Lawyerly

GR No. 175368

2013-04-11

LEAGUE OF PROVINCES OF PHILIPPINES v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT

PERALTA, J.

In determining whether Section 17 (b)(3)(iii) of the Local Government Code of 1991 and Section 24 of R.A. No. 7076 are unconstitutional, the Court has been guided by Beltran v. The Secretary of Health,[54] which held: The fundamental criterion is that all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of a statute. Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. For a law to be nullified, it must be shown that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. The ground for nullity must be clear and beyond reasonable doubt. Those who petition this Court to declare a law, or parts thereof, unconstitutional must clearly establish the basis therefor. Otherwise, the petition must fail.[55]

GR No. 195540

2013-03-13

GOLDENWAY MERCHANDISING CORPORATION v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

When confronted with a constitutional question, it is elementary that every court must approach it with grave care and considerable caution bearing in mind that every statute is presumed valid and every reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of its constitutionality.[17] For a law to be nullified, it must be shown that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. The ground for nullity must be clear and beyond reasonable doubt.[18] Indeed, those who petition this Court to declare a law, or parts thereof, unconstitutional must clearly establish the basis therefor. Otherwise, the petition must fail.[19]

GR No. 195540

2013-03-13

GOLDENWAY MERCHANDISING CORPORATION v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The freedom to contract is not absolute; all contracts and all rights are subject to the police power of the State and not only may regulations which affect them be established by the State, but all such regulations must be subject to change from time to time, as the general well-being of the community may require, or as the circumstances may change, or as experience may demonstrate the necessity.[32] Settled is the rule that the non- impairment clause of the Constitution must yield to the loftier purposes targeted by the Government. The right granted by this provision must submit to the demands and necessities of the State's power of regulation.[33]

GR No. 198554

2012-07-30

MAJOR GENERAL CARLOS F. GARCIA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

PERALTA, J.

Nevertheless, the application of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code in the Articles of War is in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause of the 1987 Constitution. According to a long line of decisions, equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.[37] It requires public bodies and institutions to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner.[38] The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every person within a state's jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through the state's duly-constituted authorities.[39] In other words, the concept of equal justice under the law requires the state to govern impartially, and it may not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.[40] It, however, does not require the universal application of the laws to all persons or things without distinction. What it simply requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. Indeed, the equal protection clause permits classification. Such classification, however, to be valid must pass the test of reasonableness. The test has four requisites: (1) the classification rests on substantial distinctions; (2) it is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) it is not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) it applies equally to all members of the same class.[41] "Superficial differences do not make for a valid classification."[42] In the present case, petitioner belongs to the class of those who have been convicted by any court, thus, he is entitled to the rights accorded to them. Clearly, there is no substantial distinction between those who are convicted of offenses which are criminal in nature under military courts and the civil courts. Furthermore, following the same reasoning, petitioner is also entitled to the basic and time-honored principle that penal statutes are construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.[43] It must be remembered that the provisions of the Articles of War which the petitioner violated are penal in nature.

GR No. 177508

2009-08-07

BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT v. COMELEC

CARPIO, J.

In Beltran v. Secretary of Health,[40] we said: Furthermore, the freedom to contract is not absolute; all contracts and all rights are subject to the police power of the State and not only may regulations which affect them be established by the State, but all such regulations must be subject to change from time to time, as the general well-being of the community may require, or as the circumstances may change, or as experience may demonstrate the necessity.[41] (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 175352

2009-07-15

DANTE V. LIBAN v. RICHARD J. GORDON

CARPIO, J.

Just like the Local Water Districts, the PNRC was created through a special charter. However, unlike the Local Water Districts, the elements of government ownership and control are clearly lacking in the PNRC. Thus, although the PNRC is created by a special charter, it cannot be considered a government-owned or controlled corporation in the absence of the essential elements of ownership and control by the government. In creating the PNRC as a corporate entity, Congress was in fact creating a private corporation. However, the constitutional prohibition against the creation of private corporations by special charters provides no exception even for non-profit or charitable corporations. Consequently, the PNRC Charter, insofar as it creates the PNRC as a private corporation and grants it corporate powers,[27] is void for being unconstitutional. Thus, Sections 1,[28] 2,[29] 3,[30] 4(a),[31] 5,[32] 6,[33] 7,[34] 8,[35] 9,[36] 10,[37] 11,[38] 12,[39] and 13[40] of the PNRC Charter, as amended, are void.

