs AMS
SC held that the taking of the private property for low-cost
housing is for public use even if not all have the financial Facts: Parcels of land in Davao were owned by NAFCO &
capacity to avail of such. APECO, and were eventually owned by TOTCO. It was
leased by AMS and was renewed with TOTCO; it was
annotated at the back of the certificates of title covering the
property.
Abandonment by the State of the public use of the property
entitles the property owner to file a case for recovery of the
The term was for 5 years. It was renewed by TOTCO and
expropriated property but should return the just compensation
AMS. However, unlike in the past, the renewed contract of
received with legal interest from his default. If the State uses
lease was no longer annotated at the back of the certificate.
such property for another public purpose, the property owner
can file an injunction against the State and recover such
The parcels of land were eventually taken in the concept of
expropriated property. The State may then later institute
Agrarian Reform.
another expropriation case for such same property for the new
public use.
LBP paid for the value of the land and the crops to the land
owner, TOTCO. AMS demanded for payment for the value of
the crops.
Note: Term should not be given a restrictive meaning. It
should trickle down to public purpose

10 | P a g e
 CBPT (2017)

Issue: WON AMS is entitled for the just compensation for the Q: Can the owner change his mind after agreeing for the
value of the crops taking of the property?

Held: SC said LBP could not be faulted for paying the just In Eusebio vs Luis GR 162474, while the owner agreed for the
compensation including that of the crops to TOTCO because taking of his property, the owner is not permitted to change his
in the first place, the contract of lease was not annotated at mind and his only remedy is to demand for the just
the back of the certificates. LBP had no knowledge of the compensation. The owner is estopped.
lease agreement. More than that, there is nothing in the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which provides that the What is just compensation?
State also pays to the agricultural lessee. CARL provides that
the just compensation should be given to the owner. SC NPC vs Henson
emphasized that if at all AMS is entitled for the JC for the value It is a sum of money which a person desirous but not
of the crops, then the right of action of AMS should not be as compelled to sell and another person willing but not compelled
against LBP but as against TOTCO. SC did not actually say to buy a property would agree on as a price for that particular
that AMS is not entitled payment for the crops. SC said that property. Primordial consideration should be given on the
the claims for just compensation should be filed by AMS nature and the character of the property at the time of the
against the owner and such claims shall be decided on the taking.
basis of the civil code provisions of lease.
Rep vs Vicente Lim
Just compensation necessitate not only the payment of the
Heirs of Banaag vs AMS correct amount but also the timeliness of the payment of such.
SC faulted the adjudicator of the Agrarian Reform for resolving
the issue of ownership. SC said that the adjudicator had no Base price is the fair market value of the property.
authority to resolve any such dispute because such issue
would call upon the application of the Civil Code provisions of In determining the Fair Market Value (FMV), the following are
which the adjudicator had no confidential authority to rule considered:
upon. Again, SC did not actually say that AMS is not entitled 1. Acquisition cost if acquired onerously
payment for the crops. And such issue of ownership should 2. Actual value of similar properties
be resolved by regular courts. SC said that the claims for just 3. Potential use thereof
compensation should be filed by AMS against the owner and 4. Actual use of the property
such claims shall be decided on the basis of the Civil Code 5. Shape, location, and size
provisions of lease. 6. Valuation as appearing in the tax declaration
Agricultural lessee is not entitled to receive just compensation
from government for the crops but from the owner. How to compute just compensation if what is taken is not
the entire property?
Summary of the 2 cases: a. If the consequential loss is greater than the
Lessee is entitled but claims for the value of improvement consequential benefits:
should be against the land owner. Don’t be fooled by the
citations in the book. Just compensation = Fair Market Value (FMV) +
(Consequential Loss – Consequential Benefits)

Q: If the government takes away your property without b. If the consequential loss is less than the consequential
filing the necessary expropriation case, can you file a benefits:
case against the government in spite the state’s immunity
from suits? Just compensation = Fair Market Value

Emiliano vs IAC Situation 1.

