Access over 20 million homework & study documents
search

Police Power – Not Validly Exercised

Content type

User Generated

Type

Study Guide

Rating

Showing Page:
1/21
RestitutoYnotvs Intermediate Appellate Court Police Power Not Validly
Exercised
There had been an existing law which prohibited the slaughtering of carabaos (EO
626). To strengthen the law, Marcos issued EO 626-A which not only banned the
movement of carabaos from interprovinces but as well as the movement of carabeef.
On 13 Jan 1984, Ynot was caught transporting 6 carabaos from Masbate to Iloilo. He
was then charged in violation of EO 626-A. Ynot averred EO 626-A as
unconstitutional for it violated his right to be heard or his right to due process. He
said that the authority provided by EO 626-A to outrightly confiscate carabaos even
without being heard is unconstitutional. The lower court ruled against Ynot ruling that
the EO is a valid exercise of police power in order to promote general welfare so as
to curb down the indiscriminate slaughter of carabaos.
ISSUE: Whether or not the law is valid.
HELD: The SC ruled that the EO is not valid as it indeed violates due process. EO
626-A ctreated a presumption based on the judgment of the executive. The
movement of carabaos from one area to the other does not mean a subsequent
slaughter of the same would ensue. Ynot should be given to defend himself and
explain why the carabaos are being transferred before they can be confiscated. The
SC found that the challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the police power
because the method employed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably
necessary to the purpose of the law and, worse, is unduly oppressive. Due process
is violated because the owner of the property confiscated is denied the right to be
heard in his defense and is immediately condemned and punished. The conferment
on the administrative authorities of the power to adjudge the guilt of the supposed
offender is a clear encroachment on judicial functions and militates against the
doctrine of separation of powers. There is, finally, also an invalid delegation of
legislative powers to the officers mentioned therein who are granted unlimited
discretion in the distribution of the properties arbitrarily taken.
Ermita-Malate Hotel & Motel Operators Assoc., Incvs Mayor of Manila
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 1
st
class (taxed at 6k/yr) and 2
nd
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.
White Light Corp., vs City of Manila
Police Power Not Validly Exercised Infringement of Private Rights
On 3 Dec 1992, then Mayor Lim signed into law Ord 7774 entitled “An Ordinance”
prohibiting short time admission in hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses
and similar establishments in the City of Manila. White Light Corp is an operator of
mini hotels and motels who sought to have the Ordinance be nullified as the said
Ordinance infringes on the private rights of their patrons. The RTC ruled in favor of
WLC. It ruled that the Ordinance strikes at the personal liberty of the individual
guaranteed by the Constitution. The City maintains that the ordinance is valid as it is
a valid exercise of police power. Under the LGC, the City is empowered to regulate
the establishment, operation and maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses,
hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lodging houses and other similar
establishments, including tourist guides and transports. The CA ruled in favor of the
City.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ord 7774 is valid.
HELD: The SC ruled that the said ordinance is null and void as it indeed infringes
upon individual liberty. It also violates the due process clause which serves as a
guaranty for protection against arbitrary regulation or seizure. The said ordinance
invades private rights. Note that not all who goes into motels and hotels for wash up
rate are really there for obscene purposes only. Some are tourists who needed rest
or to “wash up” or to freshen up. Hence, the infidelity sought to be avoided by the
said ordinance is more or less subjected only to a limited group of people. The SC
reiterates that individual rights may be adversely affected only to the extent that may
fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public interest or public welfare.
City of Manila vs Judge Perfecto Laguio Police Power
On 30 Mar 1993, Mayor Lim signed into law Ord 7783 entitled AN ORDINANCE
PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT OR OPERATION OF BUSINESSES
PROVIDING CERTAIN FORMS OF AMUSEMENT, ENTERTAINMENT, SERVICES

