Philippine Law Reviewers

Constitutional Law Chapter I – Fundamental

Powers of the State (Police Power)
MAY 10
Posted by Magz
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

CHAPTER I – FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

(Police Power)

1. Define:

police power—is the power vested in the legislature by the Constitution to make, ordain,
establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws for the good and welfare of the State
and its people. (ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS. CITY MAYOR, July 31, 1967)

The basic purposes of police power are:

a. to promote the general welfare, comfort and convenience of the people;

(ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. SECRETARY, 175 SCRA 343; US VS.
TORIBIO, 15 Phil. 85

b. to promote and preserve public health; (VILLANUEVA VS. CASTANEDA,

September 21, 1987; DECS VS. SAN DIEGO, 180 SCRA 533 [NMAT]; LORENZO VS.
DIRECTOR OF HEALTH, 50 Phil. 595—apprehend and confine lepers in a leprosarium)

https://lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/constitution…law-chapter-i-fundamental-powers-of-the-state-police-power/ 15/01/2020, 3?32 PM

Page 1 of 12
 PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS COMMISSION VS. ARLENE DE GUZMAN, ET AL.,
June 21, 2004

POLICE POWER/Public Health; THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE A PROFESSION

Facts:

After the Professional Regulations Commission (PRC) released the names of successful
examinees in the Medical Licensure Examination, the Board of Medicines observed that the
grades of the 79 Fatima College of Medicine successful examinees were unusually and
exceptionally high in the two (2) most difficult subjects of the exam, i.e., Biochemistry and
Obstetrics and Gynecology.

The Board then issued Resolution No. 19 withholding the registration as physicians of all the
examinees from Fatima College of Medicine. Compared with other examines from other
schools, the results of those from Fatima were not only incredibly high but unusually clustered
close to each other. The NBI Investigation found that the “Fatima examinees gained early
access to the test questions.”

On July 5, 1993, the respondents-examinees filed a petition for mandamus before the RTC of
Manila to compel the PRC to give them their licenses to practice medicine. Meanwhile on July
21, 1993, the Board of medicine issued Resolution No. 21 charging the respondents of
immorality, dishonest conduct, fraud and deceit and recommended that the test results of the
Fatima Examinees be nullified.

On December 19, 1994, the RTC of Manila promulgated its decision ordering the PRC to allow
the respondents to take the physician’s oath and to register them as physicians. The same was
appealed by the PRC to the Court of Appeals which sustained the RTC decision.

Hence, this petition.

Held:

It must be stressed that the power to regulate the practice of a profession or pursuit of an
occupation cannot be exercised by the State in an arbitrary, despotic or oppressive manner.
However, the regulating body has the right to grant or forbid such privilege in accordance with
certain conditions.

But like all rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, their exercise may be
regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace,
education, order, safety, and general welfare of the people. As such, mandamus will not lie to
compel the Board of Medicine to issue licenses for the respondents to practice medicine.

https://lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/constitution…law-chapter-i-fundamental-powers-of-the-state-police-power/ 15/01/2020, 3?32 PM

Page 2 of 12
RA 2382 which prescribes the requirements for admission to the practice of medicine, the
qualifications of the candidates for the board examination, the scope and conduct of the
examinations, the grounds for the denying of the issuance of a physician’s license, or revoking
a license that has been issued. It is therefore clear that the examinee must prove that he has
fully complied with all the conditions and requirements imposed by law and the licensing
authority to be granted the privilege to practice medicine. In short, he shall have all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications. The petition is therefore granted.

c. to promote and protect public safety; (AGUSTIN VS. EDU, 88 SCRA 195; TAXICAB
OPERATORS VS. JUINIO, 119 SCRA 897 )

d. to maintain and safeguard peace and order; (GUAZON VS. DE VILLA)

e. to protect public morals; (DE LA CRUZ VS. PARAS, 123 SCRA 569; ERMITA
MALATE HOTEL VS. CITY MAYOR, July 31, 1967; JMM PROMOTIONS VS. CA, 260 SCRA
319; VELASCO VS. VILLEGAS, February 13, 1983)

f. to promote the economic security of the people. (ichong vs. hernandez, 101 Phil.
11155)

Not a valid exercise of police power:

a. CITY GOVERNMENT OF QC VS. ERICTA, 122 SCRA 759; (6%)

b. YNOT VS. IAC, 148 SCRA 659; the Director of Animal Industry or the Chairman if
the National Meat Commission “may dispose of the carabeef to charitable agencies as he may
deem fit”. This is oppressive and unreasonable since the owner is denied due process of law
and he is given so much discretion as the law is not complete in itself nor is there a standard to
guide the official.

c. DE LA CRUZ VS. PARAS, 123 SCRA 569

power of eminent domain

power of taxation
2. Differences and similarities

Didipio earth savers multi purpose association vs. denr sec. Elisea gozu, et al., 485 scra 586

Chico-Nazario, J.

https://lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/constitution…law-chapter-i-fundamental-powers-of-the-state-police-power/ 15/01/2020, 3?32 PM

Page 3 of 12
1. The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the State to condemn or to take
private property for public use upon payment of just compensation while police power is the
power of the state to promote public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty
and property without compensation;

2. In the exercise of police power, enjoyment of a property is restricted because the

continued use thereof would be injurious to public welfare. In such case, there is no
compensable taking provided none of the property interests is appropriated for the use or for
the benefit of the public. Otherwise, there should be compensable taking if it would result to
public use.

3. Properties condemned under police power are usually noxious or intended for
noxious purpose; hence , no compensation shall be paid. Likewise, in the exercise of police
power, property rights of private individuals are subjected to restraints and burdens in order to
secure the general comfort, health and prosperity of the state.

While the power of eminent domain often results in the appropriation of title to or possession
of property, it need not always be the case. Taking may include trespass without actual eviction
of the owner, material impairment of the value of the property or prevention of the ordinary
uses for which the property was intended such as the establishment of an easement.

As such, an imposition of burden over a private property through easement (by the
government) is considered taking; hence, payment of just compensation is required. The
determination of just compensation, however, is a judicial function (EPZA vs. Dulay, 149 SCRA
305) and initial determinations on just compensation by the executive department and
Congress cannot prevail over the court’s findings.

Finally, service contracts with foreign corporations is not prohibited under the 1987 Philippine
Constitution with foreign corporations or contractors would invest in and operate and manage
extractive enterprises, subject to the full control and supervision of the State; this time,
however, safety measures were put in place to prevent abuses of the past regime.

3. Limitations in the exercise of said powers

4. Tests for a valid exercise of police power

a. the interests of the public, not mere particular class, require the exercise of police
power; (LAWFUL SUBJECT)

b. the means employed is reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose
and not unduly oppressive to individuals. (LAWFUL MEANS). In short, the end does not
justify the means.

https://lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/constitution…law-chapter-i-fundamental-powers-of-the-state-police-power/ 15/01/2020, 3?32 PM

Page 4 of 12
5. Read:

a. JMM Promotions vs. CA, 260 SCRA 319

b. ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL VS. MAYOR OF MANILA, July 31, 1967;

c. ICHONG VS. HERNANDEZ, 101 Phil. 1155

d. CHURCHILL VS. RAFFERTY, 32 Phil. 580

e. PEOPLE VS. POMAR, 46 Phil. 447

f. US VS. TORIBIO, 15 Phil. 85

g. VELASCO VS. VILLEGAS, February 13, 1983

h. ILOILO ICE & COLD STORAGE VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, 24 Phil. 471

i. AGUSTIN VS. EDU, 88 SCRA 195

j. YNOT VS. IAC, 148 SCRA 659

RESTITUTO YNOT VS. THE ITERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, G.R. No. 74457,March
20, 1987

Cruz, J.

Facts:

1. On January, 13, 1984, Ynot transported six carabaos by using a pumpboat from Masbate to
Iloilo. The six carabaos, were, however, confiscated by the Police Station Commander of
Baratoc Nuevo, Iloilo for alleged violation of Executive Order No. 626-A which prohibits the
inter-provincial transporting of carabaos and carabeefs which does not comply with the
provisions of Executive No.626;

2. That Section 1 of the said law provides that “henceforth, no carabaos regardless of age, sex
physical condition or purpose and no carabeef shall be transported from one province to
another. The carabao or carabeef transported in violation of the said law shall be subjected to
confiscation and forfeiture by the government to be distributed to charitable institution and
similar institutions as the Chairman of the National meat inspection Commission may see fit in
the case of the carabeef, and to deserving farmers through the dispersal of the Director of
Animal Industry, in the case of carabaos;

https://lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/constitution…law-chapter-i-fundamental-powers-of-the-state-police-power/ 15/01/2020, 3?32 PM

Page 5 of 12
3. Ynot filed a suit for recovery and the carabao were returned to him upon the issuance of a
writ of replevin upon his filing of a supersede as bond in the amount of P12,000.00;

4. After trial of the case, the Judge upheld the validity of the act of the Police Station
Commander in confiscating the carabaos. Ynot was ordered to returned the carabaos but since
he could not do so, the court ordered the confiscation of the bond. The court refused to rule on
the constitutionality of the said Executive Order on the ground of lack of authority to do so and
also because of its presumed validity;

5. The petitioner appealed to the IAC but the said court upheld the decision of the Trial Court.
Hence this petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court where YNOT claimed
that the penalty of confiscation is INVALID the same was imposed without according the
owner the right to be heard before a competent and impartial tribunal as guaranteed by due
process.

Issues:

1. May a lower court (like the MTC, RTC, of the Court of Appeals) declare a law
unconstitutional?

2. Is Executive Order No. 626-A constitutional?

Sub-issues under this are:

a. Was it a valid police power measure?

b. Was there an undue delegation of legislative power?

Held:

1. While the lower courts should observe a becoming modesty in examining constitutional
question, THEY ARE NOT PREVENTED FROM RESOLVING THE SAME WHENEVER
WARRANTED, subject only to review by the supreme court. This is so because under Section 5,
[2(a)], Art. VIII, of the 1987 Constitution provides that the Supreme Court has the power to
“review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal” or certiorari as the rules of court may
provide, final judgements and orders of the lower courts in all cases involving the
constitutionality of certain measures. This simply means that lower courts may declare
whether or not a law is constitutional.

2. In order that a measure or law may be justified under the police power of the state, it
must meet two tests:

a. the subject must be lawful; and

https://lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/constitution…law-chapter-i-fundamental-powers-of-the-state-police-power/ 15/01/2020, 3?32 PM

Page 6 of 12
 b. the means employed is lawful.

Since the prohibition of the slaughtering of carabaos except where they are at least 7 years old
when male and at least 11 years old when female is in furtherance of the public interest since
said carabaos are very useful to the work at the farm, it is conceded that the Executive Order
meets the first test—- it has lawful subject.

But does the law meets the second requisite or test which is lawful method?

Executive Order No. 626-A imposes an absolute ban not on the slaughtering of carabaos BUT
ON THIER MOVEMENT, providing that “no carabao regardless of age, sex, physical condition
or purpose and no carabeef shall be transported from one province to another.” The reasonable
connection between the means employed and the purpose sought to be achieved by the
question measure is missing. We do not see how the prohibition of the inter-provincial
transport can prevent their indiscriminate slaughter considering that they can be killed any
where, with no less difficulty in one province than in the other. Obviously, retaining a carabao
in one province will not prevent their slaughter there, any more than moving them to another
province will make it easier to kill them there.

The law is unconstitutional because it struck at once and pounced upon the petitioner without
giving him a chance to be heard, thus denying him the centuries-old guarantee of elementary
fair play.

Since the Executive Order in question is a penal law, then violation thereof should be
pronounce not by the police BUT BY A COURT OF JUSTICE, WHICH ALONE WOULD HAVE
HAD THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE THE PRESCRIBED PENALTY, AND ONLY AFTER
TRIAL AND CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED.

Also, there is no reasonable guidelines or bases of the Director of Animal Industry or the
Chairman of the NATIONAL Meat Inspection Commission in the disposition of the carabaos or
carabeef other than what “they may see fit” which is very dangerous and could result to
opportunities for partiality and abuse, and even graft and corruption.

The Executive Order is, therefore, invalid and unconstitutional and not a valid police power
measure because the METHOD EMPLOYED TO CONSERVE CARABAOS IS NOT
REASONABLY NECESSARY TO THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW AND, WORSE IS UNDULY
OPPRESSIVE. DUE PROCESS IS VIOLATED BECAUSE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY
CONFISCATED IS DENIED THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD IN HIS DEFENSE AND IS
IMMEDIATELY CONDEMNED AND PUNISHED. THE CONFERMENT ON THE
ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES (like the police) OF THE POWER TO ADJUDGE THE
GUILT OF THE SUPPOSED OFFENDER IS A CLEAR ENCROACHMENT OF JUDICIAL
FUNCTIONS AND MILITATES AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF SEPARATIION OF POWERS.

https://lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/constitution…law-chapter-i-fundamental-powers-of-the-state-police-power/ 15/01/2020, 3?32 PM

Page 7 of 12
Also, there is undue delegation of legislative power to the officers mentioned therein (Director
of Animal Industry and Head of the National Meat Commission) because they were given
unlimited discretion in the distribution of the property confiscated.

k. TAXICAB OPERATORS VS. BOT, 119 SCRA 597

l. BAUTISTA VS. JUINIO, 127 SCRA 329

MARY CONCEPCION-BAUTISTA VS. ALFREDO JUINIO, ET AL, 127 SCRA 329

Fernando, C.J

Facts:

1. On May 31, 1979, President Marcos issued Letter of Instruction No. 869 prohibiting the use
of private motor vehicles with H (Heavy Vehicles) and EH (Extra Heavy Vehicles) on week-
ends and holidays from 12:00 a.m. Saturday morning to 5:00 a.m. Monday morning, or 1:00
a.m. of the holiday to 5:00 a.m. of the day after the holiday. Motor vehicles of the following
classifications are however, exempted:

1. S—-service;

2. T—-Truck;

3. DPL–Diplomatic;

4. CC—Consular Corps; and

5. TC—Tourist Cars

2. On June 11, 1979, the then Commissioner of Land Transportation, ROMEO EDU issued
Circular No. 39 imposing “the penalties of fine, confiscation of vehicle and cancellation of
registration on owners of the above-specified found violating such letter of Instructions”;

3. Bautista is questioning the constitutionality of the LOI and the Implementing Circular on the
grounds that:

a. The banning of H and EH vehicles is unfair, discriminatory, and arbitrary and thus
contravenes the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE; and

b. The LOI denies the owners of H and EH vehicles of due process, more specifically of their
right to use and enjoy their private property and of their freedom to travel and hold family
gatherings, reunions, outings on week-ends and holidays, while those not included in the
prohibition are enjoying unrestricted freedom;

https://lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/constitution…law-chapter-i-fundamental-powers-of-the-state-police-power/ 15/01/2020, 3?32 PM

Page 8 of 12
c. The Circular violates the prohibition against undue delegation of legislative power because
the LOI does not impose the penalty of confiscation.

HELD:

1. It must be pointed out that the LOI was promulgated to solve the oil crisis which was
besetting the country at that time. It was therefore a valid police power measure to ensures the
country’s economy as a result of spiralling fuel prices. In the interplay of Bautista’s right to due
process and the exercise of police power by the State, the latter must be given leeway. The
police power is intended to promote public health, public morals, public safety and general
welfare.

2. The petitioners’ claim that their right to equal protection was violated is without basis. This
is so because there is a valid classification in this case. Definitely, Heavy and Extra-Heavy
vehicles consume more gasoline that the other kinds of vehicles and it is but proper to regulate
the use of those which consumes more gasoline. If all the owner of H and EH vehicles are
treated in the same fashion, or whatever restrictions cast on some in the group is held equally
binding on the rest, there is no violation of the equal protection clause.

3. The penalty of “impounding” the vehicle as embodied in Circular No. 39 has no statutory
basis. Therefore, it is not valid being an “ultra vires”.

m. ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN

REFORM, 175 SCRA 343

n. DECS VS. SAN DIEGO, 180 SCRA 533

o. VILLANUEVA VS. CASTANEDA, September 21, 1987

5-a. Not a valid exercise of police power

CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY VS. ERICTA, 122 SCRA 759

Reference:

Constitutional Law Reviewer by Atty. Larry D. Gacayan (2008)

College of Law

University of the Cordilleras

Advertisements

https://lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/constitution…law-chapter-i-fundamental-powers-of-the-state-police-power/ 15/01/2020, 3?32 PM

Page 9 of 12
 REPORT THIS AD
Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD

About Magz

First of all, I am not a lawyer. I'm a graduate of AB Political Science and went to the College of Law but
stopped going to law school for some reasons. I'm a passionate teacher who has been teaching English to
speakers of other languages and a person who likes writing and blogging. I lost some important files and

https://lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/constitution…law-chapter-i-fundamental-powers-of-the-state-police-power/ 15/01/2020, 3?32 PM

Page 10 of 12
software when my computer broke down so the reason I created this website is to preserve the notes,
reviewers and digests I collected when I was at the law school and at the same time, I want to help out
law students who do not have enough time to go and read books in the library.
View all posts by Magz »
Posted on May 10, 2011, in Constitutional Law and tagged Constitutional Law Chapter I -
Fundamental Powers of the State (Police Power). Bookmark the permalink. 11 Comments.

Leave a comment

Comments 11

julius | December 1, 2011 at 8:15 am

hey magz. what cases can you provide for “police power exercised by national government
be absolute in times of civil disobedience and national turmoil?” thanks

pinchbeth | December 10, 2011 at 6:36 pm

Hello Magz,
By accident I came to know ur site, i’m thnkfull you have that passion of sharing
knowledge to others as this will even multiply. Thank you so much…… Godspeed…

Magz | December 10, 2011 at 7:35 pm

No problem, I am really passionate about law. I am saving these reviewers in case I will
lost them, just like what happened to my e-lib. My computer crashed and I lost the file

olivia almazan | December 18, 2011 at 7:47 pm

hi ate magz… olive here…how are u??? good thing found ur site… and appreciate it…
anyway, good luck then….

Magz | December 18, 2011 at 9:28 pm

Hello, Olive. I’m fine ^ ^. Thanks for the appreciation. Please help me moderate on
some comments here. Thanks ^ ^

Arman | February 6, 2012 at 10:33 am

Your site is very helpful to me as a student in Pol. Sci.

https://lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/constitution…law-chapter-i-fundamental-powers-of-the-state-police-power/ 15/01/2020, 3?32 PM

Page 11 of 12
 Magz | February 7, 2012 at 1:28 am
Glad to hear that. Good luck

arjun | October 7, 2013 at 9:48 pm

thank u very much for your site ate mags…… it really helped me to my extempo…

Magz | June 28, 2014 at 7:06 pm

No problem. Good luck

jay | May 16, 2017 at 6:58 pm

hello ate mags…can you please help po on this question ” What will the local
government do to exercise the police power of the state”

Danilo R. Aquino III | July 7, 2014 at 1:37 pm

thanks for the help…

Blog at WordPress.com.

https://lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/constitution…law-chapter-i-fundamental-powers-of-the-state-police-power/ 15/01/2020, 3?32 PM

Page 12 of 12