1ST EXAM CONSTI 2

What
1.
2.
3.

are the 3 Fundamental & Inherent Powers of the State?

Police Power
Power of Eminent Domain
Power of Taxation

POLICE POWER
- 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, 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.
- It is the inherent and plenary power of the State which enables it to prohibit all that is
hurtful of the comfort, safety, and welfare of the society.
- Its scope is vast and pervasive, reaching and justifying measures for public health, public
safety, public morals, and the general welfare.
- It is the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending to all the
great public needs
[Ermita vs City of Manila, 1967] Ordinance regulating the operations of the motels
- (Syllabus) A Manila ordinance regulating the operation of hotels, motels and lodginghouses is a police power measure specifically aimed to safeguard public morals. As such, it
is immune from any imputation of nullity resting purely on conjecture and unsupported by
anything of substance. To hold otherwise would be to unduly restrict and narrow the scope
of police power which has been properly characterized as the most essential, insistent and
the least limitable of powers, extending as it does "to all the great public needs".
Who may exercise police power? Police power is exercised by legislative organs of
the government, whether national or local; which is the power to prescribe regulations to
promote the health, morals, peace, good order, safety and general welfare of the people.
- (Facts) An ordinance was enacted by the City of Manila, which was questioned by the
petitioners for being unconstitutional and void as it is unreasonable, violative of due
process, and is invasive of the right of privacy. Further, the ordinance required licensing
fee from the operators of motels plus certain prohibitions in the admittance of the clients
of motels.
- (issue) W/N the exercise of police power by the City of Manila through the ordinance is
valid? YES
- (Ruling) The Court held in favour of the validity of the ordinance, reasoning that the
primary purpose of the challenged ordinance is to check the clandestine harbouring of
transients and guests of these establishments, and by increasing the license fee it aims to
discourage the outbreak of such establishments and at the same time increase the income
of the city government. Further, police power is exercised by the legislative organs (either
national or local) to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, good
order, safety, and general welfare of the people; and it is precisely for this purpose, to
curb immorality, that the ordinance was implemented. Lastly, the Court added that the
liberty of the citizen may be restrained in the interest of public health, or of the public
order and safety, or otherwise within the proper scope of police power.
[Taxicab Operators v BOT, 1982] Circular ordering the phase-out of some outdated models of
vehicles for taxi
- (Facts) Respondent BOT issued a circular to phase out some models of vehicles for taxi use
for the primary reason that only safe and comfortable units should be used as public
conveyance and that the commuting public be afforded comfort, safety, and convenience.
- (Issue) W/N the issuance of such circular is a valid exercise of police power? YES
- (Ruling) The Court held in the affirmative stating that the State in the exercise of police
power can prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, good order, safety,
and general welfare of the people. It can prohibit all things hurtful to comfort, safety, and
welfare of the society. It may also regulate property rights. The Court also noted that
the necessities imposed by the public welfare may justify the exercise of governmental
authority to regulate even if thereby certain groups may plausibly assert their interests are
disregarded.
[Ichong v Hernandez, 1957] RA to regulate the retail business
- (Syllabus) Police power is far-reaching in scope, and it is almost impossible to limit its
sweep. It derives its existence from the very existence of the State itself, and does not
need to be expressed or defined in its scope. It is said to be co-extensive with selfprotection and survival, and as such it is the most positive and active of all governmental
processes, the most essential, insistent and illimitable. Especially is it so under a modern

democratic framework where the demands of society and of nations have multiplied to
almost unimaginable proportions; the field and scope of police power has become almost
boundless, just as the fields of public interest and public welfare have become almost allembracing and have transcended human foresight.
Test in deprivation of life, liberty or property The conflict between police power
and the guarantees of due process and equal protection of the laws is more apparent than
real. Properly related, the power and the guarantees are supposed to coexist. The
balancing is the essence, or the indispensable means for the" attainment of legitimate
aspirations of any democratic society. There can be no absolute power, whoever exercises
it, for that would be tyranny. Yet there can neither be absolute liberty, for that would mean
license and anarchy. So the State can deprive persons of life, liberty or property, provided
there is due process of law; and persons may be classified into classes and groups,
provided everyone is given the equal protection of the law. The test or standard, as
always, is reason. The police power legislation must be firmly grounded on public interest
and welfare, and a reasonable relation must exist between purposes and means. And if
distinction or classification has been made, there must be a reasonable basis for said
distinction.
(Facts) The RA in question basically provides for the prohibition against persons who are
not citizens of the Philippines, and against associations, partnerships, or corporations
the capital of which are not wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines, from
engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade. The petitioners representing other
alien residents, corporations and partnerships adversely affected by the RA sought to
declare such law unconstitutional.
(Issue) W/N the subject law is unconstitutional? NO
(Ruling) The Court held in favour of the constitutionality of the law reasoning that such law
is well within the ambit of the exercise of police power by the State as it was enacted to
remedy a real actual threat and danger to the national economy posed by alien
dominance and control of the retail business. The Court added that the enactment clearly
falls within the scope of the police power of the State, through which and by which it
protects its own personality and insures its security and future.

