CONSTI 2 |Eminent Domain

CITY GOV’T OF QC & CITY COUNCIL OF QC V. HON. ERICTA; HIMLAYANG PILIPINO, INC.
G.R. No. L-34915 June 24, 1983

FACTS Is Section 9 of the ordinance in question a valid exercise

Hon. Vicente G. Ericta- Judge of the CFI of Rizal, QC, Br of the police power?
XVIII RULING
Sec 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64 (**not enforced for several NO .
years)

At least 6% of the total area of the memorial park cemetery Sec 9 cannot be justified under the power granted to QC
shall be set aside for CHARITY BURIAL of deceased persons who to tax, fix the license fee, and regulate such other
are PAUPERS and have been RESIDENTS OF QUEZON CITY FOR business, trades, and occupation as may be established or
AT LEAST 5 YEARS prior to their death, to be determined by practiced in the City.
competent City Authorities. The area so designated shall
immediately be developed & should be open for operation not The power to regulate does not include the power to
later than 6 months from the date of approval of the prohibit. (People vs. Esguerra, 81 PhiL 33, Vega vs. Municipal Board
application. of Iloilo, L-6765, May 12, 1954; 39 N.J. Law, 70, Mich. 396) The

After 7 years, QC City council passed a resolution: power to regulate does not include the power to
confiscate. The ordinance in question not only confiscates
“...to STOP any further selling and/or transaction of
but also prohibits the operation of a memorial park
memorial park lots in QC where the owners thereof have
cemetery. (As mentioned in Sec 13 of said Ordinance)
failed to donate the required 6% space”

HP The police power of Quezon City is defined in sub-section

 Filed w/ CFI petition seeking to annul Sec 9 00, Sec. 12, Rep. Act 537 which reads as follows:
 Alleged that ordinance is contrary to the Constitution, (00) To make such further ordinance and regulations not repugnant
to law as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the
the QC Charter, the Local Autonomy Act, & the powers and duties conferred by this act and such as it shall deem
Revised Admin Code necessary and proper to provide for the health and safety,
promote, the prosperity, improve the morals, peace, good order,
Hon. Ericta comfort and convenience of the city and the inhabitants thereof,
 declared Sec 9 of Ord No. 6118, S-64 null and void and for the protection of property therein; and enforce obedience
thereto with such lawful fines or penalties as the City Council may
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS: prescribe under the provisions of subsection (jj) of this section.
 The taking of the respondent's property is a valid and
reasonable exercise of police power and that the land BILL OF RIGHTS
is taken for a public use as it is intended for the burial 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
ground of paupers.” without due process of law' (Art. Ill, Section 1 subpar 1,
 “QC Council is authorized under its charter, in the Constitution)
exercise of local police power to make such further
ordinances and resolutions” It seems to the court that Section 9 of Ordinance No.
6118, Series of 1964 of Quezon City is not a mere police
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS: regulation but an outright confiscation. It deprives a
person of his private property without due process of law,
 “taking or confiscation of property is obvious bc it
nay, even without compensation.
permanently restricts the use of the property such
that it cannot be used for any reasonable purpose and
(**Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association
deprives the owner of all beneficial use of property”
Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila (20 SCRA 849) case
 “general welfare clause is not available as a source of
mentioned)
power for the taking of the property in this case
because it refers to the power of promoting the public
The petitioners rely solely on the general welfare clause
welfare by restraining and regulating the use of
or on implied powers of the municipal corporation, not on
liberty and property."
any express provision of law as statutory basis of their
 “property is urgently and summarily destroyed in
exercise of power. The clause has always received broad
order to promote the general welfare”
and liberal interpretation but we cannot stretch it to
cover this particular taking. Moreover, the questioned
ISSUE
 CONSTI 2 |Eminent Domain

ordinance was passed after Himlayang Pilipino, Inc. had

incorporated.

The decision of the CFI is affirmed.

