CONSTI 2 CASES

Police Power - Police Power is the inherent and plenary power of the state which
enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society.

Case 1:

ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, INC.vs. THE

HONORABLE CITY MAYOR OF MANILA

Facts:
City Ordinance 4760 was issued by the municipal board of the City
of Manila which seeks to regulate the operations of hotels and motels within the area.

The said ordinance seeks to reduce/regulate the prostitution that has been allegedly
increasing in the area through the use of hotels and motels which provides for the
clandestine entry and exit.

Issue: Whether the regulations imposed on motels and hotels is valid.

Held: Yes!

The State in order to promote the general welfare may interfere with personal liberty,
with property, and with business and occupations. Persons and property may be
subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort,
health, and prosperity of the state.

Case 2:

City of Manila v. Judge Perfecto Laguio Jr.

Facts:
The Ordinance 7738 prohibited the establishment or operation of businesses providing
certain forms of amusement, entertainment, services and facilities where women
are used as tools in entertainment and which tend to disturb the community,
annoy the inhabitants, and adversely affect the social and moral welfare of the
community.

Owners are given 3 months to transfer to any place outside Ermita Malate Area or
convert it to any allowable business.
ISSUE: W/N Ordinance 7783 is unconstitutional

Held: YES.
Ordinance invades fundamental personal and property rights and impairs personal
privileges which violates the due process clause that grants governmental
encroachment against life, liberty, and property of persons. Private corporations and
partnerships are “persons” within the scope of the guaranty insofar as their property is
concerned.

The Ordinance did not meet the requisites for the valid exercise of police power:
1. It must appear that the interests of the general public requires an interference
with private rights
2. The means adopted must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of
the purpose.

The means for the accomplishment were unreasonable and oppressive. The worthy aim
of fostering public morals
can be achieved through less restrictive means of private rights. It can be attained by
reasonable restriction rather
than absolute prohibition.

Case 3:

Ichong v. Hernandez

Facts:
Driven by aspirations for economic independence and national security, the Congress
enacted Act No. 1180 entitled “An Act to Regulate the Retail Business.”

Petitioner attacked the constitutionality of the Act, contending that:

● It denies alien residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives of their
liberty and property without due process of law.
● The subject of the Act is not expressed or comprehended in the title thereof.
● The Act violates international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the
Philippines.
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, the
Supreme Court saw no conflict 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.”

Case 4

Rubi et al. vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro

Facts:

Provincial governor of Mindoro and the provincial board thereof directed the
Manguianes in question to take up their habitation in Tigbao, a site on the shore of Lake
Naujan, selected by the provincial governor and approved by the provincial board.

Action was taken in accordance with section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917,
and was duly approved by the Secretary of the Interior as required by said action.
Petitioners, however, challenge the validity of this section of the Administrative Code.

Issue: Does section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 constitute an unlawful
delegation of legislative power by the Philippine Legislature to a provincial official and a
department head, therefore making it unconstitutional?

Held: No.
2145 of AC of 1917 is a valid delegation of legislative power to the executive.

In enacting the said provision of the Administrative Code, the Legislature merely
conferred upon the provincial governor, with the approval of the provincial board and the
Department Head, discretionary authority as to the execution of the law. This is
necessary since the provincial governor and the provincial board, as the official
representatives of the province, are better qualified to judge “when such a course is
deemed necessary in the interest of law and order”.

Case 5

US vs. Toribio

Facts: Toribio applied for a permit to have his carabao slaughtered for human
consumption. His request was denied because his carabao was found not unfit for work.

He nevertheless slaughtered his carabao without the necessary license. He was

eventually sued for violation of Sections 30 and 33 of Act No. 1147, an Act regulating
the registration, branding, and slaughter of Large Cattle and was sentenced by the trial
court.

His counsel argued that the law requiring one to acquire a permit before slaughtering a
carabao is not a valid exercise of police power and a violation of the Philippine Bill
which provides that “no law shall be enacted which shall deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law.”

ISSUE: Whether or not Act No. 1147 is a valid exercise of police power

Held: YES!

The SC explained that it “is not a taking of the property for public use, within the
meaning of the constitution, but is a just and legitimate exercise of the power of the
legislature to regulate and restrain such particular use of the property as would be
inconsistent with or injurious to the rights of the public.”
the State can justify its exercise of police powers if (1) Interests of the public, generally,
require such interference; and (2) the means are (a) reasonably necessary to
accomplish the purpose (b) not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

Case 6

THE ILOILO ICE AND COLD STORAGE COMPANY vs THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
OF ILOILO, ET AL.,

Facts: Petitioner’s company in this case was threatened to be shut down because
nearby residents made complaint that the ice plant was injurious to their health and
comfort.

Defendant wanted to shutdown the company if they would not elevate their
smokestacks to 100 feet and that the defendant proceeded without intervention of the
courts.

Issue: Whether or not the municipal council has the power to declare the plant of the
petitioner a nuisance as operated, and the method of abating it.

Held: NO!

The determination if the thing is a nuisance per se or per accidens resides in our courts

● Such things must be determined in the ordinary courts of law.

● In this case, it is certain that the ice factory of the plaintiff is not a nuisance per
se.
● It is a legitimate industry, beneficial to the people, and conducive to their health
and comfort.
● If it be in fact a nuisance due to the manner of its operation, that question cannot
be determined by a mere resolution of the board.
● The petitioner is entitled to a fair and impartial hearing before a judicial tribunal.

Case 7
Churchill vs. Rafferty

Facts: Plaintiffs put up a billboard in their private property located in the Province
of Rizal. Collector of Internal Revenue decided to remove certain billboards for
the sole reason that such billboards are offensive to the sight and by virtue of
Sec. 100 (b) of Act 2339.

Issue: WON Sec. 100 (b) of Act No. 2339 is a valid exercise of the police power of the State

Held: YES!

