A.

Nature of Police Power

Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, 197 Phil. Association of Service

U.S. 11 (1905) Exporters, Inc. vs. Hon. Drilon,
June 30, 1988
Doctrine: Doctrine:
The Supreme Court recognized that states had There is likewise no doubt that such a classification
absoluteMiners Association
authority, granted of under 10th
the Gancayco
is germane to vs. City Government
the purpose behind the measure. of
Amendment police power, to enforce compulsory Unquestionably, it is the avowed objective of
Philippines,
vaccination. The decision Inc. vs. Hon.
articulated the belief QuezonOrder
Department City,No. October
1 to "enhance11, the 2011
protection
Factoran, January 16, 1995
that individual liberty must be subordinated to the for Filipino female overseas workers"  this Court has
welfare of the general public, as well as the Doctrine:
no quarrel that in the midst of the terrible
mistreatment Filipina workers have suffered abroad,
Doctrine:
collective good of the nation. Thus liberty, in
Police
a ban onpower is will
deployment an beinherent attribute
for their own of
good and
relation to public health, may be subordinate to sovereignty. It has been defined as the power
welfare.
the power
Police of the state.
Power, being co-extensive with the vested by the Constitution in the legislature to
necessities of the case and the demands of The concept
make, ordain,of police
and power
establishis well-established
all manner of in
public interest; extends to all the vital public this jurisdiction.
wholesome andIt reasonable
has been defined as the "state
laws, statutes and
needs. authority to enact
ordinances, eitherlegislation that may
with penalties or interfere
without, with
not
personal liberty
repugnant to theorConstitution,
property in order to promote
as they the
shall judge
The exploration, development and utilization of general
to be welfare." As
for the good defined,
andit consists
welfare ofof(1) thean
the country's natural resources are matters vital imposition of restraint
commonwealth, upon
and for theliberty or property,
subjects (2) in
of the same.
orderpower
The to foster
is the common
plenary andgood. It is notiscapable
its scope vast and of
to the public interest and the general welfare of an exact definition but has been, purposely, veiled in
the people. pervasive, reaching and justifying measures for
general terms to underscore its all-comprehensive
public health, public safety, public morals, and
embrace.
the general welfare.
Police power is an inherent attribute of
sovereignty. It has been defined as the power
vested by the Constitution in the legislature to It bears stressing that police power is lodged
make, ordain, and establish all manner of primarily in the National Legislature. It cannot be
wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and exercised by any group or body of individuals not
ordinances, either with penalties or without, not possessing legislative power. The National
repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge Legislature, however, may delegate this power to
to be for the good and welfare of the the President and administrative boards as well
commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same. as the lawmaking bodies of municipal
The power is plenary and its scope is vast and corporations or local government units. Once
pervasive, reaching and justifying measures for delegated, the agents can exercise only such
public health, public safety, public morals, and legislative powers as are conferred on them by
the general welfare. the national lawmaking body.

Hon. Fernando vs. St. Planters Products, Inc. vs.

Scholastica’s College, March 12, FERTIPHIL Corporation, March
2013 14, 2008

MMDA vs. Viron Transportation Co., Inc., August

15,with
While police power rests primarily 2007the legislature, such power may be
delegated, as it is in fact increasingly being delegated. By virtue of a valid
delegation, the power may be exercised by the President and administrative boards
as well as by the lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or local governments
Doctrine:
under an express delegation by the Local Government Code of 1991.

The exercise of police power must satisfy the two tests of a valid police power
B. Tests of the Police Power
measure, viz: (1) the interest of the public generally, as distinguished from that of a
particular class, requires its exercise; and (2) the means employed are reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals. Stated differently, the police power legislation must be firmly grounded
on public interest and welfare and a reasonable relation must exist between the
purposes and the means.
Doctrine:
To successfully invoke 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 tests have been used
by the Court – the rational relationship test and
the strict scrutiny test.
Using the rational basis examination, laws or
ordinances are upheld if they rationally further a
legitimate governmental interest. Under
intermediate review, governmental interest is
extensively examined and the availability of less
restrictive measures is considered. Applying strict
scrutiny, the focus is on the presence of
compelling, rather than substantial, governmental
interest and on the absence of less restrictive
means for achieving that interest.
Doctrine:
To successfully invoke the exercise of Police
Power as the rationale for the enactment of the
Ordinance, and to free from the imputation of
constitutional infirmity, not only must it appear
that the interests of the public generally, as
distinguished from those of a particular class,
require an interference with private rights, but
means adopted must be reasonably necessary
for the accomplishment of the purpose and not
unduly oppressive upon individuals.
A reasonable relation must exist between the
purposes of the police measure and the means
employed for its accomplishment, for even under
the guise of protecting the public interest,
personal rights and those pertaining to private
property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily
invaded.
DECS vs. San Diego, December
21, 1989
Doctrine:
Police power is validly exercised if (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.  To justify the State in thus interposing its
In other words, the proper exercise of the police
power requires the concurrence of a lawful
subject and a lawful method.  require such interference; and second, that the
It is the right and indeed theC. Comparison
responsibility of the
State to insure that the medical profession is not
infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may
unwarily entrust their lives and health.
Doctrine:
Substantive due process exacts fairness and
equal protection disallows distinction where none
is needed. When a statutes public purpose is
spoiled by private interest, the use of police
power becomes a travesty which must be struck
down for being an arbitrary exercise of
government power. 
LOI 1465 is not a valid exercise of police power.
It had failed to comply with the test of lawful
subjects and lawful means. Jurisprudence states
the test as follows: (1) the interest of the public
generally, as distinguished from those of
particular class, requires its exercise; and (2) the
means employed are reasonably necessary for
the accomplishment of the purpose and not
unduly oppressive upon individuals. 
Doctrine:
The local government may be considered as
having properly exercised its police power only if
the following requisites are met: (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 upon
individuals.
Otherwise stated, there must be a concurrence of
a lawful subject and lawful method.
Ynot vs. IAC, March 20, 1987
Doctrine:
The protection of the general welfare is the
particular function of the police power which both
restraints and is restrained by due process. The
police power is simply defined as the power
inherent in the State to regulate liberty and
property for the promotion of the general welfare.
authority in behalf of the public, it must appear,
first, that the interests of the public generally, as
distinguished from those of a particular class,
means are reasonably necessary for the
with the other ofInherent
accomplishment the purpose, and not unduly
oppressive upon individuals
 Gerochi vs. DOE, July 17, 2007
Doctrine:
The power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and
is unlimited in its range, acknowledging in its very
nature no limits, so that security against its abuse
is to be found only in the responsibility of the
legislature which imposes the tax on the
constituency that is to pay it.
Police power is the power of the state to promote
public welfare by restraining and regulating the
use of liberty and property. It is the most
pervasive, the least limitable, and the most
demanding of the three fundamental powers of
the State.
Police power grants a wide panoply of
instruments through which the State, as parens
patriae, gives effect to a host of its regulatory
powers. The power to "regulate" means the
power to protect, foster, promote, preserve, and
control, with due regard for the interests, first and
foremost, of the public, then of the utility and of its
patrons.
The conservative and pivotal distinction between
the police power and power to tax rests in the
purpose for which the charge is made. If
generation of revenue is the primary purpose and
regulation is merely incidental, the imposition is a
tax; but if regulation is the primary purpose, the
fact that revenue is incidentally raised does not
make the imposition a tax.
Commonwealth vs. Alger, 61
Mass. (7 Cush) 53 (1851)
Doctrine:
"Every holder of property holds it under the
implied liability that his use of it may be so
regulated, that it shall not be injurious to the
equal enjoyment of others having an equal right
to the enjoyment of their property, not injurious to
the rights of the community."
Justice Shaw reasoned the Massachusetts
statute was, "not an appropriation of the property
to a public use, but the restraint of an injurious
private use by the owner, and is therefore not
within the principle of property taken under the
right of eminent domain."
Justice Shaw states that even though prohibitions
and restraints resulting from the Massachusetts
statute may diminish the profits of the owner, the
owners are not entitled to compensation because
they are exercises of police power. Justice
Shaw's statement regarding compensation was
generally accepted doctrine at the time, namely
that the obligation to compensate was limited to
exercises of eminent domain.

Manila Memorial Park, Inc. vs. Secretary of

Social Welfare and Development, December
03, 2013

Doctrine:
The only limitation of police power is that the restriction imposed
should be reasonable, not oppressive. In other words, to be a
valid exercise of police power, it must have a lawful subject or
objective and a lawful method of accomplishing the goal.

Under the police power of the State, “property rights of individuals

may be subjected to restraints and burdens in order to fulfill the
objectives of the government.” The State “may interfere with
personal liberty, property, lawful businesses and occupations to
promote the general welfare [as long as] the interference [is]
reasonable and not arbitrary.”

In the exercise of police power, a property right is impaired by

regulation, or the use of property is merely prohibited, regulated or
restricted to promote public welfare. In such cases, there is no
compensable taking, hence, payment of just compensation is not
required.

Eminent domain, on the other hand, is the inherent power of the

State to take or appropriate private property for public use. The
Constitution, however, requires that private property shall not be
taken without due process of law and the payment of just
compensation

In the exercise of the power of eminent domain, property interests

are appropriated and applied to some public purpose which
necessitates the payment of just compensation therefore.