📗

Consti Law II
Art III

Bill of Rights
Purpose — to achieve a balance of power and freedom by imposing
constitutional limitations on the powers of the State

Sec 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due

process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Powers of the government

These powers are inherent and essential to the government, as much as spirit and
mind are essential to man, and without them no government can exist. The powers
are not granted by the Constitution, rather only defines and delimits and allocates
their exercise among various government agencies.

Police power
Definition — The power vested in the legislature by the constitution to make,
ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes,
and ordinances, either with penalties or not, not repugnant to the constitution, as
they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the
subjects of the same. (Commonwealth v Alger)

Scope — Rests upon public necessity and upon the right of the state and of the
public to self-protection. (US v Toribio);

Consti Law II 1
 Contracts and expands with changing needs. Numerous attempts to limit by
definition the scope only act as illustrations of its rapid extension from recent
years and are deemed entirely within the field of private liberty and property
rights. (Churchill v Rafferty)

Police power justifies —

1. Public health measures as

requirements to make house repairs, (US v Abendan)
compulsory connection to a city sewerage system, (Case v Board of Health)
licensing of the practice of medicine, (US v Gomez Jesus)
regulation of cattle imports, (Cruz v Youngberg)
and the sale of meat. (P v Sabarre)

2. Public safety measures as

building regulations, (Fabie v City of Manila)
regulation of carrying deadly weapons, (US v Villareal)
rotational patrol duties, (US v Pompeya)
regulation of gasoline stations, movie theaters (Javier v Earnshaw, P v
Chan)

and the use of city roads. (Calalang v Williams)

3. Public morals

as basis for judicial approval of regulations punishing vagrancy and

classifying a pimp as such (US v Cruz)
regulating the operation of dance halls, (US v Rodriguez)

prohibiting gambling,
regulating the days when paguigui may be played,

licensing cockpits,
operation of motels and hotels.

Consti Law II 2
 ⛔ (1) permits for nightclubs and any license for professional dancers
- deemed unconstitutional as going beyond mere regulation into
prohibition of a profession or calling which properly regulated can
be legitimate (De la Cruz v Paras);
(2) saunas, massage parlors, karaoke bars, night clubs, day
clubs, supper clubs, discos, cabarets, dance halls, motels and
inns - deemed baseless and insupportable; such establishments
are not per se offensive to the moral welfare of the community
(City of Manila v Laguio)
(3) gambling - left to the discretion of Congress (Magtajas v Pryce
Properties)

Significant changes in areas of labor, agricultural tenancy, and social legislation -

away from laissez faire;

4. Police power used in conflict of freedom of contract and sacredness of

contractual obligations. (People v Pomar)

Presumption of validity - the constitutionality and validity of

legislation; Judiciary should not set aside when there is no
clear invasion of personal or property rights under the guise
of police regulation. (US v Salaveria)

Limitations — Exercise of police power is limited by the constitution.

Determination of what is a valid exercise of police power is not final or
conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the courts. (P v Toribio); Insofar
as it may affect the life, liberty or property of any person is subject to judicial
inquiry. (Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators)

Power of eminent domain

Power of taxation

Consti Law II 3
Consti Law II 4