Unsightly advertisements or signs, signboards, or billboards which are offensive to the

sight, are not disassociated from the general welfare of the public and therefore may be
regulated by the police power of the state. State interference with the use of private
property under the guise of the police power was practically confined to the suppression
of common nuisances.

Case 8

US vs. Salaveria

Facts: The Municipal Council of Orion, Bataan enacted Ordinance No. 3 which prohibits the
playing of panguingue on days which are not Sundays or legal holidays. Prudencio Salaveria,
Justice of Peace of Orion, was caught by the police and was convicted for violating the said
ordinance. He appealed and questioned the validity of the ordinance.

Issue: WON Ordinance No. 3 is constitutional

Held: YES!

The ordinance only limits the days of playing time so as to improve the morals and stimulate the
industry of the people. Within the general police powers of a municipal corporation is the
suppression of gambling. Ordinances aimed in a reasonable way at the accomplishment of this
purpose are undoubtedly valid.

Case 9

People v. Pomar
Facts:

Accused Julio Pomar employed in his service Macaria Fajardo. Fajardo was on vacation
leave due to pregnancy. Accused failed to pay Fajardo her regular wages corresponding to 1
month before and 1 month after her delivery and confinement. Fajardo filed a complaint based on
Act No. 3071. Section 13 of the said act was enacted with the purpose of safeguarding the health
of pregnant women laborers and insuring reasonable support for 1 month before and 1 month
after delivery.

Issue: WON Sec. 13 of Act No. 3071 is a lawful and reasonable exercise of the police power of the
State

Held: NO.

The provisions of the said sections have not been adopted within the reasonable and
lawful exercise of the police power of the state and are, therefore, unconstitutional and illegal. The
police power of the state is a growing and expanding power. Police power may be extended but it
cannot grow faster than the fundamental law of the state, nor transcend or violate the express
inhibitions of the people’s law which is the Constitution. If the people desire to have the police
power extended and applied to things prohibited by the organic law, they must first amend it.

Case 10

Calalang vs. Williams

Facts: Commonwealth Act No. 548 was passed by the National Assembly in the exercise of the
paramount police power of the state. The Act was inspired by a desire to relieve congestion of
traffic, which is a menace to public safety. Petitioner Maximo Calalang, in his capacity as a private
citizen and as a taxpayer of Manila, brought before the court a petition for a writ of prohibition
against the respondents.

Issue: WON Commonwealth Act No. 548 infringes upon the constitutional precept regarding the
promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all the people

Held: NO.

The promulgation of Act aims to promote safe transit and avoid obstructions on national
roads in the interest and convenience of the public. In enacting the said law, the National
Assembly was prompted by considerations of public convenience and welfare. It is a valid
delegation of police power anchored on social justice.

Case 11
US vs. Abendan

Facts: Accused was ordered by the Department of Sanitation (for the second time) to make repairs
and perform work for the preservation of the sanitary conditions of his house. Instead of doing so,
he illegally and criminally refused to comply with the said order. Article 6 of the Municipal
Ordinance of Cebu, as amended by article 3 of Municipal Ordinance No. 111 states that the owner
of any place declared to be in bad sanitary condition by the chief sanitary officer must comply
with any order duly issued which would require repairs, improvements, etc. or to put the place in
sanitary condition within the time specified in said order.

Issue: WON the ordinance in question is unreasonable and oppressive

Held: NO!

The ordinance contains no provision which is against the fundamental law or act of the
Legislature or is oppressive or unreasonable. The municipality of Cebu, as seen from the
quotation of the general municipal law, has the right to enact ordinances relating to sanitation and
the public health.

Case 12

Case vs. Board of Health

Facts: Edwin William Case owns a house and lot. Sanitary Engineer of the Bureau of Health finds
that the sanitary condition of the said house was very bad. Instructions were given to make
connections with the new sewer system in relation to Ordinance 125, an ordinance to regulate and
enforce the use of sewers and drains in the City of Manila, Philippine Islands. Case petitioned that
defendants be enjoined from carrying out the performance of said orders which required the
improvements of the sanitary conditions of the said premises. Board of Health argued that the lot
was still connected to the old sewer system which deposits feces to the waterways of the city and
to the Pasig River, thus a hazard to public health.

Issue: (1) WON Ordinance 125 is valid

(2) WON the City of Manila, through sanitary authorities, have the power to remedy such issue
through Ordinance 125

Held: (1) YES. Ordinance 125 having been adopted, and being a reasonable exercise of police
power of the state, is valid and enforceable.
(2) YES. The ordinance was clearly designed to preserve and protect the health, comfort, and
convenience of the inhabitants of the City of Manila, and therefore, falls directly under what is
generally known as police power of the government.

Case 13

PP vs. Guillermo Ventura

Facts:

● In February 1955, Ventura was alleged to have illegally practiced medicine in

Pasay City by treating and applying electrical appliances to patients for the
purpose of curing them with their ailments, diseases, pains, and physical defects
from which they are suffering and by holding out himself to the public by means
of signs,advertisements, and other means, to be a Doctor of Medicine even
though he is not a duly-licensed masseur nor a physician qualified to practice
medicine.
● CFI of Rizal found Ventura guilty of illegal practice of medicine under Section 770
of the Medical Law in connection with Section 2678 of the RAC. This was his
second offense for he was also found guilty of the same in 1949.
● Ventura seeks the reversal of the ruling of CFI Rizal contending, inter alia, that
he was not engaged in the practice of medicine because he was only practicing
drugless healing.

ISSUE: W/N Ventura can be convicted for illegal practice of medicine for engaging in
drugless healing without a license.

Held: YES!

Treating human ailments by means of drugless healing without the required license
constitutes illegal practice of medicine.

The practice of physiotherapy by massage through physical devices is allowed only if

prescribed by a duly-registered physician or if the application is limited to a physical or
muscular development. In this case, Ventura diagnoses patients on his own and even
performs the said therapy to a wide range of areas of the body. This constitutes illegal
practice of medicine because he was doing it without the proper license.

Case 14

Mauricio Cruz v. Stanton Youngberg

Facts: Cruz wanted to import cattle but was prevented by Act No. 3155

Issue: WON Act No. 3155 is constitutional

Held: Yes. The State has the police power to regulate the import of cattle to promote public
welfare and the development of resources.

Act No. 3155 - prohibited the introduction of cattle diseases into the Philippines by regulating
importation.

Case 15

People of the Philippines v. Maria Viusa De Sabarre

Facts: Sabarre et al violated an ordinance prohibiting the selling of meat and fish in any other
place but the public market

Issue: WON the ordinance is oppressive and unreasonable.

Held: No. It is not discriminatory, nor is it beyond the police power of the state.

Case 16

Ramon Fabie v. The City of Manila

Facts:

● City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 124, amending Sec. 107 of the Revised Ordinances of
Manila. Sec. 107. Issuance of Permits: All buildings shall abide by the rules set by the city of
Manila.
● Herein petitioner’s application for construction of nipa hut was denied by the city as the site did
not conform with the ordinance

Issue: W/N Sec. 107 of that ordinance is a valid application of Manila’s police power

Held: YES!
The purpose of the regulation is to ‘protect and secure the health, lives, and property of the citizens of
Manila against the ravages of fire and disease.’

The ordinance is also ‘not unduly oppressive’ because the rights of private property were not arbitrarily
regulated. Owner’s right to the enjoyment of his property is only interfered within so far as it is necessary
to protect the rights of others.

As laid out in US vs. Toribio, state’s exercise of a valid police power will always be okay if it is not duly
oppressive, meaning it has observed due process and it is for the general welfare of the people.

Case 17

US v VILLAREAL

Facts:

Villareal was charged and became guilty of the offense of carrying a concealed deadly
weapon as defined and penalized in Sec 26 of Act No. 1780. *weapon was sort of a sharp object
similarly like bolo which was wrapped in a leather sheath and concealed under his pants.

They appealed this decision as this law is in violation of the Philippine Bill which protects
the rights to life, liberty and property. Specifically, this law restricts the use of one’s property.

Issue: W/N that restrictions placed on the carrying of deadly weapons have the effect of depriving
the owner of the free use and enjoyment of his property, and that the granting of licenses to some
persons to carry firearms and the denial of that right to others is a denial to the latter of the equal
protection of the laws.

Held:

The right to own and to use such weapons does not carry with it the right to use them to
the injury of his neighbor or so as to endanger the peace and welfare of the community. Provided
the means adopted are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the end in view, not
unduly oppressive upon individuals, and in the interest of the public generally rather than of a
particular class, the legislature may adopt such regulations as it deems proper restricting,
limiting, and regulating the use of private property in the exercise of its police power (US v.
Toribio).

The general provisions touching the licensing of the use of such arms are mere police
regulations, intended to limit such use so that firearms will not fall into the hands of persons
whose use of them might endanger the peace of the state or the safety and security of individuals.
Case 18

U.S. vs. Pompeya

Facts:

Silvestre Pompeya is said to have violated Municipal Ordinance No. 1 of Iloilo.

Mar 20, 1914- accused willfully, illegally and criminally and without justifiable
motive failed to render service on patrol duty; act performed in violation of law.

Defendant contends that his acts do not constitute a crime and that the MO is
alleged to be unconstitutional because it is repugnant to the Organic Act of the
Philippines, which guarantees the liberty of the citizens.

ISSUE: W/N Municipal Ordinance No. 1 of 1914 of Iloilo is unconstitutional for

being violative of citizens rights.

Held: No!

EO is valid and constitutional. Valid exercise of police power for public safety and
general welafare. The power exercised under the provisions of Act No. 1309 falls
within the police power of the state and that the state was fully authorized and
justified in conferring the same upon the municipalities of the Philippine Islands
and that, therefore, the provisions of said Act are constitutional and not in
violation nor in derogation of the rights of the persons affected thereby.

Case 19

Javier vs. Earnshaw

Doctrine: It is within the province of the police power to regulate all professions,
trades, occupations, and business enterprises that are of a quasi-public nature,
or that may, if exercised or conducted without restriction, prove injurious to the
public health, safety, or morals, or to the general welfare.

Facts: Javier applied for a permit to install in his lot a gasoline pump and an underground tank
for the EXCLUSIVE USE of the motor vehicles of the Makabayan Taxicab Co., Inc., pursuant to the
conditions set by Ordinance No. 1985 of the City of Manila Respondent Mayor granted said permit.
It was, however, found out that the condition stated was violated by Javier.

Issue: W/N Ordinance No. 1985 of the City of Manila is unconstitutional and invalid.

Held: YES. The municipal board of the City of Manila, in the exercise of the police power, may
reasonably regulate professions and business enterprises within its territorial limits when the
public health, safety and welfare so demand. The ordinance in question is of this nature and,
therefore, is not illegal.

Case 20

People v. Chan

Facts: Ordinance No. 2347 and Ordinance No. 2188, which prohibit the sale by first run
cinematographs of tickets in excess of their seating capacity, were enacted by the City of Manila.

Issue: W/N Ordinance No. 2347 and Ordinance No. 2188 are discriminatory and, therefore,
unconstitutional?

Held: No. Both are constitutional. There can be no doubt that the City of Manila exercises police
power by delegation and that in the exercise of that power, it is authorized to enact ordinances for
the regulation of the operation of theatres and cinematographs.

Case 21

Luque v. Villegas

Facts: Public Service Commissioner Enrique Medina issued Administrative Order No. 1 ("For
Provincial Operation") and Administrative Order No. 3 (only 10% of the provincial buses and
jeepneys are allowed to enter Manila). The City of Manila then enacted Ordinance No. 4986 entitled
"An Ordinance Rerouting Traffic on Roads and Streets in the City of Manila, and for Other
Purposes”.

Issue: W/N Administrative Order Nos. 1 and 3 and Ordinance No. 4986 are unconstitutional, illegal
and unjust.

