You are on page 1of 14


B Francisco vs HRET
G.R. No. 160261 ; November 10, 2003
Carpio-Morales, J.:
II.A Agustin vs Edu
L-49112 ; February 2, 1979
Fernando, J.:
President Marcos LOI No. 229, as amended by LOI No. 479, required
all motor vehicle owners to have at least one pair of triangular
collapsible reflectorized red and yellow early warning device
because statistics show that one of the major causes of fatal
accidents in land transportation is the presence of stalled motor
vehicles without any appropriate early warning device to signal
approaching motorists of their presence. The Land Transportation
Commissioner was tasked to promulgate rules and regulations to
implement the order, and did so in Memorandum Circular No. 32.
Petitioner prayed for a judgment declaring both the LOI void and
unconstitutional, alleging that said LOI violates the constitutional
provisions on due process of law, equal protection of law, and undue
delegation of police power
Is the LOI a valid exercise of police power?
Yes, the LOI in question was issued in the exercise of the police
power. Police power is the state authority to enact legislation that
may interfere with personal liberty of property in order to promote
the general welfare. Its scope, ever-expanding to meet the
exigencies of the times, even to anticipate the future where it could
be done, provides enough room for an efficient and flexible response
to condition and circumstances thus assuring the greatest benefit.
The police power is a dynamic agency, suitably vague and far from
precisely defined, rooted in the conception that men in organizing
the state and imposing upon its government limitations to safeguard
constitutional rights did not intend thereby to enable an individual
citizen or group of citizens to obstruct unreasonably the enactment
of such salutary measures calculated to insure communal peace,
safety, good order, and welfare.

II.B Ichong et al vs Hernandez

L-7995 ; May 31, 1957
Labrador, J.:
Republic Act No. 1180 is entitled An Act to Regulate the Retail
Business. It nationalizes the retail trade business by prohibiting
aliens from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade, among
others. Petitioner, an alien, attacks the constitutionality of the Act,
contending that it denies to alien residents the equal protection of
the laws and deprives them of their liberty and property without due
process of law. The Solicitor-General and Fiscal of City of Manila
contends that the Act was passed in the exercise of police power.
(1)Is the Act an exercise of the police power?
(2)Is there a violation of due process?
(1)Yes. The Act was approved in the exercise of the police power.
Police power derives its existence from the very existence of
the State itself, it does not need to be expressed or defined in
its scope; it is said to be co-extensive with self-protection and
survival, and as such it is the most positive and active of all
governmental processes, the most essential, insistent and
illimitable. Its only limitations are the of due process and equal
protection. The equal protection clause is against undue favor
and individual or class privilege, as well as hostile
discrimination or the oppression of inequality. The due process
clause has to do with the reasonableness of legislation
enacted in pursuance of the police power.
(2)NO. The guaranty of due process demands only that the law
shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and that
the means selected shall have a real and substantial relation
to the subject sought to be attained. The law in question is
deemed absolutely necessary to bring about the desired
legislative objective, i.e. to free national economy from alien
control and dominance. It is not unreasonable because it
affects private rights and privileges. The test of
reasonableness of a law is the appropriateness or adequacy
under all circumstances of the means to carry out its purpose.
The disputed law is not the product of racial hostility,
prejudice or discrimination, but the expression of the
legitimate desire and determination of the people to free the
nation from the economic situation that has unfortunately
been upon it to its disadvantage. The law is clearly falls within
the scope of police power of the State, thru which and by
which it protects its own personality and insures its security in
the future. It does not violate the equal protection clause

because sufficient grounds exist for the distinction between

alien and citizen in the exercise of the occupation regulation,
nor does the due process of law clause, because the law is
prospective in operation and recognizes the privilege of aliens
already engaged in the occupation and reasonably protects
their privilege.

