Access over 20 million homework & study documents

160488574_bill_of_righrs_digested_case.doc

Content type
User Generated
Rating
Showing Page:
1/31
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
CASES
WHO EXERCISES THESE GOV’T POWER
cases:
ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL & MOTEL
OPERATORS ASSOC., INC VS MAYOR OF MANILA
G.R. No. L-24693
Police Power Due Process Clause
On 13 June 1963, the Manila Municipal Board enacted Ord
4760 and the same was approved by then acting mayor
Astorga. Ord 4760 sought to regulate hotels and motels. It
classified them into 1st class (taxed at 6k/yr) and 2nd class
(taxed at 4.5k/yr). It also compelled hotels/motels to get the
demographics of anyone who checks in to their rooms. It
compelled hotels/motels to have wide open spaces so as not
to conceal the identity of their patrons. Ermita-Malate
impugned the validity of the law averring that such is
oppressive, arbitrary and against due process. The lower court
as well as the appellate court ruled in favor of Ermita-Malate.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ord 4760 is against the due process
clause.
HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Astorga. There is a
presumption that the laws enacted by Congress (in this case
Mun Board) is valid. W/o a showing or a strong foundation
of invalidity, the presumption stays. As in this case, there was
only a stipulation of facts and such cannot prevail over the
presumption. Further, the ordinance is a valid exercise of
Police Power. There is no question but that the challenged
ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize certain practices
hurtful to public morals. This is to minimize prostitution. The
increase in taxes not only discourages hotels/motels in doing
any business other than legal but also increases the revenue of
the lgu concerned. And taxation is a valid exercise of police
power as well. The due process contention is likewise
untenable, due process has no exact definition but has reason
as a standard. In this case, the precise reason why the
ordinance was enacted was to curb down prostitution in the
city which is reason enough and cannot be defeated by mere
singling out of the provisions of the said ordinance alleged to
be vague.
POLICE POWER
On the legislative organs of the government, whether national
of local, primarily rest the exercise of the police power, which,
it cannot be too often emphasized, is the power to prescribe
regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, good order,
safety and general welfare of the people. Police power is based
upon the concept of necessity of the State and its
corresponding right to protect itself and its people.43 Police
power has been used as justification for numerous and varied
actions by the State. These range from the regulation of dance
halls,44 movie theaters,45 gas stations46 and cockpits.47 The
awesome scope of police power is best demonstrated by the
fact that in its hundred or so years of presence in our nation’s
legal system, its use has rarely been denied.
May Courts Inquire Upon the Exercise of Police Power?
In view of the requirements of due process, equal protection
and other applicable constitutional guaranties, however, the
exercise of such police power insofar as it may affect the life,
liberty or property of any person is subject to judicial inquiry.
Where such exercise of police power may be considered as
either capricious, whimsical, unjust or unreasonable, a denial
of due process or a violation of any other applicable
constitutional guaranty may call for correction by the courts.
Two types of Due Process
Procedural Due Process
: Procedural due process refers to
the procedures that the government must follow before it
deprives a person of life, liberty, or property.49 Procedural
due process concerns itself with government action adhering
to the established process when it makes an intrusion into the
private sphere. Examples range from the form of notice given
to the level of formality of a hearing.
Substantive Due Process
: Substantive due process
completes the protection envisioned by the due process
clause. It inquires whether the government has sufficient
justification for depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.
CHURCHILL vs. RAFFERTY,
G.R. NO. L-10572, December 21, 1915 ( 32 Phil 580)
FACTS:
The case arises from the fact that defendant, Collector of
Internal Revenue, would like to destroy or remove any sign,
signboard, or billboard, the property of the plaintiffs, for the
sole reason that such sign, signboard, or billboard is, or may
be offensive to the sight. The plaintiffs allege otherwise. Was
there valid exercise of police power in this case?
HELD:
Yes. There can be no doubt that the exercise of the police
power of the Philippine Government belongs to the
Legislature and that this power is limited only by the Acts of
Congress and those fundamentals principles which lie at the
foundation of all republican forms of government. An Act of
the Legislature which is obviously and undoubtedly foreign to