[DECS v San Diego, 1989] Order No. 12 is implemented whereby 3-flunk rule in NMAT was
stipulated
- (Syllabus) The police power is validly exercised if:
(a) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular
class, require the interference of the State, and
(b) the means employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment of the object
sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
The proper exercise of the police power requires the concurrence of a lawful
subject and a lawful method. The subject of the challenged regulation is certainly
within the ambit of the police power. It is the right and indeed the responsibility of the
State to insure that the medical profession is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom
patients may unwarily entrust their lives and health. The method employed by the
challenged regulation is not irrelevant to the purpose of the law nor is it arbitrary or
oppressive. The three-flunk rule is intended to insulate the medical schools and ultimately
the medical profession from the intrusion of those not qualified to be doctors.
- (Facts) Private respondent took the NMAT 3 times and flunked it as many times and when
he applied to take the said test again, his application was rejected based on MECS Order
No. 12. The said Order provides that a person may take only the NMAT 3 times, and if he
fails it on the 3rd time, he is disqualified from taking such test again. The rationale of Order
No. 12 is to improve the professional and technical quality of the graduates of
medical schools , by upgrading the quality of those admitted to the student body of
the medical schools. That upgrading is sought by selectivity in the process of
admission, selectivity consisting, among other things , of limiting admission to those
who exhibit in the required degree the aptitude for medical studies and
eventually for medical practice.
- (Issue) W/N the subject Order is a valid exercise of police power, and thus is constitutional?
YES
- (Ruling) The Court held that for the exercise of police power to be valid, lawful subject and
lawful method must concur. In the questioned regulation, the subject of the regulation is
the right and the responsibility of the State to insure that the medical profession is not
infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may unwarily entrust their lives and health.
This subject falls well within the ambit of the police power. The method employed by the
challenged regulation is not irrelevant to the purpose of the law nor is it arbitrary and
oppressive.
[Carlos Superdrug v DSWD, 2007] RA 9257 provides for the discounted rate for senior citizen

(Syllabus) The State, in promoting the health and welfare of a special group of citizens,
can impose upon private establishments the burden of partly subsidizing a government
program. This raises the question of whether the State, in promoting the health and
welfare of a special group of citizens, can impose upon private establishments the burden
of partly subsidizing a government program. The Court believes so. The Senior Citizens Act
was enacted primarily to maximize the contribution of senior citizens to nation-building,
and to grant benefits and privileges to them for their improvement and well-being as the
State considers them an integral part of our society.
RA No. 9257 is a legitimate exercise of police power which, similar to the power of
eminent domain, has general welfare for its object. When the conditions so demand as
determined by the legislature, property rights must bow to the primacy of police power
because property rights, though sheltered by due process, must yield to general welfare.
Police power as an attribute to promote the common good would be diluted considerably if
on the mere plea of property by the owners that they will suffer loss of earnings and
capital, a questioned provision is invalidated. Police power is not capable of an exact
definition, but has been purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its
comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide enough room for an efficient and
flexible response to conditions and circumstances, thus assuring the greatest benefits.
Accordingly, it has been described as the most essential, insistent and the least limitable
of powers, extending as it does to all the great public needs. It is [t]he power vested in
the legislature by the constitution 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 of the subjects of the same. Moreover, in the absence of evidence
demonstrating the alleged confiscatory effect of the provision in question, there is no basis
for its nullification in view of the presumption of validity which every law has in its favor.
(Facts) Petitioners assail the validity of RA 9257 which includes discount for the purchase
of medicines in all establishments by the senior citizens. In sum, the petitioners cry afoul
as their right to property is violated without due process of law, and that they are denied
equal protection of the laws.
(Issue) W/N the subject RA is a valid exercise of police power and thus is constitutional?
YES
(Ruling) The Court held that the law is a valid exercise of police power. The Court cites that
police power is the power vested in the legislature by the constitution 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 of the subjects of the same.
Further, the Court also added that when the conditions so demand as determined by the
legislature, property rights must bow to the primacy of police power because property
rights, although sheltered by due process, must yield to general welfare.

