Anda di halaman 1dari 6

II.

Fundamental Powers of the State: Police Power


i. General Principles 4. could be given retroactive effect and may reasonably
impair vested rights or contracts (police power
Definition: prevails over contract)
a) Police Power - The power of promoting public welfare by 5. dynamic, not static, and must move with the moving
restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property. society it is supposed to regulate
b) Power of Eminent Domain - use of the government of its
coercive authority, upon just compensation, to forcibly Ichong vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil 1155
acquire the needed property in order to devote the same to Doctrine: Police power cannot be bargained away
public use through the medium of a treaty or a contract
c) Power of Taxation - method by which contributions are
exacted from persons and property for the support of Non-curtailment of the scope of the police power
government and for all public needs. through Treaty RA 1180 (An Act to Regulate the
Retail Business, prohibiting aliens in general to
engage in retail trade in our country) is
Similarities: (INMPE) CONSTITUTIONAL.
a) Inherent in the State, exercised even without need of
express constitutional grant. Facts: The Congress of the Philippines enacted the act
b) Necessary and indispensable; State cannot be effective which nationalizes the retail trade business, Republic Act
without them. No. 1180 entitled An Act to Regulate the Retail Business,
c) Methods by which State interferes with private property. prohibiting aliens in general to engage in retail trade in
d) Presuppose equivalent compensation our country. Petitioner, for and in his own behalf and on
e) Exercised primarily by the Legislature. behalf of other alien residents, corporations and
partnerships adversely affected by the provisions of RA
No. 1180, brought this action to obtain a judicial
declaration that said Act is unconstitutional.
Held: The UN Charter imposes no strict or legal
EMINENT obligations regarding the rights and freedom of their
Distinctions POLICE POWER TAXATION
DOMAIN subjects, and the Declaration of Human Rights contains
regulates both regulates regulates nothing more than a mere recommendation, or a common
As to
liberty and property rights property standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.
regulation
property only rights only The Treaty of Amity between the Republic of the Philippines
government and the Republic of China guarantees equality of treatment
As to who may only the only the
and some to the Chinese nationals upon the same terms as the
exercise government government
private entities nationals of any other country. But the nationals of
destroyed China are not discriminated against because nationals
-wholesome -wholesome
because it is of all other countries, except those of the United
As to the -taken for a -taken for a
noxious or States, who are granted special rights by the
property taken public use or public use or
intended for Constitution, are all prohibited from engaging in the
purpose purpose
noxious purpose retail trade. But even supposing that the law infringes
intangible upon the said treaty, the treaty is always subject to
altruistic feeling full and fair protection qualification or amendment by a subsequent law, and the
As to that the person equivalent of and/or public same may never curtail or restrict the scope of the police
Compensation has contributed to the property improvements power of the State.
the general expropriated for the taxes
welfare
Limitations: Generally, the Bill of Rights, although in some Tio vs. Videogram Regulatory Board, 151 SCRA 208
cases the exercise of the power prevails over specific Doctrine: The taxing power may be used as an implement of
constitutional guarantees. police power

Exception: The courts may annul the improvident exercise of Facts: Valentin Tio is a videogram establishment operator
police power (Quezon City v. Ericta, 122 SCRA 759) adversely affected by Presidential Decree No. 1987 entitled "An Act
Creating the Videogram Regulatory Board". P.D. No. 1987 provides
for the levy of a tax over each cassette sold (Sec. 134) and a 30%
tax on the gross receipts of a videogram establishment, payable to
ii. Police Power the local government (Sec. 10).