(cited in Amigable vs Cuenca) FMV of the portion taken – 100, 000
The State may be sued without its consent. Immunity from suit
cannot be invoked to trample upon the rights of private Due to the taking, the lot became triangular in shape and
citizens. Direct recourse is allowed before the courts of law. owner suffered damages because of the decrease of the
selling price of the property – 10, 000
If the State takes private property without an expropriation
proceeding and without payment of just compensation, the Just compensation = 110, 000
remedy of the property owner is to file for collection of just
compensation or recovery of the property. But cannot recover Situation 2.
if owner is already in estoppel. FMV of the portion taken – 100, 000

Is there a prescriptive period in filing action? Due to the taking, the lot became triangular in shape and
Such action will not prescribe. owner suffered damages because of the decrease of the
selling of the property – 10, 000
Illustrative case:
Spouses Campose vs NPC Benefits due to the increase of the selling price of the other
The claim for just compensation will not prescribe. Spouses part of the property – 5, 000
filed a case for just compensation after 26 years and the SC
ruled that it was valid notwithstanding the provision that claims Just compensation = 105, 000
against NPC shall be filed within 5 years from the time of
taking. The 5 year period provision only governed actions for
damages.

11 | P a g e
 CBPT (2017)

Situation 3. In NPC vs Dela Cruz:

FMV of the portion taken – 100, 000 1. BOC applies illegal principles
2. BOC disregarded the rules of preponderance of
Due to the taking, the lot became triangular in shape and evidence
owner suffered damages because of the decrease of the 3. The amount in the report is excessively high or
selling of the property – 10, 000 excessively low

Benefits due to the increase of the selling price of the other GR: The constitution of the Board of Commissioners is
part of the property – 25, 000 mandatory

Just compensation = 100, 000 XPNS:

1. When there is no issue/question as regards to the
Note: The owner should not be made to suffer more than what valuation of the property
he already suffered. 2. Agrarian cases, the constitution of BOC is left to the
parties and when the parties agreed not to form
BOC
Who should determine just compensation? Courts of Law
Epza vs Dulay Amount to be Deposited
Just compensation should be determined by the courts of law. Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court: Upon filing of the
The courts of law are not bound by the official assessment of expropriation case, the expropriator is required to deposit an
the assessors. amount which is equivalent to the full assessed value of the
property as appearing in the tax declaration in order for the
If there is an expropriation case, where should the case be court to issue a write of possession allowing the expropriator
filed? to take actual possession of the property during the pendency
of the case.
Under RA 7691:
If value of property is less than 20K – filed with MTC, MTCC If the expropriator is an LGU, amount to be deposited is only
15% of the assessed value of the property. When that
If beyond 20K – RTC happens, the court may issue a writ of execution.

Situation. Suppose City of Cebu files an expropriation case Law favorable to the property owner:
but the value of the land involved is only 19K. Where should In RA 8974 and RA 10754, if the purpose of the expropriation
the City of Cebu file the expropriation case? is to implement national government infrastructure project,
what needs to be done is not a deposit but payment of BIR
Case in point: Zonal valuation of the property (amount equivalent to 100%
BIR zonal valuation of the property which is higher compared
Brgy. San Roque Talisay vs Heirs of Francisco Pastor
to the assessed value). This amount deposited or paid is not
Expropriation cases will always be filed in the RTC regardless
the just compensation.
of the assessed value of the property, notwithstanding RA
7691.
These laws are applicable if what is expropriated is for the
After all, the thrust of expropriation case is not so much on
purpose of national government infrastructure project.
acquiring title over the property but in utilizing private property
for a public purpose. A case of expropriation is akin to an
action that is incapable of pecuniary expropriation. NPC vs Pobre

Rule 67, ROC The expropriator is not allowed to unilaterally withdraw

A 1Board of Commissioners of the 3 members will also be because damages may have already been caused to the
constituted to determine the just compensation for property.
recommendation to the court. This consists of:
1. Representative of the court
2. Person to be designated by the expropriator When is just compensation computed?
3. Person designated by the property owners
Republic vs Castellvi
The Board is mandated to conduct a hearing where the parties
are heard and allowed to submit their respective manifesttions Republic wanted that the valuation be in 1947, but the court
regarding the valuation of the property. said it should be computed in 1959, the year the complaint
was filed. (Under the old ROC, valuation should be
NPC vs Dela Cruz determined as of the date of filing of exproporation complaint).
The purpose of the BOC is to aid the court in fixing the just
compensation. There should be a hearing to be conducted Eslaban vs De Onorio
where the parties present their evidence.
SC said the just compensation must be computed at the time
The court is not duty bound to accept the valuation of the of the taking.
property as fixed by the Board especially if the valuation
of the Board is illegal, grossly excessive, ridiculous, or Basis: Rule 67, Section 4, ROC (as amended)
very low.
GR: Rule 67, Section 4, ROC (as amended) – Just
compensation is computed at the time of taking of the property
or at the time the complaint is filed, whichever comes first

