Police Power
Resolution No. 60 is a Burial Assistance Program for poor families (gross family
income <P2000 a month) and receive 500 cash relief from the Municipality of Makati.
Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay contend that the intendent disbursments fall within the
twin principles of police power and parens patriae.
The CoA said that it sees no perceptible connection or relation between the
objectives sought to be attained and the alleged public safety, general welfare, etc. of
the inhabitants of Makati.
ISSUES
WoN Resolution No. 60, re-enacted under Resolution No. 243, of the
Municipality of Makati is a valid exercise of police power under the general
welfare clause?
RATIO
YES Resolution No. 60, re-enacted under Resolution 243 is a paragon the
continuing program of our government towards social justice.
o The care for the poor is generally recognized as a public duty
o The support for the poor has long been an accepted exercise of
police power.
o No violation of equal protection clause
Police power
a governmental function, an inherent attribute of sovereignty, which was
born with civilized government.
Founded largely on the maxims,
o Sic utere tuo et ahenum non laedas- So use your own as not to
injure another's property
o Salus populi est suprema lex- The safety of the people is the
supreme law
Its fundamental purpose is securing the general welfare, comfort and
convenience of the people.
US vs Pomeya
o
Ichong vs Hernandez
Police Power
so far - reaching in scope, that it has become almost impossible to limit its
sweep.
It derives its existence from the very existence of the State itself, it does
not need to be expressed or defined in its scope; it is said to be coextensive with self-protection and survival,
o most positive and active of all governmental processes
o most essential, insistent and illimitable
we cannot foresee the needs and demands of public interest and welfare
in this constantly changing and progressive world,
o so we cannot delimit beforehand the extent or scope of police
power by which and through which the State seeks to attain or
achieve interest or welfare.
o So it is that Constitutions do not define the scope or extent of
the police power of the State; what they do is to set forth the
limitations thereof.
most important of these are the due process clause and
the equal protection clause.
Equal Protection
The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and
individual or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or the
oppression of inequality.
It is not intended to prohibit legislation, which is limited either in the
object to which it is directed or by territory within which is to operate.
It does not demand absolute equality among residents; it merely requires
that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and
conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.
Due Process
The due process clause has to do with the reasonableness of legislation
enacted in pursuance of the police power.
o Is there public interest, a public purpose; is public welfare
involved?
DOCTRINE
Equal protection is against undue favor and individual or class privilege, as
well as hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality
Equal protection does not demand absolute equality among residents; it
merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like
circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities
enforced
The equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation which applies
only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to all
persons within such class, and reasonable grounds exist for making a
distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not.
FACTS
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
2.
2.
The 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Safety and the
United Nations Organization recommended the enactment of
legislation for the installation of road safety signs and devices.
The Philippines ratified said convention through PD No. 207.
It was amended by Letter of Instruction No. 479 which allows owners of motor
vehicles to procure from any source as long as it fits the specifications provided by
the Land Transportation Commission.
Respondent Edu, Land Transportation Commissioner, issued Memorandum
Circular No. 2 which provides for the implementation of LOI 229 as amended,
Petitioner, an owner of a Volkswagen Beetle Car Model 13035, already
equipped when it came out from the assembly lines with blinking lights which
could well serve as early warning device, assailed LOI 229 and Memorandum
Circular No. 2 and filed a petition for prohibition with a writ of prohibitory and/or
mandatory injunction on the following grounds:
1. LOI 229 violates provision and delegation of police power because it is
oppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary, confiscatory and therefore
unconstitutional.
2. It will make manufacturers and dealers of early warning device (EWD)
instant millionaires. Owners of motor vehicles can provide practical
substitutes to the required EWD.
ISSUE
RATIO
and
WON LOI 229 and Memorandum Circular No. 2 exceed the proper exercise
of states police power
No. Police power is the states authority to enact legislation that may
interfere with the personal liberty and property in order to promote
general welfare (Calalang v. Williams). It is the power to prescribe
regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order
or safety and general welfare of the public (Primicias v. Furgoso).
The particular police power that was being challenged was clearly
intended to promote public safety. The president presented the
necessary statistics to back his claim of the need to issue LOI 229.
It is also not true that LOI 229 as amended forces owners of motor vehicles
to purchase EWD. In fact, with a little of industry and practical ingenuity,
motor vehicle owners can even personally make or produce this EWD as
long as the same substantially conforms with the specifications laid down
in LOI 229.
The alleged infringement of fundamental principle of non-delegation of
legislative power is equally without any support from well-settled legal
doctrines. To avoid any taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a
standard, which implies at the very least that the legislative itself
determines and lays down the fundamental policy. LOI 229 contains such
standard which the Land Transportation Commission followed in the
issuance of Memorandum Circular No. 2.
