SORTING OUT

Relevant Facts
• You are faced with the following problem in
the Exams.
– Sec. 10 of Ordinance No. 105 of Tagaytay City provides
that at least 5% of the total area of any memorial park
established within its jurisdiction shall be set aside for
charity burial of its pauper residents and that no permit
to establish, operate, and maintain a private memorial
park shall be granted without the applicant’s
conformity , or agreeing to such condition. The city
argues that it is within its powers to pass said
ordinance; that the ordinance is a valid exercise of
police power; and that the portion taken is for public
use, the same being intended for paupers pursuant to
its duty to provide for the health and safety of its
inhabitants.
– Discuss the constitutionality of the ordinance.
• The first sentence of the problem required 63
words to convey the facts. Most of the word
are unneeded. By deleting unnecessary
words, we can pare down the sentence to 26
words.
– Sec. 10 of Ordinance No. 105 of Tagaytay City
provides that at least 5% of the total area of any
memorial park established within its jurisdiction
shall be set aside for charity burial of its pauper
residents and that no permit to establish, operate,
and maintain a private memorial park shall be
granted without the applicant’s conformity , or
agreeing to such condition.
 Ordinance provides that at least 5% of any
memorial park shall be set aside for charity
burial. No permit to operate shall be
granted without the applicant’s conformity.
So the problem becomes:
Ordinance provides that at least 5%
of any memorial park shall be set aside for
charity burial. No permit to operate shall
be granted without the applicant’s
conformity.
Is it constitutional?
• Then you go to the next sentence which lays
out the arguments of the city in support of its
position.

• Obviously, the answer to the question will

center around demolishing the arguments of
the proponent.
The proponent’s arguments:
1) that it is within its powers to pass said
ordinance;
2) that the ordinance is a valid exercise of
police power; and
3) that the portion taken is for public use, the
same being intended for paupers pursuant to
its duty to provide for the health and safety of
its inhabitants.
Analysis of the arguments:
1) that it is within its powers to pass said
ordinance; <is the same as>
2) that the ordinance is a valid exercise of
police power;

Both arguments are basically the same.

Analysis of the arguments:
3) that the portion taken is for public use.

(the same being intended for paupers

pursuant to its duty to provide for the health
and safety of its inhabitants.) superfluous.

This argument states that the ordinance

“takes” for “public use”.
So a final statement of proponent’s arguments:
1) Valid exercise of police powers.
2) Property taken for public use.

What defenses come to mind?

Of course you MUST take the position that it is not
a valid exercise of police power. Then provide
your arguments. Such as
The city already has public cemeteries.
Ordinance is in reality ‘expropriation’.
If ‘expropriation’, public necessity is a MUST.
If ‘expropriation’, compensation is a MUST.
If city is resorting to expropriation, then why won’t
the city take land adjoining public cemetery? Or
put up new public cemetery?
 END

Based on examples in
Fundamentals of Legal Writing
by Justice Roberto Abad