a. Characteristics: Held: Taxation as a revenue and regulatory measure The tax


Police power is the most pervasive, the least limitable, imposed by the DECREE is not only a regulatory but also a revenue
and the most demanding of the three powers. measure prompted by the realization that earnings of videogram
establishments of around P600 million per annum have not been
The justification is found in the Latin maxims: salus populi subjected to tax, thereby depriving the Government of an
est suprema lex (the welfare of the people is the additional source of revenue. . . . The levy of the 30% tax is for a
supreme law) and sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas (a public purpose. It was imposed primarily to answer the need for
person must use his own property so as not to injure regulating the video industry, particularly because of the
another). rampant film piracy, the flagrant violation of intellectual
property rights, and the proliferation of pornographic video
Scope: tapes. And while it was also an objective of the DECREE to protect
1. cannot be bargained away through the medium of a the movie industry, the tax remains a valid imposition.
treaty or contract (Ichong vs. Hernandez)
2. may use taxing power as its implement (Tio vs
Videogram Regulatory Board) Association of Small Landowners vs. Secretary of Agrarian
3. may use eminent domain as its implement (Assoc. of Reform, 175 SCRA 343
Small Landowners vs Sec. of Agrarian Reform) Doctrine: Eminent domain may be used as an implement to
attain the police objective
1|P a g e cazgo 03/15/16
II. Fundamental Powers of the State: Police Power
A license to operate a motor vehicle is not a property right, but
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 - the a privilege granted by the State, which may be suspended or
redistribution of public and private agricultural lands to revoked by the State in the exercise of its police power, in the
farmers and farmworkers who are landless, irrespective of interest of public safety and welfare, subject to the procedural due
tenurial arrangement. process requirements

Facts: These are consolidated cases involving common legal R.A. 9257, otherwise known as the Expanded Senior Citizens Act
questions including serious challenges to the constitutionality of of 2003, is a legitimate exercise of police power
R.A. No. 6657 also known as the "Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law of 1988"
b. Who exercise the power
A petition alleging the constitutionality of PD No. 27, EO 228 the Legislature (inherent)
and 229 and RA 6657. Subjects of the petition are a 9-hectare President (by delegation)
and 5 hectare Riceland worked by four tenants. Tenants were administrative boards (by delegation)
declared full owners by EO 228 as qualified farmers under PD lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels, including
27. The petitioners now contend that President Aquino barangay (by delegation)
usurped the legislatures power Municipal governments / LGU's (conferred by statute
general welfare clause of RA 7160)
A petition by landowners and sugarplanters in Victorias Mill
Negros Occidental against Proclamation 131 and EO 229.
Proclamation 131 is the creation of Agrarian Reform Fund with Metro Manila Development Authority v. Bel-Air Village
initial fund of P50Billion Association, G.R. No. 135962, March 27, 2000
Doctrine: Unlike the legislative bodies of local government
A petition by owners of land which was placed by the DAR units, there is no provision in R.A. 7924 that empowers the
under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) or its Council to
enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds
A petition invoking the right of retention under PD 27 to for the general welfare of the inhabitants of Metro Manila.
owners of rice and corn lands not exceeding seven hectares Thus, MMDA may not order the opening of Neptune St. in the
Bel-Air Subdivision to public traffic, as it does not possess
Held: Police Power through the Power of Eminent Domain, though delegated police power
there are traditional distinction between the police power and the
power of eminent domain, property condemned under police Opening of Neptune St. in the Bel-Air Subdivision for traffic
power is noxious or intended for noxious purpose, the decongestion is NOT A VALID EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER
compensation for the taking of such property is not subject to
compensation, unlike the taking of the property in Eminent FACTS: On December 30, 1995, respondent received from
Domain or the power of expropriation which requires the payment petitioner a notice requesting the former to open its private road,
of just compensation to the owner of the property expropriated. Neptune Street, to public vehicular traffic starting January 2, 1996.
On the same day, respondent was apprised that the perimeter
A statute may be sustained under the police power only if there is separating the subdivision from Kalayaan Avenue would be
concurrence of the lawful subject and the method. Subject and demolished. Respondent instituted a petition for injunction against
purpose of the Agrarian Reform Law is valid, however what is to petitioner, praying for the issuance of a TRO and preliminary
be determined is the method employed to achieve it. injunction enjoining the opening of Neptune Street and prohibiting
the demolition of the perimeter wall.
The promulgation of PD 27 by President Marcos was valid in
exercise of Police power and eminent domain. The power of HELD: MMDA has no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of
President Aquino to promulgate Proc. 131 and EO 228 and 229 was the community. It is the LGUs, acting through their respective
authorized under Sec. 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 legislative councils that possess legislative power and police
Constitution. Therefore it is a valid exercise of Police Power and power. The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City did not pass any
Eminent Domain. RA 6657 is likewise valid. The carrying out of ordinance or resolution ordering the opening of Neptune Street,
the regulation under CARP becomes necessary to deprive owners hence, its proposed opening by the MMDA is illegal.
of whatever lands they may own in excess of the maximum
area allowed, there is definitely a taking under the power of
eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is Francisco v. Fernando, G.R. No. 166501, November 16, 2006
imperative. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the Doctrine: The MMDA is an administrative agency tasked with
use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title and the the implementation of rules and regulations enacted by proper
physical possession of said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to authorities. The absence of an anti-jaywalking ordinance in
the owner in favour of the farmer. Valenzuela City does not detract from this conclusion absent any
proof that respondents implemented the Flag Scheme in that city

