1. CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW I

2. DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT
• CASE: LEAGUE OF CITIES vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.
176951, November 18, 2008
“xxx Under the operative fact doctrine, the law is
recognized as unconstitutional but the effects of the
unconstitutional law, prior to its declaration of nullity, may
be left undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair play. In
fact, the invocation of the operative fact doctrine is an
admission that the law is unconstitutional. The operative
fact doctrine is a rule of equity. As such, it must be applied
as an exception to the general rule that an
unconstitutional law produces no effects.”

3. o During the 11th Congress, 57 bills seeking the conversion of municipalities into component cities
were filed before the House of Representatives. However, Congress acted only on 33 bills. It did
not act on bills converting 24 other municipalities into cities.
o During the 12th Congress, R.A. No. 9009 became effective revising Section 450 of the Local
Government Code. It increased the income requirement to qualify for conversion into a city from
20million php annual income to 100million php locally-generated income.
o In the 13th Congress, 16 of 24 municipalities filed, through their respective sponsors, individual
cityhood bills.
o Each of the cityhood bills contained a common provision exempting the particular municipality
from the 100million income requirement imposed by R.A. No. 9009.
o On 22 December 2006, the House of Representatives approved the cityhood bills. The Senate also
approved the cityhood bills in February 2007, except that of Naga, Cebu which was passed on 7
June 2007. The cityhood bills lapsed into law (Cityhood Laws) on various dates from March to July
2007 without the President’s signature.
o The Cityhood Laws direct the COMELEC to hold plebiscites to determine whether the voters in
each respondent municipality approve of the conversion of their municipality into a city.
o Petitioners filed the present petitions to declare the Cityhood Laws unconstitutional for violation
of Section 10, Article X of the Constitution, as well as for violation of the equal protection clause.
Petitioners also lament that the wholesale conversion of municipalities into cities will reduce the
share of existing cities in the Internal Revenue Allotment because more cities will share the same
amount of internal revenue set aside for all cities under Section 285 of the Local Government
Code.

4. ISSUE: Whether the Cityhood Laws violate the Constitution.
RULING: YES. The Constitution is clear. The creation of local government
units must follow the criteria established in the Local Government Code and
not in any other law. The clear intent of the Constitution is to insure that the
creation of cities and other political units must follow the same uniform, non-
discriminatory criteria found solely in the Local Government Code.
RA 9009 amended Section 450 of the Local Government Code to increase the
income requirement from P20 million toP100 million for the creation of a city.
In enacting RA 9009, Congress did not grant any exemption to respondent
municipalities, even though their cityhood bills were pending in Congress
when Congress passed RA 9009. The Cityhood Laws, all enacted after the
effectivity of RA 9009, explicitly exempt respondent municipalities from the
increased income requirement in Section 450 of the Local Government Code,
as amended by RA 9009. Such exemption clearly violates Section 10, Article X
of the Constitution and is thus patently unconstitutional.

5. WHERE DOES THE DOCTRINE OF
OPERATIVE FACT COME IN?
• The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will
impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law. The
operative fact doctrine never validates or constitutionalizes an
unconstitutional law. Under the operative fact doctrine, the unconstitutional
law remains unconstitutional, but the effects of the unconstitutional law,
prior to its judicial declaration of nullity, may be left undisturbed as a matter
of equity and fair play. In short, the operative fact doctrine affects or
modifies only the effects of the unconstitutional law, not the unconstitutional
law itself.
• Thus, applying the operative fact doctrine to the present case, the Cityhood
Laws remain unconstitutional because they violate Section 10, Article X of
the Constitution. However, the effects of the implementation of the Cityhood
Laws prior to the declaration of their nullity, such as the payment of salaries
and supplies by the "new cities" or their issuance of licenses or execution of
contracts, may be recognized as valid and effective. This does not mean that
the Cityhood Laws are valid for they remain void.

6. POLITICAL QUESTIONS
DOCTRINE
• CASE: Tañada v. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-10520, February 28, 1957
“xxx It is well-settled doctrine that political questions are not within the province of
the judiciary, except to the extent that power to deal with such questions has been
conferred upon the courts by express constitutional or statutory provisions. It is not
easy, however, to define the phrase `political question', nor to determine what
matters, fall within its scope. It is frequently used to designate all questions that lie
outside the scope of the judicial questions, which under the constitution, are to be
decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of
the government." In short, the term "political question" connotes, in legal parlance,
what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. In other words, it
refers to "those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the
people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority
has been delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the Government." It is
concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular
measure.”