1
Merely an aid but does not bind the court

12 | P a g e
 CBPT (2017)

GR: Ownership over the property would only transfer if there

XPNS: is the full payment of just compensation as adjudged by the
court.
▪ LGU is expropriator, valuation should be as of the
date of actual taking (even if taking is done after filing of If there is no full payment yet, the owner can still mortgage or
complaint) even dispose his property by sale because the ownership is
not yet transferred.
Illustrative case:
City of Cebu vs Dedamo XPN: Agrarian Reform cases
3
The filing of the complaint preceded the taking of the What if the expropriator failed to pay the just
property but SC said that the valuation should be compensation even when the expropriation case is
computed at the time of taking, not necessarily at the already decided? Can the expropriator demand transfer
time of the filing of complaint which was done earlier the of ownership?
reason for that is there is a provision under 2Section 19
of RA 7160 (LGC), which provides in essence that the No.
valuation taken by the local government unit should be
reckoned as of the date of actual possession. GR: Ownership over the property would only transfer if there
is the full payment of just compensation as adjudged by the
▪ Taking do not amount in a strict constitutional sense court.
Entry was surreptitious
If there is no full payment yet, the owner can still mortgage or
Illustrative case: even dispose his property by sale because the ownership is
not yet transferred.
Heirs of Sancay vs NPC
NPC constructed a tunnel without the knowledge of the
See Salem Investment case.
owners and eventually the heirs filed a case for the
payment of just compensation. It is termed as Reversed
Can the owner recover his property?
Condemnation Proceeding. (Normally, it should be the
State to file the expropriation complaint but in this case, NHA vs Reyes
it was the owners who filed the case for the payment of While the owner agreed for the taking of his property, the
just compensation). In this case, just compensation is owner is not permitted to change his mind and his only remedy
computed at the time of the filing of the complaint, even is to demand for the just compensation.
if the taking is earlier than the filing of such complaint.
This is so because the taking done by NPC is Republic vs Vicente Lim
surreptitious and without the knowledge of the owners.
SC ruled that the taking referred to under Rule 67 is that In this more recent case, SC allowed recovery of the property.
taking which complies with the requirement in Republic If there were no payment of the just compensation after the
vs Castellvi. lapse of 5 years, then the owner may be allowed to recover
his property.
The rule that the valuation of the property shall be computed
at the time of taking or filing of the complaint presupposes of Note: This is different from the case of Eusebio vs Luis,
course that the taking should comply with the requirements in because in Eusebio, there was no actual expropriation
Republic vs Castellvi. proceeding.

How to reconcile?
Should the court award interest? If yes, how much? Determine the finality within 5 year period

NHA vs Reyes In the case of Reyes – within that 5 year period, the only
remedy is to demand the payment of just compensation or file
The SC assessed 12% interest by a way of penalty. SC said motion of writ of execution to enforce judgment
what should be awarded normally is 6% interest because
payment of just compensation is not forbearance of money. In the case of Lim – if no payment within 5 years from the
finality of decision, then recovery is allowed.

Therefore, if there is an expropriation proceeding and the

Apple Fruits vs [?] and LBP vs Rivera
State fails to pay the just compensation after 5 years from the
time of the finality of the expropriation case, the property
SC said it is 6% per annum. Pursuant to Central Bank Circular
owner can file a recovery of the expropriated property but he
799 series of 2013.
should return the just compensation received with legal
This award will stand as the compensatory damages. interest from his default. Prior to such 5 year period, he can
only ask for payment of just compensation through a writ of
May the court award actual damages? execution of judgment and not recovery of the property.
Yes. See Eusebio vs Luis.
When does the 5 year period start?
How about attorney’s fees? Situation:
Yes. Feb 14 – date of filing
Nov 1 – decision
When shall the title be transferred to the expropriator? Nov 5 – lawyers received the decision

2
It is a substantive law which should prevail

13 | P a g e
 CBPT (2017)