*Finally, The declaration of Principles in the Constitution provides:
The Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land. The 1968 Vienna
Convention on Road Signs and Signals is impressed with such character.
Since we ratified it, we have to abide by its provisions.
People vs Siton
2. Power of Taxation
Mactan Cebu
PBCOM
Commissioner v Court of Appeals
Gerochi v Department of Energy
3. Eminent Domain
Eslaban vs. De Onorio
CASE IN BRIEF
Petitioner ISA created by PD No. 272 in order, generally, to develop and
promote the iron and steel industry.
Initial term of 5 years and extended for 10 more years to expire in Aug 11,
1988.
In 1983, ISA commenced eminent domain proceedings against private
respondent Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corporation (MCFC).
While trial was ongoing, ISA would expire and MCFC filed a motion to
dismiss the case contending that no valid judgement could be rendered
against ISA which had ceased to be a judicial person.
SC held that RP can substitute for petitioner ISA.
o ISA is a non-incorporated agency or instrumentality of the
Republic, its powers, duties and functions, assets and liabilities
are properly regarded as folded back into the Government and
hence assumed once again by the Republic, no special statutory
provision having been shown to have mandated succession
thereto by some other entity or agency of the Republic.
FACTS
ISSUE
WON the Republic of the Philippines is entitled to be substituted for ISA in view of
the expiration of ISA's term?
RATIO
YES. Allowed the substitution of the Republic of the Philippines for
petitioner Iron and Steel Authority and for further proceedings
Who may be parties?
o Rule 3, Section 1 of the Rules of Court
Who May Be Parties:
(a) Only natural or juridical persons
(b) Entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action
ISA is (b) and also under PD No. 272 contains express authorization to ISA to
commence expropriation proceedings.
Clearly, ISA was vested with some of the powers or attributed normally
associated with juridical personality. There is, however, no provision in PD
No. 272 recognizing ISA as possessing general or comprehensive juridical
personality separate and distinct from that of the government. The ISA in
fact appears to the Court to be a non-incorporated agency or
instrumentality of the RP, or more precisely of the Government of the
Philippines. It is common knowledge that other agencies or
instrumentalities of the Government of the Republic are cast in corporate
Telecommunication
B. State Immunity from Suit
1. When is a suit against a state
Republic v. Sandoval
G.R. No. 84607
Date of Promulgation: March 19, 1993
Ponente: Campos, Jr., J.
Petition: Suit
Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines, Gen. Ramon Montano, Gen. Alfredo Lim,
Gen. Alexander Aguirre, Col. Edgar Dula Torres, Col. Cezar Nazareno, Maj. Filemon
Gasmen, Pat. Nicanor Abando, PFC Serafin Cebu, Jr., Gen. Brigido Paredes, Col.
Rogelio Monforte, PFC Antonio Lucero, Pat. Jose Mendiola, Pat. Nelson Tuason,
Police Corporal Panfilo Rogos, Police Lt. Juan B. Beltran, Pat. Noel Managbao,
Marine Third Class Trainee (3CT) Nolito Nogato, 3CT Alejandro B. Naguio, Jr., Efren
Arcillas, 3CT Agerico Luna, 3CT Basilio Borja, 3CT Manolito Luspo, 3CT Cristituto
Gervacio, 3CT Manuel Dela Cruz, Jr., Marine (CDC) Bn., (Civil Disturbance Control),
Mobile Dispersal Team (MDT), Lt. Romeo Paquinto, Lt. Laonglaang Goce, Majr.
Demetrio De La Cruz, Police Captain Rodolfo Naval, John Doe, Richard Doe, Roberto
Art. XIV, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution says that the State may not be sued without its
consent. The Citizens Mendiola Commission created by Administrative Order No.
11 was only for investigation purposes; its findings and recommendations do not
bind the State immediately. The speeches of President Corazon Aquino are also not
binding on the State, they dont amount to any waiver or admission of liability of
the State.
It is a settled rule that the State as a person can commit no wrong. While the
Republic in this case is sued by name, the ultimate liability does not pertain to the
government.
The military officials are personally held liable for the damages for their official
functions ceased the moment they exceeded to their authority.
Decision:
Petitions are dismissed.
Notes:
Art. XIV, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution: (Doctrine of immunity of the government from
suit expressly provided in the Constitution)
Some instances when a suit against the State is proper:
1. When the Republic is sued by name;
2. When the suit is against an unincorporated government agency;
3. When the suit is on its face against a government officer but the case is
such that the ultimate liability will belong not to the officer but to the
government.
Phil Agila Satellite vs. Lichauco
Department of Health vs. Phil Pharmawealth
Farolan vs. Court of Appeals