Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 78 views

    Sangalang Vs IAC

    Uploaded by

    Doris Pepito
    The Mayor of Makati directed the opening of streets in Bel-Air Village to the public. The Bel-Air Village Association claimed this was a deprivation of property rights. The court ruled that the Mayor's actions were valid under the police power of the state, which allows interference with personal liberty or property to promote the common good, such as easing traffic congestion. There was no taking of property. While individual rights are important, they are subject to the demands of the greater number. The village association failed to show the street opening was unjustified.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sangalang Vs IAC

    Uploaded by

    Doris Pepito
    78 views1 page
    The Mayor of Makati directed the opening of streets in Bel-Air Village to the public. The Bel-Air Village Association claimed this was a deprivation of property rights. The court ruled that the Mayor's actions were valid under the police power of the state, which allows interference with personal liberty or property to promote the common good, such as easing traffic congestion. There was no taking of property. While individual rights are important, they are subject to the demands of the greater number. The village association failed to show the street opening was unjustified.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Sangalang vs IAC.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Mayor of Makati directed the opening of streets in Bel-Air Village to the public. The Bel-Air Village Association claimed this was a deprivation of property rights. The court ruled that the Mayor's actions were valid under the police power of the state, which allows interference with personal liberty or property to promote the common good, such as easing traffic congestion. There was no taking of property. While individual rights are important, they are subject to the demands of the greater number. The village association failed to show the street opening was unjustified.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    78 views1 page

    Sangalang Vs IAC

    Uploaded by

    Doris Pepito
    The Mayor of Makati directed the opening of streets in Bel-Air Village to the public. The Bel-Air Village Association claimed this was a deprivation of property rights. The court ruled that the Mayor's actions were valid under the police power of the state, which allows interference with personal liberty or property to promote the common good, such as easing traffic congestion. There was no taking of property. While individual rights are important, they are subject to the demands of the greater number. The village association failed to show the street opening was unjustified.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    SANGALANG vs IMMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT 176 SCRA 719

    FACTS: The Mayor of Makati directed Bel-Air Village Association (BAVA) to opening of several streets
    to the general public. BAVA claim that the demolition of the gates at Orbit and Jupiter Streets amounts
    to deprivation of property without due process of law or expropriation without just compensation.
    ISSUE: Is the act of the Mayor valid?
    HELD: YES, the opening of the streets was warranted by the demands of the common good, in terms
    of traffic decongestion and public convenience.
    There is no merit in BAVA's claims as there is no taking of property involved here. The act of the
    Mayor, now challenged, is in the concept of Police power. Police power is the states authority to enact
    legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare.
    It consists of (1) an imposition of restraint upon liberty or property, (2) in order to foster the common
    good.
    It constitutes an implied limitation on the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights itself does not purport to be
    an absolute guaranty of individual rights and liberties. It is subject to the far more overriding demands
    and requirements of the greater number. (Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Drilon)
    BAVA has failed to show that the opening up of Orbit Street was unjustified, or that the Mayor acted
    unreasonably. The fact that it has led to the loss of privacy of BAVA residents is no argument against
    the Municipality's effort to ease vehicular traffic in Makati. Certainly, the duty of a local executive is to
    take care of the needs of the greater number, in many cases, at the expense of the minority.

    You might also like