The 5 year period should be reckoned on the date the decision If your ground for recovery is non-utilization for public
attained finality. purpose, for which it was expropriated, then you don’t
have to wait for 5 years before you can file the said action.
Cases like this, decisions of the court attain finality after the
period of 15 days from receipt of the parties of such decision.
If no appeal within 15 days from receipt, then the decision TAXATION
attains finality.
Power of Taxation
The 5 year period starts on November 20 which is 15 days The state is able to demand from the member of society their
after November 5 when the parties received the decision. proportionate share or contribution in the maintenance of the
government.
What if the property is no longer utilized for which it was
expropriated? The power by which sovereign, through its lawmaking body,
raises revenue to defray the necessary expenses of the
Situation 1. government.
Land was expropriated for the construction of a road. A road
was constructed in 2017 but in 2026 the government has Enforced proportional contributions from persons and
decided to just abandon the road. property levied by the state by virtue of its sovereignty, for the
support of the government and for all public needs.
MCIAA vs CA
Attributes of Taxation
This involves the property of Chiongbian. SC said that if the a. Enforced contribution (will not depend on the will of the
property expropriated is acquired with no conditions attached person)
to it, then the owner cannot revoer the property. It is only when b. Personal contribution (base on one’s ability to pay – the
such taking has with it reacquisition conditions when the bigger your income, the bigger your income tax)
property would no longer be utilized for public purpose, that c. It is a pecuniary burden payable in money, but such a tax
the owner can recover it. is not necessarily confined to those payable in money.
d. Imposed on persons and property
e. Imposed by the State
MCIA vs Lozada4
f. Normally exercised by the lawmaking body of the State
concerned
SC came up with another ruling, where it allowed recovery of
g. It is levied for public purpose as taxation itself involves a
an expropriated property on the ground of non-utilization
burden to provide revenue for public purposes of a
thereof for public purpose to which it was expropriated.
general nature.
The case of Chiongbian and Lozada has the same Purpose
circumstances but the SC came up with different rulings. In ▪ Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should
Chiongbian, SC found no condition, hence, there was no be collected without unnecessary hindrance. Despite the
reservation. In Lozada, however, SC allowed expropriation on natural reluctance to surrender part of one’s hard-earned
the supposition that the airport would continue to be in income to the taxing authorities, every person who is able
operations. must contribute his share in the running of the
government. The government for its part, is expected to
Final Ruling: respond in the form of tangible and intangible benefits
Every expropriation case has this built-in condition that the intended to improve the lives of the people and enhance
property should be devoted for the very same purpose for their moral and material values. This symbiotic
which it was expropriated as stated in the complaint. Such relationship is the rationale of taxation and should dispel
that: if the property was not utilized in the said purpose, then the erroneous notion that it is an arbitrary method by those
recovery may be allowed with or without the express in the seat of power.
condition. The State shall have to institute a separate
expropriation case for that new purpose. (1) revenue and
(2) non-revenue purposes
Situation 2.
Land is expropriated for land expansion.
Nov 1, 2016 – decision (1) Revenue Purposes of Taxation
Nov 20, 2016 – became final The purpose of taxation is to provide funds or property
Nov 22, 2016 – just compensation was fully paid with which the State promotes the general welfare and
protection of its citizens. Raising the revenues is the
But even before the lapse of the 5 year period reckoned from principal object of taxation.
the finality of the decision (just after the lapse of 2 years), the
government decided not to make use of the property for the (2) Non-Revenue Purposes of Taxation
purpose for which it ws expropriated. (a) Regulation – taxes may also be imposed for a
regulatory purpose as for example, in the
Q: Can the owner recover the property after the lapse of promotion, rehabilitation, and stabilization of
just 2 years or must he wait for the lapse of 5 years? industry which is affected with public interest. This
is when taxation is an implement in the exercise
A. Yes. He can file an action for recovery and need not wait of Police Power.
for the lapse of 5 years.
(b) Promotion of General Welfare – If objective and
In the case of Lim, the 5 year period would only govern if the methods are alike constitutionally valid, no reason
ground of your recovery is non-payment of just compensation.