Other Scopes: Implementation of the Wet Flag Scheme anti-jay walking


The right to bear arms is merely a statutory privilege. The
license to carry a firearm is neither a property nor a property right. FACTS: Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr, as a taxpayer and as a member of
Neither does it create a vested right. A permit to carry a firearm the Integrated Bar of the Philippines filed a petition to enjoin
outside ones residence may be revoked at any time. Even if it were MMDA Chairman Bayani Fernando from further implementing its
a property right, it cannot be considered as absolute as to be wet flag scheme (As implemented, police mobile units bearing wet
beyond the reach of the police power flags with words Maglakad and mag-abang sa bangketa are
deployed along major Metro Manila thoroughfares.). Petitioner
Like timber permits, mining exploration permits do not vest in the contends that the Flag Scheme: (1) has no legal basis because the
grantee any permanent or irrevocable right within the purview MMDA's governing body, the Metro Manila Council, did not
of the non- impairment and due process clauses, since the State, authorize it; (2) violates the Due Process Clause because it is a
under its all-encompassing police power, may alter, modify or summary punishment for jaywalking; (3) disregards the
amend the same in accordance with the demands of the general Constitutional protection against cruel, degrading, and inhuman
welfare punishment; and (4) violates 'pedestrian rights' as it exposes

2|P a g e cazgo 03/15/16


II. Fundamental Powers of the State: Police Power
pedestrians to various potential hazards. Petitioner also contended affairs of CANORECO is invalid [Camarines Norte Electric
that he filed this petition directly with the Court because the issues Cooperative v. Torres, G.R. No. 127249, February 27, 1998].
raised in the petition deserve the direct intervention of the Court.
Respondents moved for the dismissal of the case. Petitioner files
his reply that the present case raises issues of transcendental c. Test for valid exercise
importance.
1. Lawful Subject - interests of the public generally, as
HELD: It was held that the petitioner failed to show the lack of distinguished from those of a particular class, require the
basis or the unreasonableness of the Wet Flag Scheme. On the exercise of police power
alleged lack of legal basis, the Court noted that all the cities and
municipalities within MMDAs jurisdiction except Valenzuela
City have each enacted anti-jaywalking ordinances or traffic Sangalang v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 176 SCRA 719
management codes with provisions for pedestrian regulation. Doctrine: That the activity or property sought to be regulated
This serves as sufficient basis for the respondents implementation affects the general welfare; if it does, then the enjoyment of the
of schemes to enforce the anti-jaywalking ordinances and similar rights flowing therefrom may have to yield to the interests of
regulations. the greater number.