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/21
AND FACILITIES IN THE ERMITA-MALATE AREA, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES
FOR VIOLATION THEREOF, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. It basically prohibited
establishments such as bars, karaoke bars, motels and hotels from operating in the
Malate District which was notoriously viewed as a red light district harboring thrill
seekers. Malate Tourist Development Corporation avers that the ordinance is invalid
as it includes hotels and motels in the enumeration of places offering amusement or
entertainment. MTDC reiterates that they do not market such nor do they use women
as tools for entertainment. MTDC also avers that under the LGC, LGUs can only
regulate motels but cannot prohibit their operation. The City reiterates that the
Ordinance is a valid exercise of Police Power as provided as well in the LGC. The
City likewise emphasized that the purpose of the law is to promote morality in the
City.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ordinance 7783 is valid.
HELD: The SC ruled that the said Ordinance is null and void. The SC noted that for
an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local
government unit to enact and must be passed according to the procedure prescribed
by law, it must also conform to the following substantive requirements:
(1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
(2) must not be unfair or oppressive;
(3) must not be partial or discriminatory;
(4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
(5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and
(6) must not be unreasonable.
The police power of the City Council, however broad and far-reaching, is subordinate
to the constitutional limitations thereon; and is subject to the limitation that its
exercise must be reasonable and for the public good. In the case at bar, the
enactment of the Ordinance was an invalid exercise of delegated power as it is
unconstitutional and repugnant to general laws.
JMM Promotion and Management vs Court of Appeals Police Power
Due to the death of one MaricrisSioson in 1991, Cory banned the deployment of
performing artists to Japan and other destinations. This was relaxed however with
the introduction of the Entertainment Industry Advisory Council which later proposed
a plan to POEA to screen and train performing artists seeking to go abroad. In
pursuant to the proposal POEA and the secretary of DOLE sought a 4 step plan to
realize the plan which included an Artist’s Record Book which a performing artist
must acquire prior to being deployed abroad. The Federation of Talent Managers of
the Philippines assailed the validity of the said regulation as it violated the right to
travel, abridge existing contracts and rights and deprives artists of their individual
rights. JMM intervened to bolster the cause of FETMOP. The lower court ruled in
favor of EIAC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the regulation by EIAC is valid.
HELD: The SC ruled in favor of the lower court. The regulation is a valid exercise of
police power. Police power concerns government enactments which precisely
interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare or
the common good. As the assailed Department Order enjoys a presumed validity, it
follows that the burden rests upon petitioners to demonstrate that the said
order, particularly, its ARB requirement, does not enhance the public welfare or was
exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably. The welfare of Filipino performing artists,
particularly the women was paramount in the issuance of Department Order No. 3.
Short of a total and absolute ban against the deployment of performing artists to
“high risk” destinations, a measure which would only drive recruitment further
underground, the new scheme at the very least rationalizes the method of screening
performing artists by requiring reasonable educational and artistic skills from them
and limits deployment to only those individuals adequately prepared for the
unpredictable demands of employment as artists abroad. It cannot be gainsaid that
this scheme at least lessens the room for exploitation by unscrupulous individuals
and agencies.
Lao Ichongvs Jaime Hernandez Constitutional Law Treaties May Be Superseded
by Municipal Laws in the Exercise of Police Power
Lao Ichong is a Chinese businessman who entered the country to take advantage of
business opportunities herein abound (then) particularly in the retail business. For
some time he and his fellow Chinese businessmen enjoyed a “monopoly” in the local
market in Pasay. Until in June 1954 when Congress passed the RA 1180 or the
Retail Trade Nationalization Act the purpose of which is to reserve to Filipinos the
right to engage in the retail business. Ichong then petitioned for the nullification of the
said Act on the ground that it contravened several treaties concluded by the RP
which, according to him, violates the equal protection clause (pactasundservanda).
He said that as a Chinese businessman engaged in the business here in the country
who helps in the income generation of the country he should be given equal
opportunity.
ISSUE: Whether or not a law may invalidate or supersede treaties or generally
accepted principles.
HELD: Yes, a law may supersede a treaty or a generally accepted principle. In this
case, there is no conflict at all between the raised generally accepted principle and
with RA 1180. The equal protection of the law clause “does not demand absolute
equality amongst residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike,
under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities
enforced”; and, that the equal protection clause “is not infringed by legislation which
applies only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to all
persons within such class, and reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction
between those who fall within such class and those who do not.”

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/21

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 21 pages?
Access Now
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
Excellent! Definitely coming back for more study materials.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4