4
This is the controlling decision

14 | P a g e
 CBPT (2017)

is seen why the state may not levy taxes to raise Distinguish Collection of Money done pursuant to Police
funds for their prosecution and attainment. Power and pursuant to Taxation
Taxation may be made to implement the State’s
police Power) Follow the doctrine in the case of Gerochi.
Gerochi vs DOE
(c) Reduction of Social Inequality – this is done
through the system of progressive taxation where Where the primary purpose is regulation and raising of
the objective is to prevent the undue revenue is nothing but secondary thereto, any such imposition
is done pursuant to police power.
concentration of wealth in the hands of few
individuals
Where primary purpose is to raise revenue and regulation is
secondary thereto, any such imposition is done pursuant to
(d) Promote Economic Growth – In the real of tax taxation.
exemptions and reliefs, the purpose of taxation
(the power to tax being the power also not to tax)
is to grant incentives or exemptions in order to Angeles City Foundation Case
encourage investments and thereby promote the
country’s economic growth. Angeles City Foundation complained on the requirement that
it should pay building permit for the construction of one of its
(e) Protectionism – in some important sectors of the building. It argued that since it is exempt from property taxes,
economy, taxes sometimes provide protection to it should be exempt also from payment of building permit. C
local industries like protective tariff and customs disagreed. Building permit is not imposed pursuant to power
duties of taxation but rather to police power.

Essential Characteristics Limitations of the Taxing Power of the State

1. Inherent in the State 1. Inherent Limitations
The power to tax, an inherent prerogative, has to be 2. Constitutional Limitations
availed of to assure the performance of vital state
functions (A) Inherent Limitations

2. Legislative in character (1) Public purpose

Taxing power is peculiarly and exclusively legislative in
character and remains undiminished in the legislative; it Planters Product Inc vs Fertiphil
is primarily vested in Congress Tax imposition for the State distribution of fertilizer. Fertiphil
paid the capital contribution component in favor of PPI which
3. Subject to inherent and constitutional limitations is also a private corporation. Eventually, it was questioned by
The power to tax is an attribute of the sovereignty. It is Fertphil and SC sustained.
the strongest of all powers of the government. The
Constitution sets forth such limits. SC ruled that the power of taxation was not exercised for the
public purpose noting that the tax collected thereby was
4. Pervasive granted for a public corporation.

Cases in point: (2) Inherently legislative

Mccolough vs Maryland What has been delegated to Congress may not be further
delegated – potestas delegata non delegari potest.
Justice Marshall declared that the power to tax is so
pervasive that it includes the power to destroy. Otherwise, delegation of what has already been delegated is
an abdication of the duty conferred to them.
Panhandle vs Mississippi
XPNS.
US Justice Holmes decreed that the power to tax does not i. Delegation of power to the President
involve the power to destroy. Sec 28 par 2, Art 6 – Congress may, by law, authorize the
President to fix within specified limits and subject to such
limitations and restrictions, it may impose tariff rates, import
Q. Which of the two propositions is correct? and export quotas, etc.
Both are correct. Power to tax has power to destroy when it is
imposed as an implement in the exercise of Police Power.
(That is the reason why exorbitant taxes are imposed in the ii. Delegation of authority to administrative bodies like
sale of cigarettes). Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
What is delegated to BIR is only the power to administer or
But if taxation is exercised on its own and not as a tool of implement tax laws. BIR cannot on its own enact tax laws.
police power, it does not include the power to destroy. It can issue rules and regulations in furtherance or to guide
in the implementation of tax laws enacted by Congress.
Sometimes the exercise of Police Power
The promulgation of these rules is justified under the power
of subordinate legislation.

15 | P a g e
 CBPT (2017)

Q. How about the local government units? Is this a

delegated power? The rule is now settled that the properties of MCIAA are
No. While Police Power or Eminent Domain as exercised by exempt from the payment of property tax.
LGUs are delegated authority from Congress, the Power to
Tax as exercised by LGU is expressly conferred upon under (4) Power of Taxation Adheres to the Principle of
Sec 5 Art 10 of the 1987 Constitution. International Comity