II.C Lutz vs Araneta

L-7859 ; December 22, 1955
Reyes, JBL, J.:
Commonwealth Act No. 567, otherwise known as the Sugar
Adjustment Act, provides for an increase of the existing tax on the
manufacture of sugar, and levies tax on owners or persons in control
of lands devoted to the cultivation of sugar cane. All collections
under the said Act shall accrue to a special fund (Sugar Adjustment
and Stabilization Fund) and shall be paid out only to: (1) place the
sugar industry in a position to maintain itself; (2) readjust benefits
derived from the sugar industry; (3) limit the production of sugar to
areas more economically suited; and (4) afford labor employed in
the industry a living wage and improve their living and working
conditions. Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Collector of Internal
Revenue P14,666.40 paid by the estate under the said Act, alleging
that such tax is unconstitutional and void for being levied for the aid
and support of the sugar industry exclusively and not a public
Is the Act an exercise of police power?
Yes, the Act is primarily an exercise of police power. The tax is levied
with a regulatory purpose, to provide means for the rehabilitation
and stabilization of the threatened sugar industry. The sugar
industry is one of the great industry of our nation; it is a great
source of the States wealth, and is thus pivotal in the plans of a
regime committed to a policy of currency stability. Its promotion,
protection, and advancement, therefore redounds greatly to the
general welfare. The Legislature may determine within reasonable
bounds what is necessary for its protection and expedient for its
promotion subject only to the test of reasonableness, and that the
means bear a relation to the objective pursued and not oppressive
in character. Taxation may be made in the implement of the States
police power.

II.D Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board

L-75697 ; June 18, 1987
Melencio-Herrera, J.:
The petition was filed by petitioner which assailed the
constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 1987 or An Act Creating
the Videogram Regulatory Board. Petitioner submits that Section 10
of said Act which imposes 30% tax on gross receipts is harsh and
oppressive, confiscatory and in restraint of trade.
Is there a valid exercise of police power in imposing the tax?
Yes. A tax does not cease to be valid merely because it regulates,
discourages, or even definitely deters the activities taxed. The
power to impose taxes is one so unlimited in force and so searching
in extent that the courts scarcely venture to declare that it is subject
to any restrictions whatever, except such as rest in the discretion of
the authority which exercises it. This is, in general, a sufficient
security against erroneous and oppressive taxation. The tax
imposed by the Decree is not only regulatory but also a revenue
measure. The levy of the 30% tax is for a public purpose. It was
imposed primarily to answer the need for regulation the video
industry, primarily because of the rampant film piracy, the flagrant
violation of the intellectual property rights, and the proliferation of
pornographic videotapes. And while it was also an objective of the
Decree to protect the movie industry, the tax remains a valid
imposition. The public purpose of a tax may legally exist even if the
motive which impelled the legislature to impose the tax was to favor
on industry over another.

II.E Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc vs

Secretary of Agrarian Reform
G.R. No. 78742 ; July 14, 1989
Cruz, J.:

II.F Lozano vs Martinez

No. L-63419 ; December 18, 1986
Yap, J.:
The constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, popularly known
as the Bouncing Check Law, which was approved on April 3, 1979, is
the sole issue presented by several petitions for decision. The
petitions arose from prosecution of offenses under the statute. The
defendants moved to quash the informations on the ground that the
acts charged did not constitute an offense, the statute being
unconstitutional for violating the constitutional provision against
imprisonment for debt, equal protection clause, and impairment of
freedom of contract. The motions were denied except for one case,
G.R. No. 75789, wherein the trial court declared the law
unconstitutional. The parties adversely affect went to the Supreme
Court for relief.
Is the enactment of BP 22 a valid exercise of police power?
YES. The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of
making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored
upon its presentation for payment. It is not the non-payment of an
obligation which the law punishes. The thrust of the law is to
prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless
checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious
effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by the law. It
is within the prerogative of the lawmaking body to proscribe certain
acts deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare. The
enactment of BP 22 is a declaration by the legislature that, as a
matter of public policy, the making and issuance of a worthless
check is deemed a public nuisance to be abated by the imposition of
penal sanctions. Although not a legal tender, checks have come to
be perceived as convenient substitute for currency in commercial
and financial trnasactions. The basis of such perception is
confidence. If such confidence is shaken, the usefulness of checks
as currency substitutes would be grealty diminished or become nil.
Any practice therefore that destroy that confidence should be
deterred, for the proliferation of worthless checks can only create
havoc in trade circles and banking community. The effects of the
issuance of a worthless check transcends the private interests of the
parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests
of the community at large. The mischief it creates is not only a
wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public. The
harmful practice of putting valueless commercial papers in
circulation, multiplied a thousandfold, can very well pollute the
channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and

eventually hurt the welfare of the society and the public interest. In
sum, BP 22 is a valid exercise of the police power and is not
repugnant to the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for

