CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

POLICE POWER

I. Definition and Scope

a. The power of promoting public welfare by restraining and regulating the use
of liberty and property
b. Pervasive, least limitable and most demanding power
c. Most essential and insistent
d. Cannot be bargain away through the medium of contract or even a treaty
e. Dynamic and static
f. Promotes general welfare of the people

“Salus populi est suprema lex” – the welfare of the people is the supreme law
“Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas” - so use your property as not to injure the
property of others

Property Rights v. Governmental Rights

Stone v. Mississippi 101 US 814

In 1867, Mississippi Agricultural, Educational and Manufacturing Aid Society was

chartered to run a lottery for the 25 years, however on 1868 a new constitution ratified by
the people outlawed lotteries.

It was held that the Mississippi act is valid. The legislature has no power to bind the
people and future legislatures. No legislation can bargain away public health and morals.
The contracts protected by the Constitution are property rights only and not
governmental rights.

Treaty v. Executive Agreement

Ichong v. Hernandez 101 Phil 1155

Petitioner sought to enjoin Retail Trade Nationalization on Law on the ground that it
was inconsistent with the treaty of amity between Philippines and China. The court declared
treaty is always subject to qualification or amendment by subsequent law and the same
may never curtail or restrict the scope of police power. The court dismissed the petition.

Dynamic and static

The court on the case of Ermita Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association,
Inc v. City of Manila on 1967 ruled that ordinance regulation motels is a valid exercise of
police power to minimize certain practices hurtful to public morals. However on the case of
City of Manila v. Laguio on 2005 the court ruled that enumerated establishments on
ordinance are not per se offensive to the moral welfare of the community. The deplorable
human activity may occur at any premises. The city council instead, should regulate
conducts that occur inside establishments, but not to the detriment of liberty and privacy
which are covenants, premiums and blessings of democracy.
 The court declared on the case of White Light Corporation v City of Manila on
2009, the ordinance rashly equates wash rates and renting out a room more than twice a
day with immorality and therefore prohibit the same by the Manila Council is an intrusion of
rights of the establishments as well as their patrons. The norms of due process of liberty
transcend moral norm, though later complement governance. Police power is based upon
the concept of necessity of the State and its corresponding right to protect itself and its
people.

Taxing Power for attainment of Police Objective

In the case of Powell v. Pennsylvania the court imposed exorbitant tax on

margarine to make it unprofitable on the industry on the grounds that the consuming public
mistakenly took margarine for butter.

Oil Price Stabilization Fund, Sugar Stabilization Fund and Special Trust Fund –
exactions made in the exercise of Police Power

Eminent domain as Police Power

In the case of Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian

Reform the Supreme Court held, sustaining the constitutionality of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law, the retention limits for landowners is a valid exercise of Police Power.
The land expropriated to be distributed to the peasantry is subject to just compensation
under the power of Eminent Domain.

In the case of Manila Memorial Park, Inc. v. Secretary of Department of Social

Welfare and Development, the court clarified that twenty percent discount given to Senior
Citizens is an exercise of Police Power and not the Eminent Domain. The decision modify
the earlier ruling in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Central Luzon Drug
Corporation wherein the court ruled that such discount is expropriation and requires just
compensation. However, the premise of deprivation of property is flawed. The obiter is odds
with the settled doctrine that the state can employ police measures to regulate the pricing of
goods and services…to pursue …objectives for the common good.

Due Process v. General Welfare

In the case of Carlos Superdrug v. Department of Social Welfare and

Development on 2007, the Court stressed that “when the conductions so demand as
determined by the legislature, property rights must bow to the primacy of police power case
such rights though sheltered by due process must yield to general welfare.

II. Exercise of the Police Power

- Lodged primarily in the national legislature

Valid Delegation of Police Power

- delegated to President down to barangay level

- Quasi-legislative Power
- Authority delegated to law-making body to the administrative body to adopt
rules and regulations intended to carry provisions of the law and implement
legislative policy.
 - to be valid, such E.O. it must be promulgated upon authority of the legislature
and within the scope given by the legislature
- General Welfare Clause
Exercise by the Municipal Government

Prohibition of Mandamus and Judicial Process to invoke Police Power on Issues

Mandamus- a judicial writ issued as a command to an inferior court or

ordering a person to perform a public or statutory duty

Political Question-
Two (2) grounds:

(1) the constitutional concern for separation of powers, where the

Constitution has already committed the matter on other non judicial branches
of government for decision making; and
(2) prudential concerns which lead the Court to choose to refrain from
adjudicating the matter.