All States are equal, regardless of their financial status. There

(3) Property Tax Exemption of Properties owned by the is equality among sovereigns.
National Government and its Political Subdivisions
Properties of foreign states insider our territory or within our
IMIAA vs CA territorial jurisdiction are beyond the taxing power of the
Philippines. That explains why properties being utilized by
SC ruled that the properties owned by the national foreign embassies are exempt from the imposition of property
government and its political subdivisions are not subject to taxes. In like manner, our consular offices in other states are
property taxes. It is explicitly provided by Sec 234, Paragraph also exempt from the imposition of property taxes.
(a), RA 7160 – which exempts the property of the national
government and its political subdivision from the imposition of (5) It is territorial
property taxes. Taxing power of the State may only be exercised within its
territorial jurisdiction.
MCIAA vs Marcos
Properties owned by Filipinos abroad may not be imposed
25:15
with property tax by the Philippine Government, although real
The City Government of Cebu demanded payment of income
properties are owned by Filipinos. It may only be enforced
tax from MCIAA. MCIAA refused, alleging it was exempt from
within its territorial jurisdiction.
the payment of taxes under its charter but the City
Government argued that any such tax exemption was already
XPN.
withdrawn by the enactment by the Local Government Code
Sec 23 par 8 of the International Revenue Code – Income
of 1991.
derived abroad by permanent resident Filipinos are taxable.
SC sustained the legal posturing of the City Government of
Example: Pacquiao’s winnings in Nevada are taxable
Cebu. SC said that MCIAA is a government owned or
controlled corporation. Tax exemption given to it is already
(B) Constitutional Limitations
withdrawn.
Sec 1, Art 3 – Due Process and Equal Protection Clause
MIAA vs CA No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
SC said that MIAA is not a government owned or controlled protection of the laws.
corporation, rather it is an instrumentality of the government.
SC ruled that the properties registered ostensibly under MIAA That explains why even if Congress has the Power of
are still properties of the national government and that they Taxation, it cannot enact a law imposing an income tax with
are still lands under public domain, applying Art 20 of the Civil 80% of your income. Any such law will be struck down as
Code. Hence, the State is exempt from property taxes. unjust – it will amount to taking of property in violation of due
process.
MCIAA vs City of Lapu Lapu
GR No 181756 Instance where prior hearing by Congress is not required:
Fixing of tax rate
The City Government of Lapu Lapu City filed a case against
MCIAA for collection of real property taxes. Naturally, MCIAA But where the tax rate is dependent on the value of a property,
invoked the ruling of MIAA. In the case of MIAA, it was hearing is required. Hearing is required in the form of
mentioned therein, although casually, that MIAA just like assessment. That explains why the government may issue
MCIAA is an instrumentality of the government. real property tax assessment for the payment of real property
tax. It has to comply with due process, after all the tax rate is
The City Government of Lapu Lapu invoked the earlier ruling dependent on the value of the property. It explains why the
in the case of MCIAA vs Marcos. On the other hand, MCIAA property owner should be notified, so that he may want to
invoked the subsequent ruling in the case of MIAA vs CA. contest the valuation or assessment.

Who won in the case of MCIAA vs Lapu Lapu? Similarly, Power of Taxation is subservient to the Equal
SC upheld its ruling in the case of MIAA vs CA. SC finally Protection Clause. It basically means that all persons or things
decreed that MCIAA is an instrumentality of the government. belonging to the same class must be subject to the same tax
Hence, its properties are actually, directly, and exclusively rate or tax obligation or even tax relief.
used for its operation exempt from the imposition of property
taxes. However, while we have equal protection clause, it does not
follow that the law is not allowed to be make a distinction.
While its properties and political subdivisions are exempt from Classification may still be allowed. Any such classification
property tax, any such tax exemption is wanting in application may be valid if:
where such benefits of such properties are however 1. It is founded on substantial differences
transferred to a taxable person. 2. Any such classification must not be limited to any
existing conditions only
Properties owned by MCIAA leased out to private 3. Must be germane to the purpose of law
corporations to be used as their hangars are not exempt from 4. Any such person or things belonging to the same class
the payment of property taxes. must be subject to the same rights or obligations

16 | P a g e
 CBPT (2017)

Example: Congress enacting a law imposing a tax on the modified, or even subsequently revoked by the granting
distribution of cigarettes. A lower tax rate is imposed on locally authority.
manufactured cigarette whereas a higher tax rate is imposed
on imported cigarettes. Ostensibly, there is a discrimination While a tax exemption is given for free, it can be withdrawn by
between local vis a vis imported cigarettes. Is the law invalid? the state anytime, with or without a cause. But where the tax
No. There is a substantial difference between the two. The exemption is given onerously, it cannot be withdrawn by the
classification is germane to the law which is to protect our local state without running afoul the non-impairment clause.
manufacturers.
Take note:
In other words, equal protection admits classification if such General Principle: Tax exemption must be construed strictly
classification meets the requirements enumerated. against the tax payer.

XPN. Tax exemption is given in favor of a government

Sec 5, Art 3 – Prohibition Against Infringement of instrumentality. In such case, tax exemption should be
Religious Freedom liberally construed in favor of a government instrumentality.
No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and
enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without Sec 20 Art 3 – Prohibition Against Imprisonment for Non-
discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No Payment of Poll Tax
religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a
political rights. poll tax.