Held: No. The Commissioner's Administrative Orders and Ordinance 4986 fit into the concept of
promotion of the general welfare. Police power in both was properly exercised.

Case 22
US v. Giner Cruz

Facts: Section 733 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila classifies "pimps" as vagrants.

Issue: W/N Section 733 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila is valid.

Held:Yes. Since the legislative body of the city of Manila has taken the pains to include these
words in the new ordinances, it must have done so for a purpose, which plainly is to put a stop to
vile traffic in human flesh. Such a laudable object on the part of the Municipal Board of the city of
Manila should now be effectuated by judicial enforcement.

Case 23

US v. Rodriguez

Facts: Municipal of Caloocan enacted an Ordinance which imposes license tax on public dance
halls and penalizing a violation thereof.

Issue: W/N the Municipal Ordinance of Caloocan is unconstitutional.

Held: No. A municipality is authorized to enact an ordinance providing for a license-tax for the
maintenance and operation of public dance halls and penalizing the violation of such ordinance.

Case 24

US v. Pascual Pacis

Facts: The City of Baguio enacted an Ordinance prohibiting gambling.

Issue: W/N the gambling Ordinance of the City of Baguio is unconstitutional.

Held: No. An ordinance enacted under a general grant of police power, prohibiting and penalizing
the commission of one of the offenses enumerated as an offense against the peace and good
order of the municipality, is not necessarily inconsistent with, or repugnant to a general statute
prohibiting and penalizing the commission of the act as an offense against the state.

Case 25

Gregorio Pedro v. The Provincial Board Of Rizal, et al.

Facts: Pedro, owner of “Sociedad Bighani” a duly licensed cockpit under Ordinance 35 which
reduces the distance between a cockpit and hospital resulting noise that would retard the
recovery of the patients of Santol Tuberculosis Sanatorium. Pedro challenges the validity of
Ordinance 36 which corrected irregularity and suspended the effects of Ord. 35 as a result,
prohibiting the operation of the cockpit. He contends that Ord. 36 impairs his rights.
Issue: WON the Ordinance 36 is valid

Held: Yes it is valid. The court held that an ordinance regulating the functioning of cockpits does
not create irrevocable rights and may be abrogated by another ordinance. A license authorizing
the operation and exploitation of a cockpit is not property of which the holder may not be
deprived without due process of law, but a mere privilege which may be revoked when the public
interests so require.

Case 26

US v. TEN YU, et al

Facts: Ten Yu et al., were found guilty by municipal court of the city of Manila for violating sec. 3
of Ordinance 152. The defendants appealed that the ordinance should be declared null and void
for the reason that the Municipal Board of the City of Manila does not have the authority to enact
it.

Issue: WON the enactment of the ordinance is valid.

Held: Yes. The city of Manila is expressly authorized (section 16 of charter) to make such
ordinances or regulations as may be necessary to discharge the powers and duties conferred by
its charter and to provide for the peace, order, safety, and general welfare of the city and its
inhabitants and to fix penalties for the violation of such ordinances. Section 17 provides that the
city of Manila may adopt ordinances providing for the closing of opium joints is smoked or sold
the keeping or visiting of any place where opium is smoked or sold for the purpose of smoking. In
pursuance of this express authority ordinance No. 152 was adopted.

Case 27

Uy Ha v. City Mayor of Manila

Facts: City of Manila enacted Ordinance 3941 providing no license for the installation and/or
operation of ‘Pinball’ machines shall be granted under any circumstances. Petitioner engaged in
business, applied for new permit – denied. Challenging the validity of the ordinance contending
pinball machines are devised for amusement and not for gambling and so said ordinance is
invalid and unconstitutional.

Issue: WON ord. 3941 is valid

Held: Yes it is valid. Pinball machines, being especially designed for gambling and as such
prohibited by law, had been properly suppressed when the Municipal Board of the City of Manila
enacted Ordinance No. 3941 providing therein that no license for their installation or operation
shall be granted under any circumstances. In this sense said ordinance cannot be held to be
invalid or unconstitutional; on the contrary, it properly comes under the general welfare clause of
the Charter of the City of Manila.

Case 28

Velasco v. Villegas

Facts: Villegas, city mayor of manila promulgated ordinance 4964 prohibiting for any operator of
any barber shop to conduct the business of massaging customers. Velasco et al, challenges the
constitutionality of the ordinance contending deprivation of property and means of livelihood
without due process.

Issue: WON the ordinance is unconstitutional.

Held: No. The ordinance falls within the general welfare clause (power granted under LGC) in
order to forestall possible immorality which might grow out of the construction of separate rooms
for massage of customers.

Case 29

Dela Cruz v. Judge Paras

Facts: Municipality of Bocaue enacted Ord. 84 a prohition and closure of night clubs. It is
contended that the ordinance assailed as invalid, the municipality being devoid of power to
prohibit a lawful business, occupation or calling, petitioners at the same time alleging that their
rights to due process and equal protection of the laws were violated as the licenses previously
given to them was in effect withdrawn without judicial hearing.

Issue: WON municipality of Bocaue, Bulacan can prohibit the exercise of lawful trade, the
operation of night clubs and pursuit of lawful occupation, such as employing hostesses.

Held: No. Power granted to municipal corporations is that of regulation, not prohibition.
Furthermore, the ordinance is unreasonable, the objective of fostering public morals, a worthy
and desirable end can be attained by a measure that does not encompass too wide a field.
Certainly the ordinance on its face is characterized by overbreadth. The purpose sought to be
achieved could have been attained by reasonable restriction rather than by an absolute
prohibition.

Additional notes by J. Fernando To compel petitioners so close their establishments would

amount to no more than a temporary termination of their business. During such time, their
employees would undergo a period of deprivation, if such an undesirable outcome can be
avoided, it should be.

Case 30

Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corporation

Facts: PAGCOR leased a portion of the building to Pryce Properties Corp in order to open a
casino. Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) of Cagayan De Oro immediately enacted Ordinance No.
3353, prohibiting the issuance of business permit and canceling existing business permit to the
establishment for the operation of the casino, and Ordinance No. 3375-93, prohibiting the
operation of the casino and providing a penalty for its violation.