II.G Kwong Sing vs City of Manila

; October 11, 1920
Malcolm, J.:
Ordinance No. 532 requires laundries, dyeing, and cleaning
establishments to issue their customer a receipt in duplicate, in
English and Spanish, duly signed, showing the kind and number of
articles delivered. The validity of the Ordinance is brought to the
Supreme Court on appeal. Plantiffs contention is also that the
ordinance is invalid because it savors of class legislation; it unjustly
discriminates between persons in similar circumstances and
constitutes an arbitrary infringement of property rights.
(1)Was Ordinance No. 532 passed as a valid exercise of police
(2)Was there a violation of due process?
(1)YES. Section 2444 of the Administrative Code authorizes the
municipal board of the City of Manila, with the approval of the
mayor to regulate and fix the amount of the license fees for
laundries, and to enact all ordinances it may deem necessary
and proper for the general welfare of the city. Under the power
to regulate laundries, the municipal authorities could make
proper police regulations as to the mode in which the
employment or business shall be exercised. Ordinance No. 532
was enacted to avoid disputes between laundrymen and their
patrons and to protect customers of laundries who are not
able to decipher Chinese characters from being defrauded.
The object of the ordinance was the promotion of peace and
good order and the prevention of fraud, deceit, cheating, and
imposition. The convenience of the public would also be
served in a community where there is a Babel of tongues
having receipts made out in the two official languages.
Reasonable restraints of a lawful business fro such purposes
are permissible under the police power. The very foundation of
police power is the control of private interests for the public
(2)NO. It is a familiar legal principle that an ordinance must be
reasonable. Not only must it appear that the interest of the
public generally require an interference with private rights,
but the means adopted must be reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive
upon individuals. If the ordinance appears to the judicial mind
to be partial or oppressive, it must be declared. The
presumption, however, us that the municipal authorities, in
enacting the ordinance, did so with a rational and

conscientious regard for the rights of the individual and of the

community. The ordinance invades no fundamental right and
impairs no personal privilege. Under the guise of police power,
an attempt is not made to violate personal or property rights.
The ordinance is neither discriminatory nor unreasonable in its
operation. It applies to all public laundries without distinction.

II.H Tablarin vs Gutierrez

No. L-78164 ; July 31, 1987
Feliciano, J.:
The petitioners sought admission into colleges or schools of
medicine for the school year 1987-1988. However, petitioners either
did not take or did not successfully take the National Medical
Admission Test (NMAT) required by the Board of Medical Education.
The petitioners sought to enjoin the enforcement of Section 5 (a)
and (f) of Republic Act 2382 which required the of taking and
passing of the NMAT as a condition for securing certificates of
eligibility for admission to medical school. The petition was denied
by the RTC, and brought a Special Civil Action for Certiorari with the
SC to set aside the order of the RTC Judge.
Is there a valid exercise of the police power?
YES. Police power is the pervasive and non-waivable power and
authority of the sovereign to secure and promote all the important
interests and needs of the general community. An important
component of that public order is the health and physical safety and
wellbeing of the population, the securing of which is a legitimate
objective of the governmental efforts and regulation. The regulation
of the practice of medicine in all its branches has long been
recognized as a reasonable method of protecting the health and
safety of the public. The power to regulate and control the practice
of medicine includes the power to regulate admission to the ranks of
those authorized to practice medicine. The government is entitled to
prescribe an admission test like NMAT as a means for achieving the
objective of upgrading the selection of applicants into medical
schools and improving the quality of medical education in the
country. NMAT is reasonably related to the securing of the ultimate
end of legislation and regulation which is the protection of the public
from the potentially deadly effects of the incompetence and
ignorance in those who would undertake to treat our bodies and
minds for disease or trauma.

