UNITED STATES V. DORR, G.R. NO. 1051, MAY 19, 1903.

(GOVERNMENT OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
The article in question contains no attack upon the governmental system of the United States, and it
is quite apparent that, though grossly abusive as respects both the Commission as a body and some
of its individual members, it contains no attack upon the governmental system by which the authority
of the United States is enforced in these Islands. The form of government by a Civil Commission and
a Civil Governor is not assailed. It is the character of the men who are intrusted with the
administration of the government that the writer is seeking to bring into disrepute by impugning the
purity of their motives, their public integrity, and their private morals, and the wisdom of their policy.
The publication of the article, therefore, no seditious tendency being apparent, constitutes no offense
under Act No. 292, section 8.

The important question is to determine what is meant in section 8 of Act No. 292 by the expression "the
Insular Government of the Philippine Islands." Does it mean in a general and abstract sense the existing
laws and institutions of the Islands, or does it mean the aggregate of the individuals by whom the
government of the Islands is, for the time being, administered? Either sense would doubtless be
admissible.

We understand, in modern political science, . . . by the term government, that institution or aggregate of

institutions by which an independent society makes and carries out those rules of action which are
unnecessary to enable men to live in a social state, or which are imposed upon the people forming that
society by those who possess the power or authority of prescribing them. Government is the aggregate
of authorities which rule a society. By "dministration, again, we understand in modern times, and
especially in more or less free countries, the aggregate of those persons in whose hands the reins of
government are for the time being (the chief ministers or heads of departments)." (Bouvier, Law
Dictionary, 891.) But the writer adds that the terms "government" and "administration" are not always
used in their strictness, and that "government" is often used for "administration."

RUBI V. PROVINCIAL BOARD, 39 PHIL. 660 [1919]

THE POLICE POWER.

Not attempting to phrase a definition of police power, all that it is necessary to note at this moment is
the farreaching scope of the power, that it has become almost possible to limit its weep, and that
among its purposes is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, peace, morals,
education, and good order of the people, and to legislate so as to increase the industries of the State,
develop its resources and add to is wealth and prosperity. (See Barbier vs. Connolly [1884], 113 U.S., 27.)
What we are not interested in is the right of the government to restrain liberty by the exercise of the
police power.

"The police power of the State," one court has said, . . . "is a power coextensive with self-protection, and
is not inaptly termed the 'law of overruling necessity.' It may be said to be that inherent and plenary
power in the State which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of
society." (Lake View vs. Rose Hill Cemetery Co. [1873], 70 Ill., 191.) Carried onward by the current of
legislation, the judiciary rarely attempt to dam the on rushing power of legislative discretion, provided
the purposes of the law do not go beyond the great principles that mean security for the public welfare
or do not arbitrarily interfere with the right of the individual.
The Government of the Philippine Islands has both on reason and authority the right to exercise the
sovereign police power in the promotion of the general welfare and the public interest. "There can be
not doubt that the exercise of the police power of the Philippine Government belongs to the Legislature
and that this power is limited only by the Acts of Congress and those fundamental principles which lie at
the foundation of all republican forms of government." (Churchill and Tait vs. Rafferty [1915], 32 Phil.,
580; U.S. vs. Pompeya [1915], 31 Phil., 245.)

With the foregoing approximation of the applicable basic principles before us, before finally deciding
whether any constitutional provision has indeed been violated by section 2145 of the Administrative
Code, we should endeavor to ascertain the intention of the Legislature in enacting this section. If legally
possible, such legislative intention should be effectuated.

Kilos Bayan vs Morato

They are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review, and by
the legislature in its enactment of laws. the principles and state policies enumerated in Article II and
some sections of Article XII are not "self-executing provisions, the disregard of which can give rise to a
cause of action in the courts. They do not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights but
guidelines for legislation

Instance, read Sections 5 , 1 2 , 1 3 and 17 as mere "guidelines" which do not yet confer rights
enforceable by the courts but recognized Section 16 as a right conferring provision because it speaks of
"the right of the people."

TONDO MEDICAL V. CA