7. FACTS: After the 1955 national elections, the membership in the Senate was
overwhelmingly occupied by the Nacionalista Party. The lone opposition
senator was Lorenzo Tañada who belonged to the Citizen’s Party. Diosdado
Macapagal on the other hand was a senatorial candidate who lost the bid but
was contesting it before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET). But prior to a
decision, the SET would have to choose its members. It is provided that the
SET should be composed of 9 members comprised of the following: 3 justices
of the Supreme Court, 3 senators from the majority party and 3 senators
from the minority party. But since there is only one minority senator the
other two SET members supposed to come from the minority were filled in
by the NP. Tañada assailed this process before the Supreme Court. So did
Macapagal because he deemed that if the SET would be dominated by NP
senators then he, as a member of the Liberalista Party will not have any
chance in his election contest. Senator Mariano Cuenco et al (members of the
NP) averred that the Supreme Court cannot take cognizance of the issue
because it is a political question. Cuenco argued that the power to choose the
members of the SET is vested in the Senate alone and the remedy for
Tañada and Macapagal was not to raise the issue before judicial courts but
rather to leave it before the bar of public opinion.

8. ISSUE: Whether or not the issue is a political question.
RULING: No. The Supreme Court took cognizance of the case and ruled that the
issue is a justiciable question. The term Political Question connotes what it means
in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. It refers to those questions
which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign
capacity; or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to
the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is concerned with issues
dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.
In this case, the issue at bar is not a political question. The Supreme Court is not
being asked by Tañada to decide upon the official acts of Senate. The issue being
raised by Tañada was whether or not the elections of the 5 NP members to the
SET are valid – which is a judicial question. Note that the SET is a separate and
independent body from the Senate which does not perform legislative acts..

9. INHERENT
POWERS OF THE
STATE
• POLICE POWER
• EMINENT DOMAIN
• TAXATION

10. INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE
• Inherent in the State
• Necessary and indispensable
• Methods by which State interferes with private property
• Presupposes equivalent compensation
• Exercised primarily by Legislature

11. POLICE POWER
• The power of promoting public welfare by restraining and regulating
the use and enjoyment of liberty and property.
• Limitations:
 Lawful Subject
 Lawful Means
 Other additional limitations.
• Who may exercise the power?
 Vested in the Legislature. However, Congress may validly delegate the
power to the President, to administrative bodies and to lawmaking bodies
of the local government unit.

12. INHERENT POWERS OF GOVERNMENT
A. POLICE POWER
• CASE: MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association Inc., G.R. No. 135962, March 27, 2000
“xxx Police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It has been defined as the
power vested by the Constitution in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all
manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either with
penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge to be for
the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same. The
power is plenary, and its scope is vast and pervasive, reaching and justifying measures
for public health, public safety, public morals, and the general welfare. It bears
stressing that police power is lodged primarily in the National Legislature. It cannot be
exercised by any group or body of individuals not possessing legislative power. The
National Legislature, however, may delegate this power to the President and
administrative boards as well as the lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or
local government units. Once delegated, the agents can exercise only such legislative
powers as are conferred on them by the national lawmaking body.”

13. Facts: Bel-Air Village Association (BAVA), respondent, received a letter of request
from MMDA (petitioner) to open Neptune Street of Bel-Air Village for the use of the
public. The said opening of Neptune Street will be for the safe and convenient
movement of persons and to regulate the flow of traffic in Makati City.
Respondent prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction enjoining the opening of Neptune Street and prohibiting the
demolition of the perimeter wall. The court denied the issuance of the of a
preliminary injunction which the respondent questioned. the appellate court
rendered a Decision on the merits of the case finding that the MMDA has no
authority to order the opening of Neptune Street, a private subdivision road and
cause the demolition of its perimeter walls.
Issue: Whether or not the MMDA has the mandate to open Neptune Street to public
traffic pursuant to its regulatory and police powers.
Ruling: No. Not being a political subdivision but merely an executive authority it
has no police power. Police Powers In Metro Manila is exercised by cities and
Municipalities. Police power is primarily lodged in the National Legislature.
However, police power may be delegated to government units. Petitioner herein is
a development authority and not a political government unit. Therefore, the MMDA
cannot exercise police power because it cannot be delegated to them.