[MMDA v Bel-Air Village Assoc., 2000] MMDA issued a notice to open part of BAVAs property
- (Syllabus) Who is to exercise police power Local government units exercise police power
through their respective legislative bodies. The Local Government Code of 1991 empowers
the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod and sangguniang bayan to
enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of
the [province, city or municipality, as the case may be], and its inhabitants pursuant to
Sec. 16 of the Code and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers of the province,
city municipality provided under the Code. The same Code gives the sangguniang
barangay the power to enact ordinances as may be necessary to discharge the
responsibilities conferred upon it by law or ordinance and to promote the general welfare
of the inhabitants thereon.
However, it is not provided in RA 7924 that MMDA is granted police power,
neither is granted legislative power. Unlike the legislative bodies of the local government
units, there is no provision in R.A. No. 7924 that empowers the MMDA or its Council to
enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of
the inhabitants of Metro Manila.
- (Facts) Respondent Bel-Air received a notice from petitioner requesting to open a part of
its property to public vehicular traffic. In its letter, MMDA invokes RA 7924 and avers that it
is mandated under the same law such authority.
- (Issue) W/N MMDA has the authority to exercise police power? NO

(Ruling) The Court held that MMDA does not have the authority to exercise police power as
such is lodged exclusively to the legislative body. Because of such, MMDA does not have
the authority to invade the private property of respondent.

[Review Center Assoc, v Ermita, 2009] EO 566 authorizing CHED to supervise review centers
- (Facts) Then PGMA issued EO 566 which authorized the CHED to supervise the
establishment and operations of all review centers and similar entities in the country. This
EO is in line with the leakage that was discovered on the recent board examinations for
nursing.
- (Issue) W/N the EO issued by PGMA is a valid exercise of police power? NO
- (Ruling) The Court held that the police power to prescribe regulations to promote the
health, morals, education, good order or safety, and the general welfare of the people
flows from the recognition that salus populi est suprema lexthe welfare of the people is
the supreme law. Police power primarily rests with the legislature. Although it may be
exercised by the President and administrative boards, but it requires delegation prior
to the exercise of such power. In the case above, there was no delegation of police
power authorizing the President to regulate the operations of non-degree granting review
centers.
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN (Sec. 9, 1987 Philippine Constitution)
- Sec. 9: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
- Eminent domain defined It is the right or power of the State or of those to whom the power
has been lawfully delegated to take or expropriate private property for public use upon
paying to the owner a just compensation to be ascertained according to law.
- Conditions for or limitations upon the exercise of the power of eminent domain:
1. Existence of Public Use
2. Payment of just compensation
3. Observance of due process of law in the taking
When is the power exercised?
[PPI v COMELEC, 1995] Res. No. 2772 which provides for the free COMELEC space is questioned
- (Syllabus) The threshold requisites for a lawful taking of private property for public use
need to be examined here: 1) the necessity for the taking; 2) the legal authority to effect
the taking. The element of necessity for the taking has not been shown by respondent
Comelec. It has not been suggested that the members of PPI are unwilling to sell print
space at their normal rates to Comelec for election purposes. Indeed, the unwillingness or
reluctance of Comelec to buy print space lies at the heart of the problem. Similarly, it has
not been suggested, let alone demonstrated, that Comelec has been granted the power of
eminent domain either by the Constitution or by the legislative authority. A reasonable
relationship between that power and the enforcement and administration of election laws
by Comelec must be shown; it is not casually to be assumed.
- (Facts) Petitioner questions the validity of some sections of RA 2772 as it requires
publishers of different print publications to provide print space or COMELEC space.
Resolution No. 2772 mandates newspapers of general circulation and/or magazines to
allocate COMELEC space which is at least page free of charge for the candidates for
the election, to make known their qualifications, their stand on public issues and their
platforms and programs for the government.
- (Issue) W/N the issuance of Res. No. 2772 is a valid exercise of the power of eminent
domain? NO
- (Ruling) The Court held that the exercise of the power of eminent domain through the
assailed resolution is not valid because the threshold requisites for a valid exercise of said
power are not present. The respondent failed to show the necessity of the taking, and also
failed to establish that it is entitled with the authority to effect the taking. Furthermore,
although the exercise of the power of eminent domain is mandated under the Constitution,
but it is with limitations, and one of which is just compensation. The failure of the
respondent to provide for just compensation for the Comelec space makes the alleged
exercise of eminent domain even more invalid.
[Telecom v COMELEC, 1998] Sec. 92 of BP 881 mandates TV and radio stations to provide free air
time for election
- (Facts) Sec. 92 of BP 881 mandates TV and radio broadcasting stations to provide for free
air time for election-related campaign. Petitioners assail the validity of said provision as it
is unconstitutional as it allows respondent to take air time without providing for just
compensation in return. This free air time, according to the petitioners, will be tantamount
to loss on their part.

