a lecture notes

8/9/2019 a Lecture Notes

1/4

Guys,

These are sir trillanas inputs.

Im not sure if this is complete.

God bless to us!

-pinky

ARTICLE III, SECTION 1.

POLICE POWER

Police Power restriction - Due Process

Restraint Life

limitation Liberty Substantive Procedural

regulation Property -legitimate 1) actual and constructive notice

deprivation -purpose/ 2) court/tribunal vested with

jurisdiction

objective 3) right to be heard

4) decision based on evidence

means must reasonably

be related to the accom-

plishment of objective

(goes to the substance

of the law)

purpose and means

NOT OPPRESSIVE

EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS

Treat equally

Classify because of differences


2/4

Classification to be reasonable (People v. Cayat)

1) Substantial distinction/ difference

2) Germane to the purpose of the law

3) Not limited to existing conditions only

4) Must apply to all members of the same class


4 ELEMENTS OF A VALID SEARCH/WARRANT

1) Probable cause

2) To be determined personally b the judge

3) After examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the

witnesses he may produce

4) Particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons orthings to be seized

Without these elements UNREASONABLE


-PROBABLE CAUSE


SEDAO CASErunning reelection:

1. Re: fitness for public office- convicted

Defense: fair a. true

b. opinion of author himself

c. exercise of reasonable care

d. statement is based on reasonable ground

e. not a cloak


3/4

CONTRERAS 2. Official acts/policies

-can attack the official acts- can be foul or fair

-cant attack the public character

3. private character

-not privileged

1st BUSTOS CASE

Once defamatory- presumption in law of malice

Rebut malice show good intention & justifiable motive

Prosecution prove malice in fact

2nd BUSTOS CASE

Prosecutionnot show malice in fact

ARTICLE III, SECTION 9. PRIVATE PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE

WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION.

EXPROPRIATION FOR RESALE

GUIDO CASE 2.2 hectares- NO- large landed estate rule

RPA V. REYES 2.5 hectares- social amelioration rule4 families

BAYLOSIS 67 hectares- went back to Guido rule- large landed estate

rule

JM TUASON CASE went back to social amelioration rule

THE PRESENT RULE

2 ISSUES IN JUDICIAL REVIEW FOR RESALE


4/4

1. If eminent domain= SC has final determination

2. If necessity and public character, have to make a distinction between who made the

statute/law

If municipal SC can review

If legislature Generally: SC can review

Exception: JM Tuason case= it is not for the judiciary to decide whether

taking is for public use

EMINENT DOMAIN POLICE POWERTaking Regulation

Deprivation with Just Compensation required Deprivation with no compensation requiredDestruction with utilization for public use No utilization for public use

EXPROPRIATION OF MUNICIPAL PROPERTY

Municipal Corporation governmental or public capacity

Patrimonial, proprietary or corporate capacity

GOVERNMENTAL PATRIMONIALIf freely accessible topublic(City of Baguio v.NAWASA)

YES NO, pay just compensationyou take it.

Purpose

(Zamboanga del NorteCase)

Can be devoted to any other use

without just compensation

Cannot be devoted to other use

without just compensation

If lengua Communal/Communal lands of a town(Salas case)

Regardless of use, provided that it is not paid out by the corporate

private funds no compensation=can use it to any other purpse

a lecture notes

Documents