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/31
any of the purposes of the police power and interferes with
the ordinary enjoyment of property would, without doubt, be
held to be invalid. But where the Act is reasonably within a
proper consideration of and care for the public health, safety,
or comfort, it should not be disturbed by the courts.
"The power vested in the legislature by the constitution to
make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and
reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties
or without, not repugnant to the constitution, as they shall
judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth,
and of the subjects of the same."
"The police power of the State, so far, has not received a full
and complete definition. It may be said, however, to be the
right of the State, or state functionary, to prescribe regulations
for the good order, peace, health, protection, comfort,
convenience and morals of the community, which do not ...
violate any of the provisions of the organic law."
"It [the police power] has for its object the improvement of
social and economic conditioned affecting the community at
large and collectively with a view to bring about "he greatest
good of the greatest number."Courts have consistently and
wisely declined to set any fixed limitations upon subjects
calling for the exercise of this power. It is elastic and is
exercised from time to time as varying social conditions
demand correction."
"It may be said in a general way that the police power extends
to all the great public needs. It may be put forth in aid of what
is sanctioned by usage, or held by the prevailing morality or
strong and preponderant opinion to be greatly and
immediately necessary to the public welfare."
"It is much easier to perceive and realize the existence and
sources of this police power than to mark its boundaries, or
to prescribe limits to its exercise."
ACEBEDO OPTICAL Co. v. CA
G.R. No. 100152, March 31, 2000
Police Power as exercised by LGUs, restrictions and
qualifications
Power of city mayor to grant/cancel/revoke business permits
Granting of business permits vs. granting of permit to practice
profession
FACTS:
Petitioner applied with the Office of the City Mayor of Iligan
for a business permit. Permit was therefor issued, subject to
certain conditions like prohibition of putting up an optical
clinic, examining and/or prescribing reading and similar
optical glasses, etc. When it was found that petitioner violated
these conditions, its business permit was cancelled.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the imposition of special conditions by the
public respondents were acts ultra vires
RULING:
Police Power exercised by LGUs
Police power as an inherent attribute of sovereignty is the
power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals,
peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of
the people. The State, through the legislature, has delegated
the exercise of police power to local government units, as
agencies of the State, in order to effectively accomplish and
carry out the declared objects of their creation. This delegation
of police power is embodied in the general welfare clause of
the Local Government Code xxx
The scope of police power has been held to be so
comprehensive as to encompass almost all matters affecting
the health, safety, peace, order, morals, comfort and
convenience of the community. Police power is essentially
regulatory in nature and the power to issue licenses or grant
business permits, if exercised for a regulatory and not revenue-
raising purpose, is within the ambit of this power.
Power of city mayor to grant business permits
The authority of city mayors to issue or grant licenses and
business permits is beyond cavil. It is provided for by law.
However, the power to grant or issue licenses or business
permits must always be exercised in accordance with law, with
utmost observance of the rights of all concerned to due
process and equal protection of the law.
But can city mayor cancel business permits or impose special
conditions? As aptly discussed by the Solicitor General in his
Comment, the power to issue licenses and permits necessarily
includes the corollary power to revoke, withdraw or cancel the
same. And the power to revoke or cancel, likewise includes
the power to restrict through the imposition of certain
conditions.
Did the conditions or restrictions imposed amount to a
confiscation of the business?
Distinction must be made between the grant of a license or
permit to do business and the issuance of a license to engage
in the practice of a particular profession. The first is usually
granted by the local authorities and the second is issued by the
Board or Commission tasked to regulate the particular
profession. A business permit authorizes the person, natural
or otherwise, to engage in business or some form of
commercial activity. A professional license, on the other hand,
is the grant of authority to a natural person to engage in the
practice or exercise of his or her profession.

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/31

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 31 pages?
Access Now
Unformatted Attachment Preview
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II CASES WHO EXERCISES THESE GOV’T POWER cases: Ermita-Malate Hotel & Motel Operators Assoc., Inc vs Mayor of Manila G.R. No. L-24693 Police Power – Due Process Clause On 13 June 1963, the Manila Municipal Board enacted Ord 4760 and the same was approved by then acting mayor Astorga. Ord 4760 sought to regulate hotels and motels. It classified them into 1st class (taxed at 6k/yr) and 2nd class (taxed at 4.5k/yr). It also compelled hotels/motels to get the demographics of anyone who checks in to their rooms. It compelled hotels/motels to have wide open spaces so as not to conceal the identity of their patrons. Ermita-Malate impugned the validity of the law averring that such is oppressive, arbitrary and against due process. The lower court as well as the appellate court ruled in favor of Ermita-Malate. ISSUE: Whether or not Ord 4760 is against the due process clause. HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Astorga. There is a presumption that the laws enacted by Congress (in this case Mun Board) is valid. W/o a showing or a strong foundation of invalidity, the presumption stays. As in this case, there was only a stipulation of facts and such cannot prevail over the presumption. Further, the ordinance is a valid exercise of Police Power. There is no question but that the challenged ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize certain practices hurtful to public morals. This is to minimize prostitution. The increase in taxes not only discourages hotels/m ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
Great! Studypool always delivers quality work.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4