Issue: WON the enacted Ordinance Nos. 3355 and 3375-93 by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of
Cagayan de Oro City is valid

Held: No. The ordinances in question contravene P.D. 1869 and the public policy embodied
therein insofar as they prevent PAGCOR from exercising the power conferred on it to operate a
casino in Cagayan de Oro City. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise
powers higher than those of the latter. **must take on this case as this is a very intriguing case.

Case 31

Punzalan vs. Ferriols

Facts: An ordinance dated Aug 31,1909 was implemented in order to suppress and prevent the
spread of infectious animal diseases. The animal was undoubtedly suffering from a highly
contagious disease known as surra and it was incurable and would be of no value to the owner or
any one else.

Issue: WON the provision of Section 12(a) of the Provincial Ordinance of Batangas is valid.

Held: NO. Because it makes no provision for compensation to the owners of such animal, and to
extent, is in conflict with the provisions of Section 5 and Sedtion 74 of the Philippine Bill of
Rights.

Case 32

US vs. Delos Santos

Facts: In 1914, a complaint was filed against defendant, Juan De Los Santos, who is a Chinese
laborer residing in the Philippine Islands without the certificate required under Act. No. 702. In
March 30, 1915, the Court of First Instance rendered a decision ordering the defendant to be
arrested and deported.

Issue: WON the lower court committed an error in admitting the complaint

Held: No. The order of the deportation is not a punishment, in the sense in which that word is
often applied to the expulsion of a citizen from his country, by way of punishment. It is but a
method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the
condition upon the enforcement of which the government of the nation, acting within its
constitutional authority and through the proper department, has determined that his continuing to
reside therein shall depend.

Case 33

Cuunjieng vs. Patstone

Facts: The plaintiff desires a erect a warehouse on Azcarraga Street but is denied a building
permit until be shall have made provision for the construction of an arcade over the side walk in
front of the building and until he shall have further complied with section 1 of Ordinance No.301 of
the city of Manila.

Issue: WON under the charter, the city of Manila may, under the guise of a licence fee and as a
prerequisite for the issuance for a building permit, exact the payment of one-half of the assessed
value of the portion of the sidewalk covered by the arcade

Held: No. Legislative powers in regard to taxes and licences are not inherent in municipal
corporations but must be granted by statute either expressly or by necessary implication. Like
other delegated powers, they are subject to strict construction. There is nothing in the character
of the city of Manila indicating an intention on the part of the Legislature to confer power on the
Municipal Board to impose a license tax for revenue on the of buildings.

Case 34

People vs. Gabriel

Facts: The city of Manila, enacted Ordinance No. 938 which prohibits bells and criers at auctions.
The defendant, Teofilo Gabriel, was accused of violating the ordinance, on September 26, 1921.

Issue: WON Ordinace 938 was unconstitutional.

Held: No. Under the police power, the City of Manila has authority to regulate and control public
auctions within its city boundaries. For reasons satisfactory to the City Council, between certain
hours and on those particular streets, the ordinance prohibits a crier or the use of a bell to attract
bidders or anything other than a sign or flag.

Case 35

Director of Lands vs. Aballa

Facts: Several claimants filed a petition praying that this case be dismissed, that Act No. 3327 be
declared unconstitutional and the instant cadastral proceeding illegal and of no effect whatever
for failure to comply with the law and the regulations of the Bureau of Lands, and that the
applicant, the Director of Lands be sentenced to pay the costs.

Issue: WON Act No. 3327 is constitutional.

Held: YES. The Court does not find in the provisions of the Act assailed by the appellants any
ground for its alleged unconstitutionality. Neither the right to enter into contract nor the right to
acquire, hold, enjoy, and convey property, is an absolute right. Such rights are subordinate to the
police power of the State, and may be regulated and restricted by the Legislature for the public
weal. The provisions of Act No. 3327 are intended to insure a prompt and speedy proceeding for
the registration of titles to land in the Philippines, and the peculiar provisions of said Act,
intended for the same purpose, do not unduly abridge the right to contract freely.

Case 36

Seng Kee and Co. vs Thomas Earnshaw

Facts:

Sections 120, 121, and 122 of the Revised Ordinances, previously known as Ordinances No. 1069
and 1203,divided the City of Manila into zones, residential and industrial; the last section
providing that certain trades and industries therein regarded as noxious may be conducted only
in the industrial zone.

The appellant, who is a “toyo” manufacturer, contends that the City of Manila has exceeded its
legislative powers in passing the sections mentioned above, which are void and unconstitutional
because they deprive owners of their property without just compensation.

Issue: the validity of that ordinance

Held: YES.
The power of the City of Manila to adopt ordinances is derived from sections 1019 and 1020 (g) of
the Administrative Code. The constitutionality of these provisions cannot be put in issue as they
flow from the police power inherent in every legislature, and here delegated to the City of Manila.

****zonification made by a legislature is a valid exercise of police power!!!!!

Case 37

Rutter vs. Esteban

Facts: Rutter sold to Esteban 2 parcels of land in Manila in 1941 (pre-war) and paid ¾ and they
constituted a mortgage to secure the payment of the balance. Unfortunately, war broke out and
Esteban was not able to pay the said mortgage in time.

After the war, Rutter filed a case against Esteban for the balance but Esteban said that his
obligation to Rutter was not due because it is covered upon the moratorium embodied in R.A. 342
which provides that all monetary obligations before war shall not be due and demandable after 8
years.

CFI ruled in favor of Esteban.

Issue: W/N R.A. 342 (moratorium on pre-war obligations) is valid

Held: NO!

The moratorium law, enacted in 1948, came on the heels of executive orders likewise declaring
moratoriums. With its 8-year moratorium period, it is clearly unreasonable for creditors who have
to “observe a vigil of 12 years” to collect on debts which have become demandable as early as
1941. And the injustice is more patent when, under the law, the debtor is not even required to pay
interest during the operation of the relief.