MMDA, ET AL. v. VIRON TRANS. CO., INC., G.R. No. 170656-57, Zoning Ordinance upheld VALID exercise of POLICE POWER
August 15, 2007
Doctrine: No matter how noble the intentions of the MMDA may FACTS: GRs 74376, 76394, 78182, and 82281 are efforts to
be then, any plan, strategy or project which it is not authorized enforce the deed restrictions against specific residents of Jupiter
to implement cannot pass muster. Street and, with respect to GR 78182, Reponso Street. The
residents have allegedly converted their residences into
Implementation of Greater Manila Mass Transport System commercial establishments in violation of the said restrictions. The
through MMDA is NOT VALID DOTC has the power mother case, GR 71169 is a petition to hold the vendor itself, AYALA
CORP, liable for tearing down the perimeter wall along Jupiter
FACTS: The president Arroyo issued E.O. No. 179 providing for the Street that had theretofore closed its commercial section from the
establishment of Greater Manila Mass Transport System. Pursuant residences of Bel-Air Village and ushering in, as a consequence, the
to such authority the MMDA which was designated to implement full commercialization of Jupiter Street, in violation of the very
such project, recommended a plan to decongest traffic by restrictions it had authored. The CA dismissed all 5 appeals in the
eliminating the bus terminals now located along major Metro basis of stare decisis on a prior ruling in which the appellate court
Manila thoroughfares and providing more and convenient access to explicitly rejected claims under the same deed restrictions as a
the mass transport system to the commuting public through the result of Ordinance 81 enacted by the Municipality of Makati, as
provision of mass transport terminal facilities. well as the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 8101 promulgated by
Viron Transport Co., Inc. (Viron), a domestic corporation the Metropolitan Manila Commission, which two ordinances
engaged in the business of public transportation with a provincial allegedly allowed the use of Jupiter Street for both residential and
bus operation, filed a petition for declaratory relief before the RTC commercial purposes. It was likewise held that these twin
of Manila, alleging that the MMDA was poised to issue a Circular, measures were valid as a legitimate exercise of police power.
Memorandum or Order closing, or tantamount to closing, all
provincial bus terminals along EDSA and in the whole of the HELD: The MMC Ordinance represents a legitimate exercise of
Metropolis under the pretext of traffic regulation. This impending police power. The petitioners have not shown why we should hold
move, it stressed, would mean the closure of its bus terminal in otherwise other than for the supposed "non-impairment" guaranty
Sampaloc, Manila and two others in Quezon City. of the Constitution, which, as we have declared, is secondary to the
Alleging that the MMDAs authority does not include the more compelling interests of general welfare. The Ordinance has
power to direct provincial bus operators to abandon their existing not been shown to be capricious or arbitrary or unreasonable to
bus terminals to thus deprive them of the use of their property, warrant the reversal of the judgments so appealed.
Viron asked the court to construe the scope, extent and limitation
of the power of the MMDA to regulate traffic under R.A. No. 7924,
AN ACT CREATING THE METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT Lim vs. Pacquing [G.R. No. 115044. January 27, 1995]
AUTHORITY, DEFINING ITS POWERS AND FUNCTIONS, PROVIDING Doctrine: By their very nature, franchises are subject to
FUNDS THEREFOR AND OTHER PURPOSES. amendment, alteration or revocation by the State whenever
appropriate. Under the exercise of its police power, the State
HELD: While concededly, the President has the authority to through its requirement for permits, licenses and franchises to
provide for the establishment of the Greater Manila Mass Transport operate, undertakes to regulate what would otherwise be an
System, in order to decongest traffic by eliminating bus terminals illegal activity punished by existing penal laws. The police
along major Metro Manila thoroughfares, EO No. 179, which power to establish all manner of regulation of otherwise illicit,
designates the Metro Manila Development Authority as the immoral and illegal activities is full, virtually illimitable and
implementing agency for the project, is ultra vires. Under the plenary.
provisions of EO 125, as amended, it is the DOTC, not the MMDA,
which is authorized to establish and implement such a project. The Franchise to operate JAI-ALAI prohibited by P.D. No. 771
President must exercise the authority through the instrumentality which was held to be Constitutional
of the DOTC which, by law is the primary implementing and
administrative entity in the promotion, development and FACTS: The petition was dismissed by the First Division of the SC
regulation of networks of transportation. By designating the based on a finding that there was no abuse of discretion, much less
MMDA as the implementing agency, the President overstepped lack or excess of jurisdiction, on the part of respondent judge in
the limits of the authority conferred by law issuing the questioned orders:
(a) Ordering Lim to issue the permit to operate the jai-alai in
Other Doctrines: favor of ADC; (b) Ordering Lim to explain why he should not be
While police power may be validly delegated to the President by cited for contempt for non-compliance with such order; (c)
law, R.A. 6939 and P.D. 260, as amended, do not authorize the Reiterating the previous order directing Lim to immediately issue
President, or any other administrative body, to take over the the permit/license to ADC
internal management of a cooperative. Accordingly, The order was in turn issued upon motion by ADC for
Memorandum Order No. 409, issued by the President, constituting execution of a final judgment rendered on September 1988 which
an ad hoc committee to temporarily take over and manage the