American Bible Society vs City Government of Manila

Sec 28, par 1, Art 6 – Uniformity and Equity in Taxation
SC said that the American Bible Society is not liable for the The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The
payment of tax in respect to its distribution of religious articles. Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.
It also cannot be required to secure a mayor’s permit before it
can engage in that kind of activity.
Sec 28, par 3 Art 6 – Prohibition Against Taxation of real
Property Actually, Directly, and Exclusively Used For
Sec 10, Art 3 – Prohibition Against Impairment of Religious, Charitable and Educational Purposes [50:30]
Obligations of Contracts Charitable institutions, churches, and parsonages or convents
No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all
lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and
Casanova vs Hord exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational
purposes shall be exempt from taxation.
Mining concession was granted to Casanova subject to
restrictions. Taxes were imposed thereon. But during the Tax exemption is based on the use and utilization of the
American regime, additional taxes were supposedly imposed property.
on Casanova.
Such that if the property is directly and exclusively used for
SC said that any such additional tax imposition would be religious purposes among others, that property even if not
considered invalid because it would impair the obligations and owned by the Church, is exempt from payment of real property
contracts. The grant of concession in favor of Casanova was tax. Example: If I own a parcel of land and I allow the church
for an onerous donation. Tax exemption given to him was with to use the lot thereon for the construction of its building, that
a reciprocal concession to be performed by Casanova. land will be exempt from tax, even if it is not owned by the
church
In other words, SC considered the additional tax imposition as
violative of Sec 10 Art 3. The tax exemption was not given to Remember, however, that in order for tax exemption may be
Casanova for free or gratuitously; it was for an onerous granted, it is imperative that the lot in question must be
condition. actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable,
and educational purposes.
Conversely, if the tax exemption is given by the State in favor
of a person for free or gratuitously, then any tax exemption Insert Lung Center vs Quezon City Government
can be withdrawn by the State with or without a cause.
Lung Center owns a land where portions of which were leased
Case in point: to private practitioners for their clinics, and a bigger portion of
the property was leased for private corporations.
Insert PAGCOR vs BIR
The SC said that what should be exempt from the imposition
from property tax is only those portions that are actually,
Under its charter, PAGCOR was granted tax exemption.
directly, and exclusively used for charitable purposes. In other
Congress enacted a law withdrawing the tax exemption that
words, the portions of the property of Lung Center which were
was previously granted to PAGCOR. PAGCOR argued that
leased to private corporations and practicing doctors are to be
the subsequent law was invalid because it would impair
imposed with property taxes.
obligations and contracts.

SC disagreed. The tax exemption previously given to Abra Valley College vs Aquino
PAGCOR was granted gratuitously. As such, it can be
withdrawn by the State anytime, with or without cause. More The premises that were leased out to Northern Marketing
so, PAGCOR operates under a legislative franchise. Under Corporation was considered taxable, whereas the premises
Sec 11, Art 12 – a franchise given by the State may be altered,

17 | P a g e
 CBPT (2017)

occupied by the school director was exempt from the Sinulog seized to become a purely religious activity. It has
imposition of real property tax. become a vehicle for promoting Cebu for tourism purposes.

Q. How about a priest elected as a public official, is he allowed

Exemption is only for property tax. to receive public funds from the government?
It does not cover income tax or donor’s tax exemption. What is prohibited is the disbursement of public funds in favor
of a religious minister in his capacity as such. A priest elected
Q. Is the income of the church or charitable institutions as mayor can receive his salary. Payment of salary is by
taxable? reason of him being an elected public official.