Ruling: reversed, Esteban to pay interest plus attorney’s fees

Case 38

Morfe vs. Mutuc (SALN case, Landmark Case)

Facts:

The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act of 1960 requires every public officer to file a true and
sworn statement of assets and liabilities (SALN now). This was challenged by Morfe as it was
“violative of due process clause, right to privacy and unreasonable search and seizure and lastly
prohibition of self-incrimination”
Issue: w/n the act is an oppressive exercise of Police Power

Held: No!

The provision is a legitimate exercise of police power as it is only a reasonable measure to ensure
the welfare of the public that they may have a clean and honest public service. The liberty of a
person is subject to the limitation necessary for the common good. PUBLIC OFFICE IS A PUBLIC
TRUST

CASE 39

Phil American Life Insurance vs. Auditor General

Police power,adopt whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote public
welfare, and to enforce that policy by legislation adapted to its purpose.

Facts:

Case 51

PNB vs. Office of the President

Facts: Private respondents (PR) bought, in installment, subdivision lots from subdivision
developer Marikina Village, Inc. which the latter mortgaged in favor of petitioner PNB. Unaware of
this mortgage, PR continued to pay and construct their house on the said lots. PNB foreclosed on
the mortgage and became the new owner of the said lots. As the new owner, PNB can only collect
the remaining amortizations and cannot compel PR to pay all over again for the lots. Subject
mortgage was executed December 18, 1975. Office of the Pres. invoked PD 757 which was enacted
on July 12, 1976.

Issue: WON PD 957 may be applied to the mortgage contract which was executed prior to its
enactment

Held: YES. PD 957 may have not expressly provided for retroactivity but the same can be inferred
from the unmistakable intent of the law to protect innocent lot buyers from scheming subdivision
developers. The law, as an instrument of social justice, must favor the weak. Despite the
impairment clause, a contract valid at the time of its execution may be legally modified or even
completely invalidated by a subsequent law. If the law is a proper exercise of police power, it will
prevail over the contract.

Case 52

St. Luke's Medical Center Employees vs. NLRC

Facts: Maribel Santos was hired as an X-Ray Technician at St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. (SLMC).
Congress enacts RA 7431 or the Radiologic Technology Act of 1992. The Act provides that no
person shall practice radiology and/or x-ray technology in the Philippines without having obtained
the proper certificate of registration from the Board of Radiologic Technology. SLMC issues
several notices to Santos for her to comply with the law which the latter fails to do so. SLMC
approves her retirement in lieu of separation pay. Santos files a complaint for illegal dismissal and
non-payment of salaries and monetary benefits. NLRC orders SLMC to pay Santos’ separation
pay. CA affirmed NLRC’s decision.

Issue: WON CA committed grave abuse of discretion and erred in not resolving with clarity the
issues on the merit of petitioner's constitutional right of security of tenure

Held: NO. The right of workers to security of tenure is guaranteed by the Constitution but its
exercise may be reasonably regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard
health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and the general welfare of the people. Regulation
in the field of medicine is a reasonable method of protecting the public from the potentially deadly
effects of incompetence and ignorance among those who would practice medicine. The state is
justified in prescribing the specific requirements for x-ray technicians and/or any other
professions connected with the health and safety of its citizens.

Case 53

PRC vs. De Guzman

Facts: Respondents are graduates of the Fatima College of Medicine who passed the Physician
Licensure Exam (PLE) conducted by the Board of Medicine (Board). Petitioner Professional
Regulation Commission (PRC) released their names as successful examinees. The Board
observed that the grades of the respondents were unusually and exceptionally high. PRC asked
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to investigate. NBI concluded that the Fatima
examinees gained early access to the test questions. The Board issued a resolution charging
respondents with “immorality, dishonest conduct, fraud, and deceit” and recommended that the
test results of said examinees be nullified. RTC ordered the petitioners to administer the
physician’s oath to respondents and enter their names in the rolls of the PRC. Petitioners filed a
special civil action for certiorari with the CA which it granted. Respondents appealed.

Issue: WON Sec. 8 of R.A. 2382, which prescribes that a person who aspires to practice medicine
in the Philippines, must have “satisfactorily passed the corresponding Board Examination” is a
valid exercise of police power
Held: YES. The Court upheld the constitutional right of every citizen to select a profession or
course of study, subject to a fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic
requirements. Such exercise may be so regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to
safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and general welfare of the people.
Persons who desire to engage in the learned professions requiring scientific or technical
knowledge may be required to take an examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen
careers. In the field of medicine, the public must be protected from the potentially deadly effects
of incompetence and ignorance among those who would practice medicine.

Case 54

Chavez vs. Romulo

Facts: A petition for prohibition and injunction which seeks to enjoin the implementation of the
“Guidelines in the Implementation of the Ban on the Carrying of Firearms Outside of Residence”
was filed by petitioner Chavez, a licensed gun owner. Guidelines was issued by respondent
Hermogenes E. Ebdane, Jr., Chief of the Philippine National Police.

Issue: (1) WON respondent is authorized to issue the assailed guidelines

(2) WON the issuance of assailed guidelines is a valid exercise of police power

Held: (1) YES. Under the Constitution, the power to make laws—the legislative power—is vested in
Congress. The rule which forbids the delegation of legislative power, however, is not absolute and
inflexible. It admits of exceptions. An exception sanctioned by immemorial practice permits the
legislative body to delegate its licensing power to certain persons, municipal corporations, towns,
boards, councils, commissions, commissioners, auditors, bureaus and directors. Such licensing
power includes the power to promulgate necessary rules and regulations.

(2) YES. The basis for the issuance of the Guidelines was the need for peace and order in the
society. The motivating factor in the issuance of the assailed Guidelines is the interest of the
public in general.

The right of individuals to bear arms is not absolute, but is subject to regulation. The maintenance
of peace and order and the protection of the people against violence are constitutional duties of
the State, and the right to bear arms is to be construed in connection and in harmony with these
constitutional duties.