(Issue) W/N the exercise of eminent domain is valid in the assailed provision? YES
(Ruling) The Court held the validity of the questioned provision, reasoning that the
petitioners may be burdened with the performance of some form of public service as they
are given franchises, which is but a mere privilege. The Court further held that the
petitioners are mere grantee of the franchises, and are not the owners of the air waves
and frequencies. The Court also added that the broadcast media are also public trustees
charged with the duty of ensuring that the people have access to the diversity of views on
political issue.

Who may exercise the power of eminent domain?

[Estate of Suguitan v City, 2000] City resolution authorizing Mayor Abalos to expropriate
proceedings over property of private respondent
- (Syllabus) Eminent domain is the right or power of a sovereign state to appropriate private
property to particular uses to promote public welfare. It is an indispensable attribute of
sovereignty; a power grounded in the primary duty of government to serve the common
need and advance the general welfare. Thus, the right of eminent domain appertains to
every independent government without the necessity for constitutional recognition. The
provisions found in modern constitutions of civilized countries relating to the taking of
property for the public use do not by implication grant the power to the government, but
limit a power which would otherwise be without limit. Thus, our own Constitution provides
that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
Furthermore, the due process and equal protection clauses act as additional safeguards
against the arbitrary exercise of this governmental power.
Who may exercise the power of eminent domain The power of eminent domain is
essentially legislative in nature. It is firmly settled, however, that such power may be
validly delegated to local government units, other public entities and public utilities,
although the scope of this delegated legislative power is necessarily narrower than that of
the delegating authority and may only be exercised in strict compliance with the terms of
the delegating law.
The courts have the obligation to determine whether the following requisites have
been complied with by the local government unit concerned:
1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local
chief executive, in behalf of the local government unit, to exercise the power of eminent
domain or pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular private property.
2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare,
or for the benefit of the poor and the landless.
3. There is payment of just compensation, as required under Section 9, Article III
of the Constitution, and other pertinent laws.
4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the
property sought to be expropriated, but said offer was not accepted.
Exercise of the power of eminent domain in local government In the present case,
the City of Mandaluyong seeks to exercise the power of eminent domain over petitioners
property by means of a resolution, in contravention of the first requisite. The law in this
case is clear and free from ambiguity. Section 19 of the Code requires an ordinance, not a
resolution, for the exercise of the power of eminent domain.
- (Facts) Sangguniang Panlungsod of Mandaluyong issued Resolution No. 396, Series of 1994
authorizing then Mayor Abalos to institute expropriation proceedings over the property of
petitioner. The intended purpose of the expropriation is the expansion of the Mandaluyong
Medical Center. In lieu with such, the City of Mandaluyong through their (then) mayor,
wrote a letter to petitioner offering to buy the subject property. Suguitan, however refused
to sell his property.
- (Issue) W/N the exercise of the power of eminent domain by the local govt of
Mandaluyong is valid? NO
- (Ruling) The Court held that the exercise of the power of eminent domain by the local
government of Mandaluyong is not valid. The Court cited the basis of the exercise of the
power of eminent domain by the local government units, which is Sec. 19 of the LGU Code
(RA 7160). It can be gleaned from such statute that what is required is an ordinance for
the LGU to exercise the power of eminent domain. In this case, what the LGU of
Mandaluyong implemented is a resolution, and not an ordinance. This is obviously in
contrast to what is required in the law cited. Furthermore, the Court also cited the
requisites that are to be complied with by the local government unit, to wit:
1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local
chief executive, in behalf of the local government unit, to exercise the power of
eminent domain or pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular private
property.
2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or
for the benefit of the poor and the landless.