A. If we apply Sec 28, it would readily appear that the income Take note also: If a priest is assigned in the AFP he can be
of the church among others is taxable. But under Sec 30 of paid with government funds. In like manner, if a priest is
National International Revenue Code grants income tax assigned in a penal institution, he can be paid with public
exemption. Provided that no part of its net income or asset money. Likewise, if he is assigned from government
shall be given to or redound to the benefit of any of its orphanage or leprosarium.
member, stockholders, or organizer. In other words, while Sec
28, par 3 Art 6 grants real property tax exemption, the church
and charitable institutions among others still enjoy income tax Sec 29 par 3, Art 6
exemption, but any such exemption is not granted by the All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose
Constitution but by Sec 30 of NIRC. shall be treated as a special fund and paid out for such
purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund was
Further, a proviso on the last paragraph states that: created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any,
Income derived by the church and charitable institution shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government.
among others for profit or any income derived from its,
property real or personal, is taxable regardless of the use If the purpose of the special fund for which it has been created
and the disposition of the income thereof. has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance if any shall be
transferred to the general funds of the national treasury. Such
Such that, if the Church owns two parcels of land, one is that if a special tax is collected for the rehabilitation of the
where the Church is situated, and the other is leased to a sugarcane industry, that should only be utilized for that
private corporation like Jollibee, the land leased out to Jollibee purpose. It should not be diverted to be utilized for the coconut
is liable for the payment of property tax. Likewise, the income industry. If there is an excess, it shall be transferred to the
that the Church derived by rentals of Jollibee is taxable general funds of the government.
regardless of the use and utilization thereof.

Even if such income is utilized for the repair and maintenance Sec 4 par 3, Art 14 – Prohibition Against Taxation of
of the Church building, that income is already taxable. The Revenues and Assets of Non-Stock, Non-Profit
proviso is very clear. Educational Institutions
All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational
institutions used actually, directly, and exclusively for
Q: How about donor’s tax? educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties.
Yes, exempted as provided by NIRC, Section 101. Provided, Upon the dissolution or cessation of the corporate existence
not more than 30% of the amount that has been donated shall of such institutions, their assets shall be disposed of in the
be used for administration purposes. manner provided by law.

Note: Income tax and donor’s tax exemptions are still enjoyed Proprietary educational institutions, including those
by religious sectors, although these are not provided for by the cooperatively owned, may likewise be entitled to such
Constitution but by NIRC. exemptions, and subject to the limitations provided by law,
including restrictions on dividends and provisions for
reinvestment.”
Sec 28 par 4, Art 6 – Grant of Tax Exemption
No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without Sec 4 par 4 Art 14
the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Subject to conditions prescribed by law, all grants,
Congress. endowments, donations, or contributions used actually,
directly, and exclusively for educational purposes shall be
Majority = total membership of Congress and Senate divided exempt from tax. [08:08]
by one half + one

Sec 29 par 2, Art 6 -- Prohibits disbursement of public Sec 27 par 2, Art 6

funds for sectarian purposes A tax law enacted by Congress may be partially vetoed by the
“No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, President.
paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or When the rule is that the President may either approve or
support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian disapprove in its entirety, one of the exceptions is in respect
institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, to tax laws where the President may validly exercise a line
minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, item veto or partial veto.
except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is
assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or
government orphanage or leprosarium.”

Q. How can we justify the disbursement of public funds of the

City of Cebu for the Sinulog celebration?

18 | P a g e
 CBPT (2017)

DOUBLE TAXATION
There is double taxation when additional taxes are laid on:
(1) the same subject
(2) by the same jurisdiction
(3) during the same taxing period
(4) for the same purpose

Punzalan vs Municipal Board of Manila

Issue therein was whether or not the imposition of income tax

by the Government of Manila was prohibited for being a
double taxation.

SC said that it may be true that the petitioners therein where

required to pay occupational taxes by the local government
and by the national government, but there was no double
taxation. The impositions therein were made by two different
taxing jurisdictions.

SC held there is no law expressly prohibiting double taxation.

Remedy of the Taxpayer

How can you possibly attack the validity or impositions which
may amount to double taxation when there is no law expressly
prohibiting its imposition?

Invoke due process and equal protection clause – Sec 1 Art

3. You may argue that it is confiscatory, thereby violating due
process. You may also argue that such imposition is also
violative of equal protection if that is only imposed on a
particular class and the same is not imposed on other
subjects.

That is the only way to attack the validity of such imposition

because there is no law expressly imposing double taxation.

Case in point:
Swedish Match Phils Inc vs City Treasurer of Manila

The City Treasurer wanted to collect taxes on the petitioner

based on Sec 14 and the other tax imposition under Sec 21
on the same Tax Ordinance.

SC ruled that the impositions to be made would already be

amounting to double taxation. Hence, SC declared the
impositions as invalid because it would be oppressive. This
case validates that while no law expressly prohibits double
taxation, any such imposition may still be attacked by invoking
Sec 1 Art 3.

19 | P a g e