3|P a g e cazgo 03/15/16
II. Fundamental Powers of the State: Police Power
ordered the Manila Mayor to immediately issue a permit from the according to Solar, the inspection reports before the Board made no
ADC to operate the jai-alai under Manila Ordinance No. 7065. finding that Solar's wastewater discharged posed such a threat.
Subsequently, the RP, through the GAB, filed a motion for
intervention. The national government contends that Manila HELD: The Supreme Court held that ex parte cease and desist
Ordinance 7065 which purported to grant to ADC a franchise to orders issued by the Pollution Adjudication Board are permitted by
conduct jai-alai operation is void and ultra vires since RA954 was law and regulations in situations such as stopping the continuous
enacted very much earlier than the ordinance requires a discharge of pollutive and untreated effluents into the rivers and
LEGISLATIVE FRANCHISE, not a municipal franchise, for the other inland waters. The relevant pollution control statute and
operation of jai-alai. implementing regulations were enacted and promulgated in
the exercise of police power, x x x The ordinary requirements of
HELD: It was held that P.D. 771, which expressly revoked all procedural due process yield to the necessities of protecting vital
existing franchises and permits to operate all forms of gambling public interests through the exercise of police power.
facilities (including jai-alai) issued by local governments, was a
valid exercise of the police power. Gambling is essentially
antagonistic to the objectives of national productivity and self- Ople v. Torres, 293 SCRA 141
reliance; it is a vice and a social ill which the government must Doctrine: Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by
minimize (or eradicate) in pursuit of social and economic proper safeguards and well-defined standards to prevent
development. unconstitutional invasions. AO 308 deals with a subject which
ADC does not possess the required congressional franchise to should be covered by a law, not just an administrative order.
operate and conduct the jai-alai under RA954 and PD771. Congress
did not delegate to the City of Manila the power to franchise Adoption of Computerized Identification Reference System
wagers or betting, including the jai-alai. What Congress was held to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL as incursion to the Right
delegated to the City of Manila in RA409 was the power to to Privacy
license, permit, or regulate which therefore means that a
license or permit issued by the City of Manila would not amount to FACTS: Petitioner Senator Blas F. Ople assailed the
something meaningful unless the holder of the permit was also constitutionality of the Administrative Order No. 308 entitled
FRANCHISED by the national govt to so operate. Adoption of Computerized Identification Reference System on the
following grounds: 1.) The administrative order issued by the
executive is deemed to be a law and not a mere administrative
Pollution Adjudication Board v. Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA order thus it is a usurpation of legislative power of the congress to
112 make laws, and 2.) It impermissibly intrudes the citizens
Doctrine: The relevant pollution control statute and constitutional right of privacy.
implementing regulations were enacted and promulgated in He also contended that the appropriation of public funds by
the exercise of that pervasive, sovereign power to protect the the president for the implementation of AO 308 is an
safety, health, and general welfare and comfort of the public, as unconstitutional usurpation of the exclusive right of congress to
well as the protection of plant and animal life, commonly appropriate funds for expenditure
designated as the police power. It is a constitutional AO 308 aims to establish a computerized system to properly
commonplace that the ordinary requirements of procedural and efficiently identify persons seeking basic services on social
due process yield to the necessities of protecting vital public security and reduce, if not totally eradicate fraudulent transactions
interests like those here involved, through the exercise of police and misrepresentations.
power.
HELD: The Administrative Order violates the constitutional right to
Cease and Desist Order for anti-pollution campaign was a privacy because its scope is too broad and vague that will put
VALID exercise of POLICE POWER peoples right to privacy in clear and present danger if
implemented. The A.O. 308 also lacks of proper safeguards for
FACTS: Petitioner PAB issued an ex parte Order directing SOLAR to protecting the information that will be gathered from people
immediately cease and desist from utilizing its wastewater through biometrics and other means. Thus, A.O. No. 308 may
pollution source installations which were discharging untreated interfere with the individuals liberty of abode and travel by
wastewater directly into a canal leading to the adjacent Tullahan- enabling authorities to track down his movement; it may also
Tinejeros River. The said order was based on findings of 2 enable unscrupulous persons to access confidential information
inspections of SOLARs plant. The findings of these inspections and circumvent the right against self-incrimination; it may pave the
were that SOLARs wastewater treatment plant was non- way for fishing expeditions by government authorities and evade
operational and that its plant generated about 30 gallons per the right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
minute of wastewater, 80% of which was being directly discharged
into a drainage canal leading to the Tullahan-Tinejeros River. The
remaining 20% was being channeled through SOLARs non- 2. Lawful Means - the means employed are reasonably
operational wastewater plant. Chemical analysis of samples of necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not
SOLARs effluents showed the presence of pollutants on a higher unduly oppressive upon individuals
level of what was permissible under PD984.