Case 55

Southeast Mindanao Goldmining vs. Balite

Facts: Marcopper Mining Corporation was granted Exploration Permit No. 133 (EP No. 133) over
4,491 hectares of land, which included the Diwalwal area. Congress enacted RA No. 7076, or the
People's Small-Scale Mining Act. The law established a People's Small-Scale Mining Program to
be implemented by the Secretary of the DENR. DENR issued Department Administrative Order
(DAO) No. 66, declaring 729 hectares of the Diwalwal area as non-forest land open to small-scale
mining. DENR Secretary issued Memorandum Order No. 97-03 which provided that the DENR shall
study thoroughly and exhaustively the option of direct state utilization of the mineral resources in
the Diwalwal Gold-Rush Area. Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus before the Court of Appeals.

Issue: WON the "direct state utilization scheme" espoused in MO 97-03 divested petitioner of its
vested right to the gold rush area under its EP No. 133

Held: NO. The MO 97-03 did not conclusively adopt the “direct state utilization” as a policy in
resolving the Diwalwal dispute. The terms of the memorandum indicate that what was directed
was merely a study of this option and nothing else. The memorandum did not grant any
management or operation to any party but simply instructed the DENR officials concerned to
undertake studies to determine its feasibility. The alleged "vested rights" claimed by petitioner is
still being disputed in the Consolidated Mines cases.

Mining exploration permits do not vest in the grantee any permanent or irrevocable right within
the purview of the non- impairment and due process clauses, since the State, under its all-
encompassing police power, may alter, modify or amend the same in accordance with the
demands of the general welfare

Case 61

Gancayco vs. Quezon City

Facts: Quezon City Council issued Ordinance No. 2904, pursuant to the National Building Code of
the Philippines (NBCP), which required the construction of an arcade in front of commercial
buildings. Justice Gancayco's building was granted exemption from the said Ordinance. However,
on April 28, 2003, he was notified that a portion of his building violated the NBCP and that he only
had 15 days to clear that portion.

Issue: W/N Ordinance No. 2904 is unconstitutional.

Held: No. Ordinance No. 2904 is not unconstitutional. Its primary objectives are the preservation
of the health and safety of the city and its inhabitants, the promotion of their prosperity, and the
improvement of their morals, peace, good order, comfort, and convenience.
Case 62

United Homeowners'Association, Inc. et al. vs. The City Mayor

Facts: Municipality of Parañaque enacted Ordinance No. 97-08 which reclassified portions of BF
Homes from residential to commercial zone. Petitioners assail it on the ground that their land
titles provide that "the property shall be used for residential purposes only and for no other
purpose."

Issue: W/N Municipal Ordinance No. 97-08 is a valid exercise of police power.

Held: Yes. Police power is superior over the non-impairment (of contracts) clause. Also, the
increasing number of homeowners in BF Homes necessitated the addition of commercial areas in
the subdivision to serve the needs of the homeowners.

Case 63

Social Justice Society vs. Atienza

Facts: City Council of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 8027 reclassifying portions of Pandacan and
Sta. Ana from industrial to commercial zone and directed the owners and operators of businesses
disallowed under the reclassification to cease and desist from operating their business 6 months
from the effectivity date of the ordinance.

Issue: W/N Ordinance No. 8027 is valid.

Held: Yes. It was enacted pursuant to the delegated police power of local government units "to
promote the order, safety, health, morals and general welfare of the society." Mayor Atienza has
the mandatory legal duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 because the Local Government Code
imposes upon him the duty to “enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the governance of the
city.”

Case 64

MMDA vs. Bell-Air Village Association

Facts: MMDA sent a letter of request to Bell-Air Village Association to open Neptune Street for
public use. The latter was then appraised that the perimeter wall separating the subdivision and
Kalayaan Avenue would be demolished.

Issue: W/N MMDA, pursuant to its regulatory and police powers, can mandate the opening of
Neptune Street to public traffic.
Held: No. MMDA does not have the capacity to exercise police power. They are not granted with
legislative powers……

Case 65

Francisco vs. Fernando

Facts: The MMDA carried out the "wet flag scheme" to keep pedestrians on the sidewalks.
Francisco contends that it has no legal basis.

Issue: W/N the petition is valid.

Held: No. The petition has no merit. SC cannot make a factual determination of whether the
scheme is a reasonable enforcement of anti-jaywalking ordinances because it is "not a trier of
facts."

Case 66

MMDA v. Viron

Facts: President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued E.O 179 in order to solve the traffic congestion
problem in Metro Manila by eliminating bus terminals along the thoroughfares of Metro Manila,
MMDA as the implementing agency. Viron Transportation Co. challenges the validity of the E.O.
179 and questions the authority of MMDA.

Issue: WON E.O. 179 is unconstitutional.

Held: Yes it is unconstitutional. Undoubted is the authority of President to provide a solution in

order to solve decongested traffic by eliminating bus terminals, but designating MMDA as
implementing agency is ultra vires. It is the DOTC, not the MMDA, which is authorized to establish
and implement such a project. The President must exercise the authority through the
instrumentality of the DOTC which, by law is the primary implementing and administrative entity
in the promotion, development and regulation of networks of transportation.

Case 67

Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila, Inc. vs. Board of Transportation

Facts: Board of Transportation (BOT) issued Memorandum Circular No. 77-42 phasing out old
taxis, Bureau of Transportation in pursuance to memorandum implemented Circular No. 52 taxis
over 6 years old be banned from operating. Petitioners assailed the validity of the lifetime ceiling
six years.
Issue: WON regulation phasing out taxicabs more than six years old is a valid exercise of police
power

Held: Yes. The span of six years supplies that reasonable standard. The overriding consideration
is the safety and comfort of the riding public from the dangers possessed by old and dilapidated
taxis. The State, in the exercise of its police power, can prescribe regulations to promote the
health, morals, peace, good order, safety and general welfare of the people. It can prohibit all
things hurtful to comfort, safety and welfare of society. It may also regulate property rights.