GR NO. 166052

2007-08-29

ANAK MINDANAO PARTY-LIST GROUP v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

CARPIO MORALES, J.

A law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. For it to be nullified, it must be shown that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. The ground for nullity must be clear and beyond reasonable doubt.[52] Any reasonable doubt should, following the universal rule of legal hermeneutics, be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of a law.[53]

GR No. 162224

2007-06-07

2ND LT. SALVADOR PARREÑO v. COA

CARPIO, J.

The constitutional right to equal protection of the laws is not absolute but is subject to reasonable classification.[18] To be reasonable, the classification (a) must be based on substantial distinctions which make real differences; (b) must be germane to the purpose of the law; (c) must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (d) must apply equally to each member of the class.[19]

GR No. 141010

2007-02-07

UNITED BF HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATIONS v. CITY MAYOR

CARPIO, J.

The Court has upheld in several cases the superiority of police power over the non-impairment clause.[28] The constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of contracts is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety, morals and general welfare.[29]

GR NO. 152214

2006-09-19

EQUI-ASIA PLACEMENT v. DFA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It is now well-settled that delegation of legislative power to various specialized administrative agencies is allowed in the face of increasing complexity of modern life. Given the volume and variety of interactions involving the members of today's society, it is doubtful if the legislature can promulgate laws dealing with the minutiae aspects of everyday life. Hence, the need to delegate to administrative bodies, as the principal agencies tasked to execute laws with respect to their specialized fields, the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given statute and effectuate its policies.[15] All that is required for the valid exercise of this power of subordinate legislation is that the regulation must be germane to the objects and purposes of the law; and that the regulation be not in contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by the law.[16] Under the first test or the so-called completeness test, the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate, the only thing he will have to do is to enforce it.[17] The second test or the sufficient standard test, mandates that there should be adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to determine the boundaries of the delegate's authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.[18]

	GR No. 175368 2013-04-11	LEAGUE OF PROVINCES OF PHILIPPINES v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT PERALTA, J.
In determining whether Section 17 (b)(3)(iii) of the Local Government Code of 1991 and Section 24 of R.A. No. 7076 are unconstitutional, the Court has been guided by Beltran v. The Secretary of Health,[54] which held: The fundamental criterion is that all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of a statute. Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. For a law to be nullified, it must be shown that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. The ground for nullity must be clear and beyond reasonable doubt. Those who petition this Court to declare a law, or parts thereof, unconstitutional must clearly establish the basis therefor. Otherwise, the petition must fail.[55]
	GR No. 195540 2013-03-13	GOLDENWAY MERCHANDISING CORPORATION v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK VILLARAMA, JR., J.
When confronted with a constitutional question, it is elementary that every court must approach it with grave care and considerable caution bearing in mind that every statute is presumed valid and every reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of its constitutionality.[17] For a law to be nullified, it must be shown that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. The ground for nullity must be clear and beyond reasonable doubt.[18] Indeed, those who petition this Court to declare a law, or parts thereof, unconstitutional must clearly establish the basis therefor. Otherwise, the petition must fail.[19]
	GR No. 195540 2013-03-13	GOLDENWAY MERCHANDISING CORPORATION v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The freedom to contract is not absolute; all contracts and all rights are subject to the police power of the State and not only may regulations which affect them be established by the State, but all such regulations must be subject to change from time to time, as the general well-being of the community may require, or as the circumstances may change, or as experience may demonstrate the necessity.[32] Settled is the rule that the non- impairment clause of the Constitution must yield to the loftier purposes targeted by the Government. The right granted by this provision must submit to the demands and necessities of the State's power of regulation.[33]
	GR No. 198554 2012-07-30	MAJOR GENERAL CARLOS F. GARCIA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PERALTA, J.
Nevertheless, the application of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code in the Articles of War is in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause of the 1987 Constitution. According to a long line of decisions, equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.[37] It requires public bodies and institutions to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner.[38] The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every person within a state's jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through the state's duly-constituted authorities.[39] In other words, the concept of equal justice under the law requires the state to govern impartially, and it may not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.[40] It, however, does not require the universal application of the laws to all persons or things without distinction. What it simply requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. Indeed, the equal protection clause permits classification. Such classification, however, to be valid must pass the test of reasonableness. The test has four requisites: (1) the classification rests on substantial distinctions; (2) it is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) it is not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) it applies equally to all members of the same class.[41] "Superficial differences do not make for a valid classification."[42] In the present case, petitioner belongs to the class of those who have been convicted by any court, thus, he is entitled to the rights accorded to them. Clearly, there is no substantial distinction between those who are convicted of offenses which are criminal in nature under military courts and the civil courts. Furthermore, following the same reasoning, petitioner is also entitled to the basic and time-honored principle that penal statutes are construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.[43] It must be remembered that the provisions of the Articles of War which the petitioner violated are penal in nature.
	GR No. 177508 2009-08-07	BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
In Beltran v. Secretary of Health,[40] we said: Furthermore, the freedom to contract is not absolute; all contracts and all rights are subject to the police power of the State and not only may regulations which affect them be established by the State, but all such regulations must be subject to change from time to time, as the general well-being of the community may require, or as the circumstances may change, or as experience may demonstrate the necessity.[41] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 175352 2009-07-15	DANTE V. LIBAN v. RICHARD J. GORDON CARPIO, J.
Just like the Local Water Districts, the PNRC was created through a special charter. However, unlike the Local Water Districts, the elements of government ownership and control are clearly lacking in the PNRC. Thus, although the PNRC is created by a special charter, it cannot be considered a government-owned or controlled corporation in the absence of the essential elements of ownership and control by the government. In creating the PNRC as a corporate entity, Congress was in fact creating a private corporation. However, the constitutional prohibition against the creation of private corporations by special charters provides no exception even for non-profit or charitable corporations. Consequently, the PNRC Charter, insofar as it creates the PNRC as a private corporation and grants it corporate powers,[27] is void for being unconstitutional. Thus, Sections 1,[28] 2,[29] 3,[30] 4(a),[31] 5,[32] 6,[33] 7,[34] 8,[35] 9,[36] 10,[37] 11,[38] 12,[39] and 13[40] of the PNRC Charter, as amended, are void.
	GR NO. 166052 2007-08-29	ANAK MINDANAO PARTY-LIST GROUP v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY CARPIO MORALES, J.
A law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. For it to be nullified, it must be shown that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. The ground for nullity must be clear and beyond reasonable doubt.[52] Any reasonable doubt should, following the universal rule of legal hermeneutics, be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of a law.[53]
	GR No. 162224 2007-06-07	2ND LT. SALVADOR PARREÑO v. COA CARPIO, J.
The constitutional right to equal protection of the laws is not absolute but is subject to reasonable classification.[18] To be reasonable, the classification (a) must be based on substantial distinctions which make real differences; (b) must be germane to the purpose of the law; (c) must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (d) must apply equally to each member of the class.[19]
	GR No. 141010 2007-02-07	UNITED BF HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATIONS v. CITY MAYOR CARPIO, J.
The Court has upheld in several cases the superiority of police power over the non-impairment clause.[28] The constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of contracts is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety, morals and general welfare.[29]
	GR NO. 152214 2006-09-19	EQUI-ASIA PLACEMENT v. DFA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is now well-settled that delegation of legislative power to various specialized administrative agencies is allowed in the face of increasing complexity of modern life. Given the volume and variety of interactions involving the members of today's society, it is doubtful if the legislature can promulgate laws dealing with the minutiae aspects of everyday life. Hence, the need to delegate to administrative bodies, as the principal agencies tasked to execute laws with respect to their specialized fields, the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given statute and effectuate its policies.[15] All that is required for the valid exercise of this power of subordinate legislation is that the regulation must be germane to the objects and purposes of the law; and that the regulation be not in contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by the law.[16] Under the first test or the so-called completeness test, the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate, the only thing he will have to do is to enforce it.[17] The second test or the sufficient standard test, mandates that there should be adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to determine the boundaries of the delegate's authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.[18]

RODOLFO S. BELTRAN v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH