Bill of Rights
A. Fundamental powers of the State
1. Police Power
2. Taxation
3. Eminent Domain
 These do not need to be expressly conferred by
constitutional provision on the State as these are
INHERENT in a State. The moment the State comes into
being, it is deemed invested with these three powers as
its innate attributes.
 Similarities:
1. They are inherent in the State and may be
exercised by it without need of express
constitutional grant.
2. They are not only necessary but indispensable.
The State cannot continue or be effective unless
it is able to exercise them.
3. They are methods by which the State interferes
with private rights.
4. They all presuppose an equivalent compensation
for the private rights interfered with.
5. They are exercised primarily by the legislature.
 Differences:
1. Police power regulates both liberty and
property. The Power of Eminent Domain and the
Power of Taxation affect only property rights.
2. Police Power and the Power of Taxation may be
exercised only by the Government. The Power of
Eminent Domain may be exercised by some
private entities.
3. The property taken in the exercise of police
power is destroyed because it is noxious or is
intended for a noxious purpose. The property
taken under the power of eminent domain and
the power of taxation is intended for a public
purpose and is therefore wholesome.
4. The compensation of the person subjected to the
police power is the altruistic feeling that he has
contributed to the general welfare. The
compensation involved in the other powers is
more concrete, to wit, a full and fair equivalent
of the property expropriated or protection and
public improvements for the taxes paid.
 Limitations:
These powers may not be exercised arbitrarily to
the prejudice of the Bill of Rights. The exercise of these
fundamental powers is subject at all times to the limitations and
requirements of the Constitution and may in proper cases be
annulled by the courts of justice.
Police Power
 Characteristics:
It is considered the most pervasive, the least
limitable, and the most demanding of the three powers. It may
be exercised as long as the activity or the property sought to be
regulated has some relevance to the public welfare.
The justification is found in the ancient Lain
maxims, Salus populi est suprema lex and Sic utere tuo at
alienum non laedas.
 Stone vs. Missippi provides that the police power of the
State cannot be bargained away through the medium of
a contract.
 Inchong vs. Hernandez also provides that the police
power of the State cannot also be bargained away
through the medium of a Treaty.
 Police power is dynamic, not static, and must move with
the moving society it is supposed to regulate. Once
exercised, it is not deemed exhausted and may be
exercised again and again, as often it is necessary for the
protection or the promotion of the public welfare.
 The Police Power may sometimes use the Taxing power
as an implement for the attainment of a legitimate police
objective. Ex. Powell vs. Pennsylvania, legislature
imposed an exorbitant amount of tax upon a margarine
industry who was found out to be processing margarine
in an unsanitary manner.
 Exercise of the Police Power
1. National Legislature
2. President (by virtue of a valid delegation of
legislative power)
3. Administrative Boards (also by virtue of a valid
delegation of legislative power)
4. Law making bodies including the barangays.
 No mandamus is available to coerce the exercise of the
police power. It lies in the discretion of the legislative
department.
 Tests of the Police Power
1. The interests of the public generally, as
distinguished from those of a particular class,
require the exercise of the police power (Lawful
Subject); and
2. The means employed are reasonably necessary
for the accomplishment of the purpose and not
unduly oppressive upon individuals. (Lawful
Means)
 Lawful Subject
The 1st requisite simply means that the subject of
the measure is within the scope of the police power, that is, that
the activity or property sought to be regulated affects the public  Before a LGU may enter into the possession of the
welfare. property sought to be expropriated:
1. It must file a complaint for the expropriation
 Lawful Means sufficient in form and substance in the proper
Even if the purpose be within the scope of the court;
police power, the law will still be annulled if the subject is sought 2. Deposit with said court at least 15% of the
to be regulated in violation of the second requirement. In property’s fair market value based on its current
Constitutional Law, the end does not justify the means. The tax declaration.
lawful objective, in other words, must be pursued through a
lawful methods; that is, both the end and the means must be  Destruction from Necessity:
legitimate. Distinction should be made between eminent
domain and destruction from necessity in that the latter may be
 Suggested Readings: validly undertaken even by private individuals. This is not
1. Calalang vs. Williams allowed in the case of eminent domain. Additionally,
2. City Gov’t. of Quezon City vs. Ericta destruction from necessity cannot require the conversion of the
3. Ynot vs. IAC property taken to public use, nor is there any need for the
4. Tio vs. Videogram Regulatory Board payment of just compensation.
5. Inchong vs. Hernandez
 Necessity of Exercise
Questions of necessity or wisdom are essentially
Eminent Domain political when decided by the national legislature and are
usually not subject to judicial review.