Petitioner Board claims that under P.D. No. 984, Section 7(a), it has Lorenzo vs Director of Health
legal authority to issue ex parte orders to suspend the operations Doctrine: Section 1058 of the Administrative Code was enacted
of an establishment when there is prima facie evidence that such by the legislative body in the legitimate exercise of the police
establishment is discharging effluents or wastewater, the pollution power which extends to the preservation of the public health.
level of which exceeds the maximum permissible standards set by
the NPCC (now, the Board). Petitioner Board contends that the Segregation of Lepars wa held CONSTITUTIONAL
reports before it concerning the effluent discharges of Solar into
the Tullahan-Tinejeros River provided prima facie evidence of Facts: Manila in conformity with the provisions of Section 1058
violation by Solar of Section 5 of the 1982 Effluent Code. of the Administrative Code, authorizing the segregation of lepers.
Lorenzo filed petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Court of
Solar, on the other hand, contends that under the Board's own rules First Instance of Manila, alleging that his confinement in said
and regulations, an ex parte order may issue only if the effluents hospital was in violation of his constitutional rights. He alleged that
discharged pose an "immediate threat to life, public health, safety human beings are not incurable with leprosy and that the disease
or welfare, or to animal and plant life." In the instant case,
4|P a g e cazgo 03/15/16
II. Fundamental Powers of the State: Police Power
may not be communicated by contact. The trial court sustained the subsequently issued Department Order No. 28, creating the
law and denied the petition for habeas corpus. Lorenzo appealed. Entertainment Industry Advisory Council (EIAC), which was tasked
with issuing guidelines on the training, testing certification and
HELD: It was place on the statute books in recognition of leprosy as deployment of performing artists abroad.
a grave health problem. The methods provided for the control of Pursuant to the EIAC's recommendations, the Secretary of
leprosy plainly constitute due process of law. Judicial notice will Labor, on January 6, 1994, issued Department Order No. 3
be taken of the fact that leprosy is commonly believed to be an establishing various procedures and requirements for screening
infectious disease tending to cause one afflicted with it to be performing artists under a new system of training, testing,
shunned and excluded from society, and that compulsory certification and deployment of the former. Performing artists
segregation of lepers as a means of preventing the spread of the successfully hurdling the test, training and certification
disease of supported by high scientific authority. Upon this view, requirement were to be issued an Artist's Record Book (ARB), a
laws for the segregation of lepers have been provided the necessary prerequisite to processing of any contract of
world over. Similarly, the local legislature has regarded employment by the POEA.
leprosy as a contagious disease and has authorized measures In Civil Case No. 95-72750, the Federation of Entertainment
to control the dread scourge. To that forum must the petitioner Talent Managers of the Philippines (FETMOP), on January 27, 1995
go to reopen the question. filed a class suit assailing these department orders, principally
contending that said orders 1) violated the constitutional right to
travel; 2) abridged existing contracts for employment; and 3)
Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 148SCRA 659 deprived individual artists of their licenses without due process of
Doctrine: The reasonable connection between the means law. FETMOP, likewise, averred that the issuance of the Artist
employed and the purpose sought to be achieved by the Record Book (ARB) was discriminatory and illegal and "in gross
questioned measure is missing. violation of the constitutional right... to life liberty and property."
Said Federation consequently prayed for the issuance of a writ of
Prohibiting the interprovincial movement of carabaos and preliminary injunction against the aforestated orders. JMM
the slaughtering of carabaos held to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL Promotion and Management were petitioners in intervention.

FACTS: Ynot had transported six carabaos in a pump boat from HELD: A thorough review of the facts and circumstances leading to
Masbate to Iloilo on January 13, 1984, when they were confiscated the issuance of DOLE Order No. 3 (establishing various procedures
by the police station commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, for and requirements for screening performing artists as a prerequisite
violation of the above measure. Ynot sued for recovery, and the to the processing of any contract of employment by POEA) shows
Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City issued a writ of replevin upon his that the assailed order was issued by the Secretary of Labor
filing of a supersede as bond of P12,000.00. After considering the pursuant to a valid exercise of the police power. Clearly, the
merits of the case, the court sustained the confiscation of the welfare of Filipino performing artists, particularly the women
carabaos and, since they could no longer be produced, ordered the was paramount in the issuance of Department Order No. 3.
confiscation of the bond. The court also declined to rule on the The latin maxim salus populi est suprema lex embodies
constitutionality of the executive order, as raise by the petitioner, the character of the entire spectrum of public laws aimed at
for lack of authority and also for its presumed validity. Ynot promoting the general welfare of the people under the State's
appealed the decision to the Intermediate Appellate Court, which police power. As an inherent attribute of sovereignty which
upheld the trial court and he has now come before us in this virtually "extends to all public needs," this "least limitable" of
petition for review on certiorari. governmental powers grants a wide panoply of instruments
through which the state, as parens patriae gives effect to a host of
HELD: But while conceding that the amendatory measure has the its regulatory powers.
same lawful subject as the original executive order, we cannot say
with equal certainty that it complies with the second requirement,
viz., that there be a lawful method. We note that to strengthen the
original measure, Executive Order No. 626-A imposes an absolute City Government of Quezon City v. Ericta, 122 SCRA 759
ban not on the slaughter of the carabaos but on their movement, Doctrine: There is no reasonable relation between the setting
providing that "no carabao regardless of age, sex, physical aside of at least six (6) percent of the total area of an private
condition or purpose (sic) and no carabeef shall be transported cemeteries for charity burial grounds of deceased paupers and
from one province to another." The object of the prohibition the promotion of health, morals, good order, safety, or the
escapes us. general welfare of the people.
To sum up then, we find that the challenged measure is an
invalid exercise of the police power because the method Setting 6% of the Total Area of the memorial park cemetery
employed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably for charity burial of deceased paupers
necessary to the purpose of the law and, worse, is unduly
oppressive. Facts: Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64 provides that at least
6% of the total area of the memorial park cemetery shall be set
aside for the charity burial of deceased persons who are paupers
JMM Promotion and Management, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 260 and have been residents of Quezon City for at least 5 years prior to
SCRA 319 their death. As such, the Quezon City engineer required the
Doctrine: Police power concerns government enactments, which respondent, Himlayang Pilipino Inc, to stop any further selling
precisely interfere with personal liberty or property to promote and/or transaction of memorial park lots in Quezon City where the
the general welfare or the common good. owners thereof have failed to donate the required 6% space
Establishing various procedures and requirements for intended for paupers burial. Petitioners argued that the taking of
screening performing artists under Dept. Order No. 3 was a the respondents property is a valid and reasonable exercise of
VALID exercise of POLICE POWER police power and that the land is taken for a public use as it is
intended for the burial ground of paupers. They further argued that
FACTS: The death of Maricris Sioson resulted to the order a total the Quezon City Council is authorized under its charter, in the
ban against the deployment of performing artists to Japan and exercise of local police power. Respondent, Himlayang Pilipino, Inc.
other foreign destinations by President Cory Aquino. The ban was, contended that the taking or confiscation of property was obvious
however, rescinded after leaders of the overseas employment because the questioned ordinance permanently restricts the use of
industry promised to extend full support for a program aimed at the property such that it cannot be used for any reasonable
removing kinks in the system of deployment. In its place, the purpose and deprives the owner of all beneficial use of his
government, through the Secretary of Labor and Employment, property.
5|P a g e cazgo 03/15/16
II. Fundamental Powers of the State: Police Power
halls, motels and inns, or order their transfer or conversion
Held: Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118 is an INVALID exercise of without infringing the constitutional guarantees of due process
