Inherent Powers of the State:

2.1. In Ynot v. IAC, the SC enumerated the proper exercise of the inherent
powers.
Ans: Based from US v. Toribio:
To justify the State in thus interposing its authority in behalf of the public, it must
appear, first, that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those
of a particular class, require such interference; and second, that the means are
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly
oppressive upon individuals. . . .
2.2. How did the SC rule on the proper exercise of the inherent powers?
Same in 2.1. by basing its justification on the previous case of US v Toribio.

2.3. What are these conditions?
Lawful Means and Lawful Subject these two conditions must be satisfied, there
must be causal relation between the means employed and the purpose of its
accomplishment.

2.4. In DECS v. San Diego, what are the test enumerated by the SC to determine
a valid exercise of the power?
The power is validly exercised if (1) the interest of the public generally, as
distinguished from those of a particular class, require the interference of the
state, and (2) the means employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment of
the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
2.5. What are the proper Subjects of the Police Power?
Liberty and Property
2.6. In PASEI case, as to contention on freedom to travel, the SC sustained the
DOLE on what ground?
The consequence the deployment ban has on the right to travel does not impair
the right. The right to travel is subject, among other things, to the requirements
of "public safety," "as may be provided by law." Department Order No. 1 is a valid
implementation of the Labor Code, in particular, its basic policy to "afford
protection to labor," pursuant to the respondent Department of Labor's rule-
making authority vested in it by the Labor Code. The petitioner assumes that it is
unreasonable simply because of its impact on the right to travel, but as we have
stated, the right itself is not absolute. The disputed Order is a valid qualification
thereto.

2.7. How about commercial papers, valid exercise of Police Powers?
Checks, Lozano v. Martinez, considered as substitute of money and are imbued
with public interest.
2.8. How about choice of profession, can state regulate the right of the people
to choose profession?
While every person is entitled to aspire to be a doctor, he does not have a
constitutional right to be a doctor. This is true of any other calling in which the
public interest is involved; and the closer the link, the longer the bridge to one's
ambition.
The Constitution also provides that "every citizen has the right to choose a
profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable and equitable
admission and academic requirements." The private respondent must yield to
the challenged rule and give way to those better prepared.
2.9. in San Diego v. DECS, SC sustained validation of the regulation. Why?
The subject of the challenged regulation is certainly within the ambit of the police
power. It is the right and indeed the responsibility of the State to insure that the
medical profession is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may
unwarily entrust their lives and health.
The method employed by the challenged regulation is not irrelevant to the
purpose of the law nor is it arbitrary or oppressive. The three-flunk rule is
intended to insulate the medical schools and ultimately the medical profession
from the intrusion of those not qualified to be doctors.


Eminent Domain
4.1. What is the power of Eminent Domain?
An inherent power of the state that enables the state to forcibly acquire private
properties, upon payment of just compensation, for some intended public use.
Constitutional Law II by Isagani A. Cruz 2007 Ed. -- p. 37
4.2. What are the other terms? 1. Power of Expropriation and 2. the Power of
Condemnation
4.3. why is it the highest and most exact idea of property remaining in the
government?
There is a reservation on the part of the state that the property may be used for
common good
4.4. Who may exercise eminent domain?
The Legislature, the President, various Local Legislative Bodies, certain Public
Corporations like the Land Authority and National Housing Authority and even
Quasi-Public Corp., like the PLDT and MERALCO and Philippine National Railways.
4.5. What are the essential elements for the proper exercise of Police Power
Lawful Subject and Lawful Means.
4.6. Under art. 3 sec. 9, is this a recognition of the states power of eminent
domain?
Art. III Sec. 9 provides that private property shall not be taken for public use
without just compensation.
This provision is not a grant but a limitation of the power as its negative and
restrictive language suggests. Being inherent, the power of eminent domain
need not be specifically conferred on the government by the Constitution.
Consti 2 Book by Cruz p 62.
4.7. What is the purpose of this provision? Already answered in 4.6. more of
restriction of the exercise of this power.
4.8. Can public property be a subject of eminent domain?
Property already devoted to public use is still subject to expropriation, provided
this is done directly by the national legislature or under a specific grant of
authority to the delegate.
4.9 So public property cannot be further expropriated for further public use?
City of Manila v. Chinese Community Private property devoted for public use
cannot be expropriated under a general grant of authority, there must be a
specific grant.
4.10. Does this mean that public property may be expropriated for public use?
4.11. Rules of Court, Rule 67, why is it that if the petition is entitled under the
government, the petition will be dismissed?
Property party to assert just compensation is the owner.