II.I City Government of Quezon City vs Ericta

No. L-34915 ; June 24, 1983
Gutierrez, Jr., J.:
The Quezon City Engineer notified Himlayang Pilipino in writing that
Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64, which required that 6% of
the total area of the memorial park cemetery be set aside for
charity burial, would be enforced. Respondent filed a petition for
declaratory relief, prohibition, and mandamus with preliminary
injunction seeking to annul Section 9 of the Ordinance. The trial
court rendered the decision declaring it null and void. Petitioners
argue that the taking is a valid and reasonable exercise of police
power, while respondent contends that the taking permanently
restricts the use of the property such that it cannot be used for any
reasonable purpose and deprives the owner of all beneficial use.
Is there a valid exercise of police power?
NO. The Charter of Quezon City does not reveal provision that would
justify the ordinance except the provision granting police power.
Police power is the power of promoting the welfare by restraining
and regulating the use of liberty and property. It is usually exercised
in the form of mere regulation or restriction for the promotion of the
general welfare. It does not involve the taking or confiscation of
property with the exception of a few cases where there is a
necessity to confiscate the private property in order to destroy it for
purposes of protecting the peace and order and of promoting the
general welfare. There is no reasonable relation between the setting
aside of 6% of the total area of all private cemeteries for charity
burial grounds of deceased paupers and the promotion of health,
morals, good order, safety, or the general welfare of the people.
The ordinance is actually a taking without compensation of a certain
area from a private cemetery to benefit paupers who are charges of
the municipal corporation.

II.J Metropolitan Manila Development Authority vs Bel-Air Village

Association, Inc.
G.R. No. 135962 ; March 27, 2000
Puno, J.:
Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. (BAVA) is the registered owner of
Neptune Street, a road inside Bel-Air Village. On December 30,
1995, respondent received from petitioner, through its Chairman, a
notice dated December 22, 1995, requesting the respondent to
open Neptune Street to public vehicular traffic starting January 2,
1996. On the same day, respondent was appraised tha the
perimeter wall separating the subdivision from the adjacent
Kalayaan Avenue would be demolished. Respondent instituted a
petition for injunction enjoining the opening of Neptune Street. The
trial court denied the issuance of a preliminary injunction, but the
appellate court rendered a decision finding that MMDA had no
authority to order the opening of Neptune Street and cause the
demolition of its perimeter.
Does MMDA have the authority to exercise police power?
No. Police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. The power is
plenary and its scope is vast and pervasive. It is 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, not repugnant to the
Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of
the commonwealth. It cannot be exercised by any individuals not
possessing legislative power. However, the National Legislature may
delegate this power to the President and administrative boards as
well as lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations. Once
delegated, the agents can exercise only such legislative powers as
are conferred on them by the national lawmaking body. The powers
of the MMDA are limited to formulation, coordination, regulation,
implementation, preparation, management, monitoring, setting of
policies, installation of a system and administration. There is no
provision in RA 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. The MMDA is a
development authority, and not a local government unit or a public
corporation endowed with legislative power. Therefore, it may not
exercise police power.

II.K Tatel vs Municipality of Virac

G.R. No. 40243 ; March 11, 1992
Nocon, J.:
Residents of Sta. Elena complained against the disturbance caused
by the operation of the abaca bailing machine inside the warehouse
of Celestino Tatel which affected the peace and tranquility of the
neighborhood due to the smoke, obnoxious odor and dust emitted
by the machine. After an investigation on the matter, Resolution No.
29 was passed by the Municipal Council of Virac declaring the
warehouse a public nuisance within the purview of Article 694 of the
New Civil Code, and that it was constructed in violation of Ordinance
No. 13 which prohibited the construction of warehouses near a block
of houses. Appelant filed a Petition for Prohibition with Preliminary
Injunction against the Municipal Council of Virac with the CFI
enjoining them from enforcing Resolution No. 29.
Is the Ordinance a valid exercise of police power?
YES. Ordinance No 13 was passed by the Municipal Council of Virac
in the exercise of its police power. It is a settled principle of law that
municipal corporations are agencies of the State for the promotion
and maintenance of local self-government and as such are endowed
with police powers in order to effectively accomplish and carry out
the declared objects of their creation. For an ordinance to be valid, it
must not only be within the corporate powers of the municipality but
must also be passed according to the procedures prescribed by law,
and must be in consonance with certain well established and basic
principles of a substantive nature. These principles require that a
municipal ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution; (2)
must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or
discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5)
must be general and consistent with public policy; and (6) must not
be unreasonable. Ordinance No. 13, meets these criteria. What is
regulated by the ordinance is the construction of warehouses
wherein flammable materials are stored where such warehouses are
located at a distance of 200 meters from a block of houses. The
purpose is to avoid the loss of life and property in case of fire with is
one of the primordial obligation of the government.