POLICE POWER. The ordinance is actually a taking without and equal protection of the laws, not even in the guise of police
compensation of a certain area from a private cemetery to benefit power.
paupers who are charges of the municipal corporation. Instead of
building or maintaining a public cemetery for this purpose, the city Prohibition of the establishment or operation of businesses
passes the burden to private cemeteries. providing certain forms of amusement, entertainment,
services and facilities in the Ermita-Malate area is an INVALID
exercise of POLICE POWER
Lucena Grand Central Terminal v. JAC Liner, G.R. NO. 148339,
February 23, 2005 FACTS: The private respondent, Malate Tourist Development
Doctrine: The proper exercise of the police power requires Corporation (MTOC) is a corporation engaged in the business of
compliance with the following requisites: (a) the interests of the operating hotels, motels, hostels, and lodging houses. It built and
public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular opened Victoria Court in Malate which was licensed as a motel
class, require the interference by the State; and (b) the means although duly accredited with the Department of Tourism as a
employed are reasonably necessary for the attainment of the hotel.
object sought and not unduly oppressive upon individuals March 30, 1993 - City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim approved an
ordinance enacted which prohibited certain forms of amusement,
Exclusive Franchise grant to operate bus terminal for Traffic entertainment, services and facilities where women are used as
Decongestion was held UNCONSTITUTIONAL tools in entertainment and which tend to disturb the community,
annoy the inhabitants, and adversely affect the social and moral
FACTS: Respondent, JAC Liner, Inc., a common carrier operating welfare of the community. The Ordinance also provided that in case
buses which ply various routes to and from Lucena City, assailed, of violation and conviction, the premises of the erring
via a petition for prohibition and injunction against the City of establishment shall be closed and padlocked permanently.
Lucena, its Mayor, and the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Lucena June 28, 1993 - MTOC filed a Petition with the lower court,
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City, City praying that the Ordinance, insofar as it included motels and inns
Ordinance Nos. 1631 and 1778 which grants an exclusive franchise as among its prohibited establishments, be declared invalid and
for twenty five years, renewable for another twenty five years, to unconstitutional for several reasons but mainly because it is not a
one entity for the construction and operation of one common bus valid exercise of police power and it constitutes a denial of equal
and jeepney terminal facility in Lucena City, to be located outside protection under the law.
the city proper, were professedly aimed towards alleviating the Judge Laguio ruled for the petitioners. The case was elevated
traffic congestion alleged to have been caused by the existence of to the Supreme Court.
various bus and jeepney terminals within the city,as
unconstitutional on the ground that, inter alia, the same HELD: The Supreme Court declared City of Manila Ordinance No.
constituted an invalid exercise of police power, an undue taking of 7783 as an invalid exercise of the police power. Concedely, the
private property, and a violation of the constitutional prohibition ordinance was enacted with the best of motives and shares the
against monopolies. concern of the public for the cleansing of the Ermita-Malate area of
its social sins.
HELD: An ordinance aimed at relieving traffic congestion
meets the first standard; but declaring bus terminals as
nuisances per se and ordering their closure or relocation
contravenes the second standard. Bus terminals per se do not,
however, impede or help impede the flow of traffic; how the outright
proscription against the existence of all terminals, apart from that
franchised to petitioner, can be considered as reasonably necessary
to solve the traffic problem, this Court has not been enlightened. If
terminals lack adequate space such that bus drivers are compelled
to load and unload passengers on the streets instead of inside the
terminals, then reasonable specifications for the size of terminals
could be instituted, with permits to operate the same denied those
which are unable to meet the specifications.

Additional limitations (when exercised by delegate):


a. express grant by law (e.g. RA 7160)
b. within territorial limits (for LGU's)
c. must not be contrary to law (City Government of Quezon
City vs Ericta)
d. for municipal ordinances
1. must not contravene the Constitution or any statute
2. must not be unfair and oppressive
3. must not be partial and discriminatory
4. must not prohibit, but may regulate, trade
5. must not be unreasonable
6. must be general in application and consistent with
public policy

City of Manila v. Judge Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005
Doctrine: Despite its virtuous aims, however, the enactment of
the ordinance has no statutory or constitutional authority to
stand on. Local legislative bodies cannot prohibit the operation
of sauna and massage parlors, karaoke bars, beerhouses, night
clubs, day clubs, supper clubs, discotheques, cabarets, dance
6|P a g e cazgo 03/15/16