6.1. Concept of Public use is explained in Sumulong v Guerrero and Manosca v.
CA, How did the SC rule?:
In Sumulong v. Guerrero The public use requirement for a valid exercise of
the power of eminent domain is a flexible and evolving concept influenced by
changing conditions. Citing Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. Reyes xxx It is
accurate then that at present whatever may be beneficially employed for the
general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use.
Specifically, urban renewal or redevelopment and the construction of low-cost housing
is recognized as a public purpose, not only because of the expanded concept of public
use but also because of specific provisions in the Constitution. The 1973 Constitution
made it incumbent upon the State to establish, maintain and ensure adequate social
services including housing [Art. II, sec. 7].
Housing is a basic human need. Shortage in housing is a matter of state concern since it
directly and significantly affects public health, safety, the environment and in sum, the
general welfare. The public character of housing measures does not change because
units in housing projects cannot be occupied by all but only by those who satisfy
prescribed qualifications. A beginning has to be made, for it is not possible to provide
housing for all who need it, all at once.
In Manosca v. CA
The term "public use," not having been otherwise defined by the constitution, must be
considered in its general concept of meeting a public need or a public exigency. 16 Black
summarizes the characterization given by various courts to the term; thus:
"Public Use. Eminent domain. The constitutional and statutory basis for taking
property by eminent domain. For condemnation purposes, 'public use' is one
which confers some benefit or advantage to the public; it is not confined to
actual use by public. It is measured in terms of right of public to use proposed
facilities for which condemnation is sought and, as long as public has right of
use, whether exercised by one or many members of public, a 'public advantage'
or 'public benefit' accrues sufficient to constitute a public use. Montana Power
Co. vs. Bokma, Mont. 457 P.2d 769, 772, 773.
"Public use, in constitutional provisions restricting the exercise of the right to
take private property in virtue of eminent domain, means a use concerning the
whole community as distinguished from particular individuals. But each and
every member of society need not be equally interested in such use, or be
personally and directly affected by it; if the object is to satisfy a great public
want or exigency, that is sufficient. Rindge Co. vs. Los Angeles County, 262
U.S. 700, 43 S.Ct. 689, 692, 67 L. Ed. 1186. The term may be said to mean
public usefulness, utility, or advantage, or what is productive of general benefit.
It may be limited to the inhabitants of a small or restricted locality, but must be
in common, and not for a particular individual. The use must be a needful one
for the public, which cannot be surrendered without obvious general loss and
inconvenience. A 'public use' for which land may be taken defies absolute
definition for it changes with varying conditions of society, new appliances in
the sciences, changing conceptions of scope and functions of government, and
other differing circumstances brought about by an increase in population and
new modes of communication and transportation. Katz v. Brandon, 156 Conn.,
521, 245 A.2d 579,586." 17
The validity of the exercise of the power of eminent domain for traditional purposes is
beyond question; it is not at all to be said, however, that public use should thereby be
restricted to such traditional uses. The idea that "public use" is strictly limited to clear
cases of "use by the public" has long been discarded.

6.2. In Manosca, one of the arguments is the direct benefit is enjoyed only by a
particular sect. How did the court resolved the issue?
The attempt to give some religious perspective to the case deserves little consideration,
for what should be significant is the principal objective of, not the casual consequences
that might follow from the exercise of the power. The purpose in setting up the marker is
essentially to recognize the distinctive contribution of the late Felix Manalo to the culture
of the Philippines, rather than to commemorate his founding and leadership of the Iglesia
ni Cristo. The practical reality that greater benefit may be derived by members of the
Iglesia ni Cristo than by most others could well be true but such a peculiar advantage still
remains to be merely incidental and secondary in nature. Indeed, that only a few would
actually benefit from the expropriation of property does not necessarily diminish the
essence and character of public use. cdasia

6.3. Is the benefit accruing to the religious sect only incidental? Yes as mentioned in
the above citation from Manosca Case.
6.4. So should it affect the validity of Police Power? No, it being only incidental and not
the primary cause of expropriating the private land from the owner, but rather due to
the contributions of Felix Manalo, such land being his birthplace deserved to be a
historical landmark.
6.5. Does size matter?
No. by virtue of Number of People to be Benefited Test
6.6. Is the size of property material? What is the ruling in Guerrero Case?
The State acting through the NHA is vested with broad discretion to designate the
particular property/properties to be taken for socialized housing purposes and how
much thereof may be expropriated. Absent a clear showing of fraud, bad faith, or gross
abuse of discretion, which petitioners herein failed to demonstrate, the Court will give
due weight to and leave undisturbed the NHA's choice and the size of the site for the
project. The property owner may not interpose objections merely because in their
judgment some other property would have been more suitable, or just as suitable, for
the purpose. The right to the use, enjoyment and disposal of private property is
tempered by and has to yield to the demands of the common good.

8.1. What constitutes just compensation?
In said case of Export Processing Zone Authority, this Court pointed out that:
The basic unfairness of the decrees is readily apparent.
Just compensation means the value of the property at the time of the
taking. It means a fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained All the facts as
to the condition of the property and its surroundings, its improvements and
capabilities, should be considered.
xxx xxx xxx
Various factors can come into play in the valuation of specific properties
singled out for expropriation. The values given by provincial assessors are
usually uniform for very wide areas covering several barrios or even an entire
town with the exception of the poblacion. Individual differences are never taken
into account. The value of land is based on such generalities as its possible
cultivation for rice, corn, coconuts, or other crops. Very often land described as
"cogonal" has been cultivated for generations. Buildings are described in terms
of only two or three classes of building materials and estimates of areas are
more often inaccurate than correct. Tax values can serve as guides but cannot be
absolute substitutes for just compensation.
To say that the owners are estopped to question the valuations made by
assessors since they had the opportunity to protest is illusory. The
overwhelming mass of landowners accept unquestioningly what is found in the
tax declarations prepared by local assessors or municipal clerks for them. They
do not even look at, much less analyze, the statements. The idea of
expropriation simply never occurs until a demand is made or a case filed by an
agency authorized to do so. (pp. 12-3)

8.2. Fair Market Value? And the standart in determining the fair market
value? What constitutes fair market value?
Fair/Basic/Market Value of the property is the price that may be agreed
upon by parties willing but not compelled to enter into a contract of sale.
Fair market value (FMV) is an estimate of the market value of a property,
based on what a knowledgeable, willing, and unpressured buyer would
probably pay to a knowledgeable, willing, and unpressured seller in
the market.

Factors to be considered in arriving at the fair market value of the property
are: the cost of acquisition, current value of like properties, its actual or
potential uses, and in the particular case of lands, their size, shape or
location, and the tax declaration thereon.

8.3. Supposing the president issues EO determining the price, is this valid?
EPZA v. Dulay:
The method of ascertaining just compensation under the aforecited decrees constitutes
impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives. It tends to render this Court
initial in a matter which under the Constitution is reserved to it for final determination.
Thus, although in an expropriation proceeding the court technically would still have the
power to determine the just compensation for the property, following the applicable
decrees, its task would be relegated to simply stating the lower value of the property as
declared either by the owner or the assessor. As a necessary consequence, it would be
useless for the court to appoint commissioners under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.
Moreover, the need to satisfy the due process clause in the taking of private property is
seemingly fulfilled since it cannot be said that a judicial proceeding was not had before
the actual taking. However, the strict application of the decrees during the proceedings
would be nothing short of a mere formality or charade as the court has only to choose
between the valuation of the owner and that of the assessor, and its choice is always
limited to the lower of the two. The court cannot exercise its discretion or independence
in determining what is just or fair. Even a grade school pupil could substitute for the
judge insofar as the determination of constitutional just compensation is concerned.
8.4. is this undue encroachment on the power the power of the courts in
determining the property?
Yes.

8.5. In Rep v. Castellvi, one of the issues is the period, when is just
compensation determined?
Upon filing of the petition for expropriation proceedings. In case of
noncompliance, at the time of the taking with interest until payment is
given.

8.6. Under the Rules of Court, how may just compensation determined?
Under Rule 67, the court will assign 3 commissioners to determine the
market value of the property subject for expropriation.

8.7. How many commissioners?
3
8.8. Is the findings of the commissioners conclusive upon the courts?

8.9. Courts may disregard findings of the commissioners and substitute
own findings?

8.10. Supposing only part of the property is taken, what other factors may
be used in determining compensation?
Consequential Damages and Consequential Benefits

10.1. What is double taxation?

10.2. is it the same as doubled taxation?
10.3. is double taxation constitutionaly prescribed?
10.4. Under article 6, how is appropriation passed? Jointly or Separately?
10.5. where should the bill originate?
10.6. What is the difference between the enactment of an ordinary bill
and a tax exemption?
10.7. Is the voting requirement the same?
10.8. What is the nature of the Tax Exemption granted under Art. VI sec.
28(3)?
10.9. Religious, charitable, or educational purposes absolutely exempted
as contended in Lladoc?
10.10. In Abra Valley, how did SC explain the word Exclusive?