The court cannot command even thru mandamus legislature to act on a

issues as this would constitute Political Question of Law or encroachment of
separation of powers and or check and balance of the state.

Judicial Review

- When life, liberty and property is affected, the case is subject to Judicial Review
- to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, but also to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government
-The court cannot resolve to sit of conflicting theories.

Four Requisites:

1. Actual Case of Controversy;

2. The Constitutional issue was raised by a proper party;
3. The Constitutional question was raised on the earliest opportunity;
4. The decision is necessary for the determination of the case per se.

Other consideration:

1. Grave violation of the constitution;

2. Exceptional character of the situation and paramount public interest is involved;
3. The issue requires formulation of principles that will guide the bench, the bar and
the public
4. Capable of repetition yet evasion reviews

Valid International Agreement

The court pronounced that a “state has contracted valid international obligations is
bound to make in its legislative those modifications that may be necessary to ensure the
fulfillment of the obligations taken
 III. Test of Police Power

1. The interest of the public generally as, distinguished from those of a particular
case, require the exercise of police power; and
2. The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

1. Lawful Subject

The activity sought to be regulated should have affected the public welfare.

Lozano v. Martinez 146 SCRA 323

The court upheld the constitutionality of BP 22 “Bouncing Check Laws” the

contention that such is repugnant to constitution provision of inhibition against imprisonment
for debt is invalid. Ponencia of Justice Pedro L .Yap declared that “issuance of worthless
check injures the public as whole”. Checks consists 2/3 of currency in circulation, such
magnitude requires police power to preserve integrity of the banking system.

Department of Education v. San Diego

Prohibition of enrolling to medical school of a person who failed to pass NMAT for
rd
3 time is a valid exercise of Police Power. To allow such person to enroll is detrimental to
public welfare as a whole.

Sangalang v. Intermediate Appellate Court

The court declared constitutionality of the act of Mayor of Makati to open two
erstwhile private roads of Bel-Air Village. “ The demands of common good, in terms of traffic
decongestion and public convenience”

Del Rosario v Bengzon

The court declared that Generic Act carries the purpose of the state to “promote and
require the use of generic drug that are therapeutically equivalent to their brand name
counterparts”

Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines v. Commission on

Election

The court declared the constitutionality of Sec. 92 BP Blg. 881 requiring television
and radios to give free airtime to Comelec.

Social Justice Society v. Atienza

The exercise of Zoning is classified as Police Power.

Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Director General, National Economic Development Authority

In the case of Ople v. Torres, the court declared that A.O. 308 issued by Pres.
Ramos is a complie of devastating dossier against unsuspecting citizens. However in
Kilusang Mayo Uno v Director General, NEDA the court upheld the constitutionality of E.O.
that prescribes the uniform data collection and format for existing identification system of
the government officer/employee.

2. Lawful Means

City of Government of Quezon City v. Ericta

The court ruled that the ordinance requiring 6% of memorial park to be set aside to
charity is unconstitutional, as this would constitute taking and not police power. It is the
municipal corporation who must be charged with such responsibility.

Office of the Sol Gen v. Ayala Lands

The petition is about provoking the police power of the National Building Code to
compel Ayala lands to provide free parking space to its customer. The court ruled that such
statute merely meant to apportion space for parking, charging the same is not bound to be
prohibited. To prohibit such, is taking away the property and would result to excessive
intrusion of property rights

Fernando v. St. Scholastica’s College

The ordinance requiring a fence that is 80% “see thru” and fences with 5 meter
allowance from the front monument line and building line to be utilized as public parking
space is unconstitutional as this would result to intrusion of property rights and would be
considered expropriation and not police power

Rational Relationship Test and Strict Scrutiny Test

-test to successfully invoke police power as the rationale for the enactment of
ordinance and to free from imputation of constitutional infirmity.

Rational Relationship Test (1) governmental interest is extensively examined (2)

the availability of less restrictive measures is considered.

Strict Scrutiny Test (1) compelling governmental interest (2) absence of less
restrictive means for achieving that interest.

Overbreadth Doctrine/ Void-for vagueness doctrine

Can be invoke by a third person even without injury to his constitutional rights it the
assailed statute involves free speech on grounds or overbreadth of vagueness of the
statute

Facial Challenge

First Amendment Challenge – can launched to assail the validity of statute

concerning protected speech but also other rights such as religious freedom, freedom of the
press, right of the people to peaceful assemble and to petition the Government for redress
of grievances.