3. There is payment of just compensation, as required under Section 9, Article III of

the Constitution, and other pertinent laws.
4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property
sought to be expropriated, but said offer was not accepted.
In said case, the first requisite is lacking, which makes the exercise of the power of
eminent domain as invalid.
[Estate of Reyes v City of Manila, 2004]
- (Syllabus) The State has a paramount interest in exercising its power of eminent domain
for the general good considering that the right of the State to expropriate private property
as long as it is for public use always takes precedence over the interest of private property
owners. However we must not lose sight of the fact that the individual rights affected by
the exercise of such right are also entitled to protection, bearing in mind that the exercise
of this superior right cannot override the guarantee of due process extended by the law to
owners of the property to be expropriated. In this regard, vigilance over compliance with
the due process requirements is in order.
- (Facts) The subject property is owned by the petitioner and leased by different tenants.
While the ejectment cases are still pending, a complaint for eminent domain or
expropriation of the properties was lodged.
[MCWD v J, Kings & Sons, 2009] MCWD wanted to obtain part of respondents property to be
used as production well
- (Facts) Petitioner wanted to obtain a lot which is part of respondents property. The lot is
being used as the petitioners well. Petitioner negotiated with the respondent for the
voluntary sale of the latters property, the respondent however did not accept to
petitioners proposal. Because of the respondents refusal, the petitioner initiated an
expropriation proceedings.
- (Issue) W/N the exercise of the power of eminent domain by the petitioner is valid? YES
- (Ruling) The Court held that the exercise of the power of eminent domain by the petitioner
is valid. In ruling, the Court held that although the power to expropriate pertains to the
legislature, the Congress may delegate the exercise of the power to government agencies,
public officials and quasi-public entities.
The petitioner, being a corporation, can exercise its power only though its board of
directors. Further, all the powers, privileges, and duties of the district shall be exercised
and performed by and through the board and that any executive, administrative, or
ministerial power may be delegated and redelegated by the board to any of its officers or
for such purpose.
In ruling the Court held that for petitioner to exercise its power of eminent domain,
2 requirements should be met:
1. Its board of directors passed a resolution authorizing the expropriation
2. The exercise of the power of eminent domain was subjected to review by the
Local Water Utilities Administration
In the case, the board of directors approved the resolution authorizing its general
manager to file expropriation of respondents lot. Also, the LWUA was able to review and
even approve the filing if the complaint for expropriation of respondents lot.
Taking
Requisites
[Republic v Castellvi, 1974] Question on when the price of the property is to be pegged vis--vis
the time of taking
- (Facts) Petitioner filed a complaint to expropriate the land of respondent concerning the
land of respondent which is being occupied by the Air Force since 1947 under a contract of
lease which is being renewed annually based on respondents discretion.
- Among the concerns to be settled in this case is the rate for the just compensation. It was
argued by the petitioner that the rate should be pegged with respect to the rate of the
property on 1947 as there was already taking for the purpose of the exercise of the
power of eminent domain. However, respondent assail such claim by petitioner. So in
order to resolve such, the Court had to take cognizance and rule on whether or not there
was taking in the year alleged.
- (Issue) W/N there was taking of the property of respondent as early as 1947? NO
- (Ruling) The Court held that there was no taking in the year alleged by the petitioner. In
ruling, the Court enumerated the requisites for taking of property for purposes of eminent
domain, to wit:
1. The expropriator must enter a private property.
2. The entrance into private property must be for more than a momentary period
3. The entry into the property should be under warrant or color of legal authority

4. The property must be devoted for public use or otherwise informally

appropriated or injuriously affected
5. The utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the
owner and deprive him of all beneficial employment of the property
From the case, 2 essential elements are absent, namely 2 nd requisite and the 5th
requisite; thus, it cannot be said that taking already took place as early as 1947, contrary
to the claim of the petitioner. It should be noted that the AFP entered into a contract of
lease, which is annually renewed. This contract of lease is in direct contradiction with the
2nd requisite that the occupancy must not be momentarily.
What may be taken?
[NPC v Gutierrez, 1991]
- (Facts) For the construction of the transmission lines of petitioner, it will have to pass the
lands of the respondents. Because of such, plaintiff negotiated for the acquisition of right
of way over the said properties. However, the respondents did not heed the negotiation
initiated by the plaintiff, resulting to the formers filing for eminent domain proceedings
against the defendants.
- (Issue) W/N the acquisition of right of way is an exercise of the power of eminent domain?
YES
- (Ruling) The Court held that the easement of right-of-way is considered a taking under the
power of eminent domain for the reason that the nature