Case 68

Case 69

Bautista v. Juinio

Facts: An energy conservation measure, Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 869, response to
protracted oil crisis, banning the use of private motor vehicles with H (heavy) and EH (extra
heavy) plates on weekends and holidays. Pursuant thereto, Mem. Cir. No. 39 was issued
penalizing fine and confiscation of vehicle violating LOI. Sps. Bautista assailed as violative of due
process and in contravention of equal protection clause.

Issue: WON LOI is unconstitutional

Held: No. the uncertainty of fuel supply availability underscores a compelling need for the
adoption of positive measures designed to insure the viability of the country’s economy and
sustain its developmental growth. Between fundamental right and police power, the latter is
accorded much leeway, due process cannot be validly invoked. It would destroy the very purpose
of the state if it could be deprived or allowed itself to be deprived of its competence to promote
public health, public morals, public safety and the general welfare

Case 70

Sangalang vs Intermediate Appellate Court

Facts: Office of the Mayor of Makati wrote Bel-Air Village Association directing that, in the interest
of public welfare and for the purpose of easing traffic congestion, the following streets in BelAir
Village should be opened for public use, after zoning regulations. The residents opposed then
municipal officials force-opened the gates of said street for public use. Residents alleged that the
ordinance impairs their rights as homeowners in a private village.

Issue: W/N the passage of the zoning ordinance is a valid exercise of police power
Held: Yes. The right against impairment of contracts cannot be raised as a deterrent to police
power in view of the zoning ordinance. Bel-Air, like all contracts, subject to the overriding
demands, needs, and interests of the greater number as the State may determine in the legitimate
exercise of police power.

Our law guarantees the sanctity of contract, but it cannot be raised as a deterrent to police power,
designed precisely to promote health, safety, peace, and enhance the common good, at the
expense of contractual rights, whenever necessary

Case 71

Lim vs Pacquing

Facts: In May 1988, Associated Development Corporation (ADC) tried to operate a Jai-Alai. The
government through Games and Amusement Board intervened and invoked Presidential Decree
No. 771 which expressly revoked all existing franchises and permits to operate all forms of
gambling facilities (including Jai-Alai) by local governments. ADC assails the constitutionality of
P.D. No. 771.

Issue: WON the Associated Development Corporation has a valid and subsisting franchise to
maintain and operate the jai-alai.

Held: No. The authority to grant franchises for the operation of jai-alai frontons is in Congress,
while the regulatory function is vested in the GAB. ADC has no franchise from Congress to
operate the jai-alai, it may not operate even if it has a license or permit from the City Mayor to
operate the jai-alai in the City of Manila.

Case 72

Miners Association vs Factoran

Facts: Former President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order Nos 211 and 279 in the exercise
of her legislative powers. DENR then issued Administrative Order Nos 57 & 82. An organization
composed of mining prospectors and claim owners and claim holders, to file the instant petition
assailing their validity and constitutionality before this Court.

Issue: WON Administrative Order Nos 57 & 82 are valid and constitutional.

Held: YES.Both Admin orders are valid and constitutional. The principle that the power of
administrative officials to promulgate rules and regulations in the implementation of a statute is
necessarily limited only to carrying into effect what is provided in the legislative enactment. The
admin orders are consistent with the Executive orders issued by the president.
Case 73

Pollution Adjudication Board vs CA

Facts: Respondent Solar assailed the Ex parte Cease and Desist Order by petitioner PAB on the
ground that the former was denied due process and that the degree of threat required for the said
Order is remiss. Petitioner reasoned that under PD No.984 Section 7(a), the Board has the legal
authority to issue ex parte orders to suspend the operations of an establishment when there is
prima facie evidence that such establishment is discharging effluents or wastewater, the pollution
level of which exceeds the maximum permissible standards set by the NPCC.

Issue: WON the Board can issue an ex parte cease and desist order based on prima facie
evidence.

Held: Yes. The Court found that the ex parte cease and desist Order were entirely within its lawful
authority. Ex parte cease and desist orders are permitted by law and regulations in situations like
in this case. The relevant pollution control statute and implementing regulations were enacted and
promulgated in the exercise of that pervasive, sovereign power to protect the safety, health, and
general welfare and comfort of the public, as well as the protection of plant and animal life,
commonly designated as the police power

Case 74

Ynot vs IAC

Facts: Dictator Ferdinand Marcos enacts Executive Order No. 626-A which prohibits the
interprovincial movement of carabaos and carabeef. Petitioner transported 6 carabaos from
Masbate to Iloilo and was confiscated by the police upon arrival. Petitioner seeks for the
declaration of the EO as unconstitutional.

Issue: WON E.O. 626-A is constitutional

Held: NO. The order is an invalid exercise of police power because it is unduly oppressive. The
order authorizes outright confiscation (and the slaughter) of the carabaos without due process.
The E.O. authorizes executive authorities to confiscate the carabaos immediately without judicial
order or warrants.

Case 75

Tablarin vs Gutierrez
Facts: Petitioners filed with the RTC, National Capital Judicial Region, a petition to enjoin the
Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports, the Board of Medical Education and the Center for
Educational Measurement from enforcing Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act No. 2382, as
amended, and MECS Order No. 52, series of 1985, and from requiring the taking and passing of
the NMAT as a condition for securing certificates of eligibility for admission, from proceeding with
accepting applications for taking the NMAT and from administering the NMAT as scheduled on 26
April 1987 and in the future.

Issue: WON Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act No. 2382, as amended and MECS Order No. 52,
series of 1985 are valid exercise of police power

Held: YES. The regulation of the practice of medicine in all its branches has long been recognized
as a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public. The power to regulate
and control the practice of medicine includes the power to regulate admission to the ranks of
those authorized to practice medicine. Thus, legislation and administrative regulations requiring
those who wish to practice medicine first to take and pass medical board examinations have long
ago been recognized as valid exercises of governmental power.