 Definition and Scope
Also called the power of expropriation, eminent  Private Property
domain is described as “the highest and most exact idea of 1. Anything that can come under the dominion of
property remaining in the government” that may be acquired man is subject to expropriation. This will include
for some public purpose through a method “in the nature of a real and personal, tangible and intangible
compulsory sale to the State”. properties.
Although it is inherent in a State, it is expressly o Exceptions:
provided for under Art. III, Section 9 that “private property shall a. Money. It would be futile because
not be taken for public use without just compensation”. This of the requirement for the
provision is not a grant but indeed a limitation of the power as payment of just compensation,
its negative and restrictive language clearly suggests. usually also in money; and
b. Choses in action. It is a personal
 Who may exercise right not reduced into passion but
1. Congress recoverable by a suit at law, a
2. President right to receive, demand or
3. Local legislative bodies recover a debt, demand or
4. Certain public corporations, like the National damages on a cause of action ex
Housing Authority and water districts contractu or for a tort or omission
5. Quasi-public corporations like the Philippine of duty.
Railways, the Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Co. and the Meralco.  Requisites for taking in eminent domain (Republic vs.
Castellvi):
1. The expropriator must enter a private property;
 Requisites for the exercise by a local government unit 2. The entry must be for more than a momentary
of the power of expropriation: period;
1. Enactment of an ordinance; 3. The entry must be under warrant or color of legal
2. It must be for a public use, purpose or welfare, or authority;
for the benefit of the poor and the landless; 4. The property must be devoted to public use or
3. Payment of just compensation; otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously
4. Its exercise must be preceded by a valid and affected;
definite offer made to the owner, who rejects the 5. The utilization of the property for public use must
same. be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive
him of beneficial enjoyment of the property.
 Just Compensation
It is the full and fair equivalent of the property
taken from the private owner by the expropriator. It is intended
to indemnify the owner fully for the loss he has sustained as a
result of the expropriator. The word “just” is used to intensify
the meaning of the word “compensation”, to convey the idea
that the equivalent to be rendered for the property taken shall
be real, substantial, full and ample. The compensation, to be
just, must be fair not only to the owner but also to the
expropriator. Payment in excess of the full and fair equivalent of
the loss sustained by the owner, being prejudicial to the public,
will not satisfy the requirement of just compensation.

 Formula in ascertaining Just Compensation

1. If the entire property is expropriated, just
compensation is equivalent to the actual or basic
value of the property at the time of its taking.
2. If the entire property is NOT expropriated, just
compensation is equivalent to the actual or basic
value of the property at the time of its taking +
consequential damages – consequential
benefits.
 Basic or market value of the property – the price that
may be agreed upon by parties willing but not compelled
to enter into a contract of sale.
 Consequential Damages - consist of injuries directly
caused on the residue of the private property taken by
reason of the expropriation.
 Consequential Benefits – if the remainder is as a result
of the expropriation placed in a better location, such as
fronting a street where it used to be an interior lot, the
owner will enjoy consequential benefits which should be
deducted from the consequential damages.
 Determination of just compensation is clearly a judicial
function. Any determination which may be made by any
administrative body, such as the Department of Agrarian
Reform, on the value of the expropriated land would be
at best preliminary and should not be considered as
conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested
party.
 The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law vests in the
Regional Trial Courts, sitting as Special Agrarian Courts,
original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for
determination of just compensation.
 Suggested Readings:
1. Amigable vs. Cuenca
2. Association of Small Landowners vs. Secretary if
Agrarian Reform
3. People vs. Fajardo
4. City of Manila vs. Chinese Community
5. Republic vs. Castellvi