3 Inherent Powers of the State: 1. Police Power; 2. Power of Eminent Domain or Power of Expropriation; and 3.

Power of Taxation Purpose: 1. for public good or welfare - Police Power 2. for public use - Power of Eminent Domain 3. for revenu - Power of Taxation 1. POLICE POWER is the power of promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of both liberty and property of all the people. It is considered to be the most all-encompassing of the three powers. It may be exercised only by the government. The property taken in the exercise of this power is destroyed because it is noxious or intended for a noxious purpose. It lies primarily in the discretion of the legislature. Hence, the President, and administrative boards as well as the lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels, including the barangay may not exercise it without a valid delegation of legislative power. Municipal governments exercise this power by virtue of the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code of 1991. Even the courts cannot compel the exercise of this power through mandamus or any judicial process. Requisites of a valid police measure: (a.) Lawful Subject the activity or property sought to be regulated affects the public welfare. It requires the primacy of the welfare of the many over the interests of the few. (b.) Lawful Means the means employed must be reasonable and must conform to the safeguards guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. 2. POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN affects only property RIGHTS. It may be exercised by some private entities. The property forcibly taken under this power, upon payment of just compensation, is needed for conversion to public use or purpose. The taking of property in law may include: trespass without actual eviction of material impairment of the value of the - prevention of the ordinary uses for which the property was intended. the owner; property; or

The property that may be subject for appropriation shall not be limited to private property. Public property may be expropriated provided there is a SPECIFIC grant of authority to the delegate. Money and a chose in action are the only things exempt from expropriation. Although it is also lodged primarily in the national legislature, the courts have the power to inquire the legality of the right of eminent domain and to determine whether or not there is a genuine necessity therefore. 3. POWER OF TAXATION affects only property rights and may be exercised only by the government. The property taken under this power shall likewise be intended for a public use or

purpose. It is used solely for the purpose of raising revenues, to protect the people and extend them benefits in the form of public projects and services (I hope so). Hence, it cannot be allowed to be confiscatory, except if it is intended for destruction as an instrument of the police power. It must conform to the requirements of due process. Therefore, taxpayers are entitled to be notified of the assessment proceedings and to be heard therein on the correct valuation to be given the property. It is also subject to the general requirements of the equal protection clause that the rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. CHAPTER II DUE PROCESS Section 1NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. Kinds of Due Process: a. substantive due processrequires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to life, liberty or property. In short, it is to determine whether it has a valid governmental objective like for the interest of the public as against mere particular class. b. Procedural due processone which hears before it condemns as pointed out by Daniel Webster. Due process is a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE - means that the states must apply the law equally and cannot give preference to one person or class of persons over another. The equal-protection guarantee does not require territorial uniformity of laws. The fundamental right of equal protection of the law is not absolute, but is subject to reasonable classification. Classification, to be valid, must (1) rest on substantial distinctions, (2) be germane to the purpose of the law, (3) not be limited to existing conditions only, and (4) apply equally to all members of the same class. the right of all persons to have the same access to the law and courts and to be treated equally by the law and courts, both in procedures and in the substance of the law. It is akin to the right to due process of law, but in particular applies to equal treatment as an element of fundamental fairness.

Freedom of expression

Article 3, Section 4 of the Philippine Constitution prohibits any law that abridges the freedom of speech, of the press or the right to peaceful public assembly.
The right to free speech under the Philippine Constitution is an almost verbatim rendering of the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. For this reason, Philippine case law on free speech is largely based on US jurisprudence, although the Philippine Supreme Court has diverged from US case law in certain cases.

Clear and Present Danger

In testing the validity of any governmental regulation of speech, courts employ a strict scrutiny standard and have invariably called it the "clear and present danger" rule. Under this rule, speech becomes unprotected if it presents a clear and present danger of a grave and imminent evil which the government has a right to prevent. The feared evil must have gravity and proximity, meaning there must be seriousness and immediacy about the danger sought to be prevented. Thus, the government has an overriding interest to prevent speech that will divulge the movement and positions of troops in times of war. Another common example is shouting fire in a crowded theater, which is likely to create panic and stampede.

Unprotected Speech
Freedom of speech is not an absolute right. Not all speech is constitutionally protected. Speech that incites lawless conduct, so-called fighting words (words that provoke physical retaliation), libelous or defamatory speech, and obscenity can legitimately be prohibited or punished by the government.

Scope of Free Speech Clause

Freedom of speech under the Philippine Constitution includes freedom of expression, freedom of the press and the right of the people to peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. Uttering protected speech makes the speaker not only immune from punishment for his words after they have been uttered, but also protects him against prior restraints or regulations that censor his words before they are uttered.

Content-based and Content-neutral Regulations

Regulations of speech may either be content-based (the subject of the speech or utterance is sought to be regulated) and content-neutral (it regulates only the conduct associated with speech, such as the time, place and manner). To pass constitutional muster, any content-based regulation must show that the government has a compelling or overriding interest in the subject of the regulation. A content-neutral restriction, on the other hand, need only show an important government interest, as long as it leaves open alternative channels of communication. An example of a content-neutral regulation that has been repeatedly upheld as valid by the Supreme Court is the Public Assembly Act of 1985. This law requires permits for the conduct of rallies or assemblies in

public places. In ruling on its validity, the Supreme Court found the permit requirement as applying only to the orderly conduct of rallies or assemblies, such as the equal allocation of time and space to all groups wishing to conduct public assemblies and the regulation of the flow of traffic. It also found the provision of the law requiring each city and municipality in the country to designate a freedom park as providing an alternative channel of communication.

Regulation of the Broadcast Media

Traditionally, regulation of speech in the broadcast media (radio or television) is much more stringent than in print. The government needs only to show substantial or important interest. This rule is justified by the scarcity of frequencies (physical limitation of the airwaves), pervasiveness of the broadcast media and its unique accessibility to children. But the Philippine Supreme Court in Chavez v. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 168338 (February 15, 2008), departing from this traditional rule in American jurisprudence, emphatically ruled that any content-based restriction of speech, be it in print or broadcast media, shall be tested by the strict scrutiny standard.

EX POST FACTO LAW One which (1) makes an action done before the passing of the law and which was innocent when done criminal, and punishes such action; or (2) aggravates a crime or makes it greater than it was when committed; or (3) Which damages the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed; or (4) Which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the defendant; or 5) assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which when done was lawful; or 6) deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of the former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. Ex post facto laws are prohibited under the Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 22). The prohibition against ex post facto laws applies only to criminal or penal, and not to civil matters.[3]

BILL OF ATTAINDER

a law that punishes a person accused of a crime without a trial or a fair hearing in court. Constitution prevents congress from passing this type of bills

A "bill of attainder" is defined as "a legislative act which inflicts punishment on individuals or members of a particular group without a judicial trial. Essential to a bill of attainder are a specification of certain individuals or a group of individuals, the imposition of a punishment, penal or otherwise, and the lack of judicial trial. This last element, the total lack of court intervention in the finding of guilt and the determination of the actual penalty to be imposed, is the most essential.[1]

Constitutional basis
The prohibition against the enactment of a bill of attainder is one of the items in the Bill of Rights under the Constitution. The Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 22) provides that: "No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted."