WHITE LIGHT CORP. V.

CITY OF MANILA the exercise of police power as the rationale for the enactment of an
ordinance and to free it from the imputation of constitutional infirmity, two
Municipal Corporations; Police Power; Ordinances; Requisites for Validity. tests have been used by the Court―the rational relationship test and the
—The test of a valid ordinance is well established. A long line of decisions strict scrutiny test: We ourselves have often applied the rational basis test
including City of Manila has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not mainly in analysis of equal protection challenges. Using the rational basis
only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact examination, laws or ordinances are upheld if they rationally further a
and pass according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform legitimate governmental interest. Under intermediate review, governmental
to the following substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene the interest is extensively examined and the availability of less restrictive
Constitution or any statute; (2) must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not measures is considered. Applying strict scrutiny, the focus is on the presence
be partial or discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) of compelling, rather than substantial, governmental interest and on the
must be general and consistent with public policy; and (6) must not be absence of less restrictive means for achieving that interest.
unreasonable.
Same; Same; Same; The State may not, under the guise of police power,
permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of their property solely to
preserve or enhance the aesthetic appearance of the community.—
Police Power; Police power, while incapable of an exact definition, has been
Regarding the beautification purpose of the setback requirement, it has long
purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to
been settled that the State may not, under the guise of police power,
meet all exigencies and provide enough room for an efficient and flexible
permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of their property solely to
response as the conditions warrant.—Police power, while incapable of an
preserve or enhance the aesthetic appearance of the community. The Court,
exact definition, has been purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its
thus, finds Section 5 to be unreasonable and oppressive as it will substantially
comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide enough room for an
divest the respondents of the beneficial use of their property solely for
efficient and flexible response as the conditions warrant. Police power is
aesthetic purposes. Accordingly, Section 5 of Ordinance No. 192 is invalid.
based upon the concept of necessity of the State and its corresponding right
to protect itself and its people. Police power has been used as justification SOUTHERN LUZON DRUG V. DSWD
for numerous and varied actions by the State. These range from the
regulation of dance halls, movie theaters, gas stations and cockpits. The Same; Senior Citizens; Police Power; Tax Deduction; It is in the exercise of
awesome scope of police power is best demonstrated by the fact that in its its police power that the Congress enacted Republic Act (RA) Nos. 9257 and
hundred or so years of presence in our nation’s legal system, its use has 9442, the laws mandating a twenty percent (20%) discount on purchases of
rarely been denied. medicines made by senior citizens and persons with disabilities (PWDs). It is
also in further exercise of this power that the legislature opted that the said
FERNANDO V. ST. SCHOLASTICA’S COLLEGE discount be claimed as tax deduction, rather than tax credit, by covered
establishments.—In Gerochi v. Department of Energy, 527 SCRA 696 (2007),
Constitutional Law; Police Power; Police power is the plenary power vested
the Court passed upon one of the inherent powers of the state, the police
in the legislature to make statutes and ordinances to promote the health,
power, where it emphasized, thus: [P]olice power is the power of the state to
morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the
promote public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and
people.—“Police power is the plenary power vested in the legislature to
property. It is the most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most
make statutes and ordinances to promote the health, morals, peace,
demanding of the three fundamental powers of the State. The justification is
education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people.” The
found in the Latin maxim salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the
State, through the legislature, has delegated the exercise of police power to
people is the supreme law) and sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas (so use
local government units, as agencies of the State. This delegation of police
your property as not to injure the property of others). As an inherent
power is embodied in Section 16 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A.
attribute of sovereignty which virtually extends to all public needs, police
No. 7160), known as the General Welfare Clause, which has two branches.
power grants a wide panoply of instruments through which the State, as
“The first, known as the general legislative power, authorizes the municipal
parens patriae, gives effect to a host of its regulatory powers. We have held
council to enact ordinances and make regulations not repugnant to law, as
that the power to “regulate” means the power to protect, foster, promote,
may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties
preserve, and control, with due regard for the interests, first and foremost, of
conferred upon the municipal council by law. The second, known as the
the public, then of the utility and of its patrons. (Citations omitted) It is in the
police power proper, authorizes the municipality to enact ordinances as may
exercise of its police power that the Congress enacted R.A. Nos. 9257 and
be necessary and proper for the health and safety, prosperity, morals, peace,
9442, the laws mandating a 20% discount on purchases of medicines made
good order, comfort, and convenience of the municipality and its inhabitants,
by senior citizens and PWDs. It is also in further exercise of this power that
and for the protection of their property.”
the legislature opted that the said discount be claimed as tax deduction,
Same; Same; Ordinances; For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be rather than tax credit, by covered establishments.
within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and pass
Police Power; Senior Citizens; Senior Citizen Discount; Just Compensation;
according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the
The issue of just compensation finds no relevance in the instant case as it
substantive requirements.—White Light Corporation v. City of Manila, 576
had already been made clear in Carlos Superdrug v. Department of Social
SCRA 416 (2009), discusses the test of a valid ordinance: The test of a valid
Welfare and Development, 526 SCRA 130 (2007), that the power being
ordinance is well established. A long line of decisions including City of Manila
exercised by the State in the imposition of senior citizen discount was its
has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the
police power.—The issue of just compensation finds no relevance in the
corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and pass according
instant case as it had already been made clear in Carlos Superdrug v.
to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following
Department of Social Welfare and Development, 526 SCRA 130 (2007), that
substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any
the power being exercised by the State in the imposition of senior citizen
statute; (2) must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or
discount was its police power. Unlike in the exercise of the power of eminent
discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be
domain, just compensation is not required in wielding police power. This is
general and consistent with public policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable.
precisely because there is no taking involved, but only an imposition of
Same; Same; Same; Rational Relationship Test; Strict Scrutiny Test; To burden.
successfully invoke the exercise of police power as the rationale for the
Same; In the exercise of police power, “property rights of private
enactment of an ordinance and to free it from the imputation of
individuals are subjected to restraints and burdens in order to secure the
constitutional infirmity, two tests have been used by the Court―the
general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State.”—In the exercise of
rational relationship test and the strict scrutiny test.—To successfully invoke
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.” Even then, the State’s claim of police power cannot
be arbitrary or unreasonable. After all, the overriding purpose of the exercise
of the power is to promote general welfare, public health and safety, among
others. It is a measure, which by sheer necessity, the State exercises, even to
the point of interfering with personal liberties or property rights in order to
advance common good. To warrant such interference, two requisites must
concur: (a) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those
of a particular class, require the interference of the State; and (b) the means
employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment of the object sought to
be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. In other words,
the proper exercise of the police power requires the concurrence of a lawful
subject and a lawful method.
MOSQUEDA V. PILIPINO BANANA GROWERS
Local Government Units; Municipal Corporations; Police Power;
Ordinances; To be considered as a valid police power measure, an
ordinance must pass a two (2)-pronged test: the formal and the
substantive.—To be considered as a valid police power measure, an
ordinance must pass a two-pronged test: the formal (i.e., whether the
ordinance is enacted within the corporate powers of the local government
unit, and whether it is passed in accordance with the procedure prescribed
by law); and the substantive (i.e., involving inherent merit, like the
conformity of the ordinance with the limitations under the Constitution and
the statutes, as well as with the requirements of fairness and reason, and its
consistency with public policy).
Same; Same; Police Power; Ordinances; A valid ordinance must be enacted
within the corporate powers of the local government and passed according
to the procedure prescribed by law.—A valid ordinance must not only be
enacted within the corporate powers of the local government and passed
according to the procedure prescribed by law. In order to declare it as a valid
piece of local legislation, it must also comply with the following substantive
requirements, namely: (1) it must not contravene the Constitution or any
statute; (2) it must be fair, not oppressive; (3) it must not be partial or
discriminatory; (4) it must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) it must be
general and consistent with public policy; and (6) it must not be
unreasonable.
our legal system has recognized the validity of “subordinate legislation,” or
the rule-making power of agencies tasked with the administration of
government. In Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration, 166 SCRA 533 (1988): The principle of non-
delegation of powers is applicable to all the three major powers of the
Government but is especially important in the case of the legislative power
because of the many instances when its delegation is permitted. The
occasions are rare when executive or judicial powers have to be delegated by
the authorities to which they legally pertain. In the case of the legislative
power, however, such occasions have become more and more frequent, if
not necessary. This has led to the observation that the delegation of
legislative power has become the rule and its non-delegation the exception.
The reason is the increasing complexity of the task of government and the
growing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the myriad problems
demanding its attention. The growth of society has ramified its activities and
created peculiar and sophisticated problems that the legislature cannot be
expected reasonably to comprehend. Specialization even in legislation has
become necessary. To many of the problems attendant upon present-day
undertakings, the legislature may not have the competence to provide the
required direct and efficacious, not to say, specific solutions. These solutions
may, however, be expected from its delegates, who are supposed to be
experts in the particular fields assigned to them. The reasons given above for
the delegation of legislative powers in general are particularly applicable to
administrative bodies. With the proliferation of specialized activities and
their attendant peculiar problems, the national legislature has found it more
and more necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the authority to
issue rules to carry out the general provisions of the statute. This is called the
“power of subordinate legislation.” With this power, administrative bodies
may implement the broad policies laid down in a statute by “filling in” the
details which the Congress may not have the opportunity or competence to
provide. This is effected by their promulgation of what are known as
supplementary regulations, such as the implementing rules issued by the
Department of Labor on the new Labor Code. These regulations have the
force and effect of law.

Same; Same; Same; A local government unit (LGU) is considered to have

properly exercised its police powers if it satisfies the Equal Protection and
Due Process Clauses of the Constitution.—A local government unit is
considered to have properly exercised its police powers only if it satisfies the
following requisites, to wit: (1) the interests of the public generally, as
distinguished from those of a particular class, require the interference of the
State; and (2) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the
attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly
oppressive. The first requirement refers to the Equal Protection Clause of the
Constitution; the second, to the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.

Same; Same; Same; Ordinances; In exercising its police power the local
government unit (LGU) must not arbitrarily, whimsically or despotically
enact the ordinance regardless of its salutary purpose.—Substantive due
process requires that a valid ordinance must have a sufficient justification for
the Government’s action. This means that in exercising police power the local
government unit must not arbitrarily, whimsically or despotically enact the
ordinance regardless of its salutary purpose. So long as the ordinance
realistically serves a legitimate public purpose, and it employs means that are
reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose without unduly oppressing the
individuals regulated, the ordinance must survive a due process challenge.

QUEZON CITY PTCA V. DEPARTMENT

Political Law; Delegation of Powers; The three (3) powers of government —

executive, legislative, and judicial — have been generally viewed as non-
delegable.—The three powers of government —executive, legislative, and
judicial — have been generally viewed as non-delegable. However, in
recognition of the exigencies that contemporary governance must address,