 CONSTI 2 |Eminent Domain

MANILA MEMORIAL PARK, INC. AND LA FUNERARIA PAZ-SUCAT, INC., v. SEC OF THE DSWD & THE SEC OF THE DOF
FACTS  It violates Article XV, Section 421 and Article XIII,
RA 7432 (April 23, 1992) was passed into law, granting Section 1122 of the Constitution because it shifts the
senior citizens the following privileges: [SEC 4] State’s constitutional mandate or duty of improving
a) 20% discount for transpo, hotels, restaurants & recreation centers and the welfare of the elderly to the private sector
purchase of medicine
b) 20% discount on admission fees charged by cinema houses & other similar
places of culture, leisure, and amusement; RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS:
c) exemption from the payment of individual income taxes
d) exemption from training fees for socioeconomic programs undertaken by the
 question the filing of the instant Petition directly with
OSCA apart of its work; the Supreme Court as this disregards the hierarchy of
e) free medical and dental services in govt establishments courts
f) continuance of the same benefits and privileges given by GSIS, SSS and PAG-
IBIG  contend that petitioners failed to overturn its
presumption of constitutionality
Under the original law RA 7492, the obligation was carried
 no justiciable controversy (Accdg to court, this is wrong.
solely by the govt. There exist an actual case.)
20% discount = “tax credit” in w/c restaurants,  respondents maintain that the tax deduction scheme
drugstores, funeral parlors, etc. were allowed to deduct is a legitimate exercise of the State’s police power
from their taxes.
ISSUE
RA 9257 (Feb. 26, 2004) – new law that amended certain Whether Sec 4 of RA no. 9257 and its implementing rules and
provisions of RA 7432 regulations, insofar as they provide that the 20% discount to
Under the new law, 20% discount = merely a “tax deduction”. It senior citizens may be claimed as a tax deduction by the private
means that the sellers could only deduct the amount of the establishments, are invalid and unconstitutional
discount from their “gross income from the same taxable year RULING
that the discount is granted.”
The Petition lacks merit.
Thus, the sellers were allowed to deduct the discounted sum from
their taxable income, for which they no longer paid the 32-percent  The validity of the 20% senior citizen discount and tax
corporate income tax. Stripped of legalese, the sellers bore 68 percent deduction scheme under RA 9257, as an exercise of
of the discount, and the government, 32 percent.
police power of the State, has already been settled in
Carlos Superdrug Corp.
PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENTS:
 20% discount as well as the tax deduction scheme is a
 not questioning the 20% discount but are only
valid exercise of the POLICE POWER OF THE STATE.
assailing the constitutionality of the tax deduction
 No compelling reason has been proffered to overturn,
scheme
modify or abandon the ruling in Carlos Superdrug
 tax deduction scheme contravenes Article III, Section
Corporation.
9 of the Constitution, w/c provides that: "private
“Petitioners’ arguments are a mere reiteration of those
property shall not be taken for public use without just
raised and resolved in Carlos Superdrug Corp. Thus, we
compensation." sustain Carlos Superdrug Corp.”
 petitioners cite Central Luzon Drug Corporation,
where it was ruled that the 20% discount privilege Police power versus eminent domain
constitutes taking of private property for public use
which requires the payment of just compensation, PP- the inherent power of the State to regulate or to restrain
and Carlos Superdrug Corporation v. DSWD, where it the use of liberty & property for public welfare.
was acknowledged that the tax deduction scheme The only limitation is that the restriction imposed should be
reasonable, not oppressive.
does not meet the definition of just compensation.
-no compensable taking, hence, payment of just compensation
 seek a reversal of the ruling in Carlos Superdrug is not required
Corporation that the tax deduction scheme adopted The State "may interfere with personal liberty, property, lawful
by the government is justified by police power businesses and occupations to promote the general welfare as
 They assert that "although both police power and the long as the interference is reasonable and not arbitrary."
power of eminent domain have the general welfare
ED- inherent power of the State to take or appropriate private
for their object, there are still traditional distinctions
property for public use. (there should be just compensation)
between the two" and that "eminent domain cannot
- acquisition of title or total destruction of the property is
be made less supreme than police power."
not essential for "taking"