SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF LAW (29 Jan 2019)

Constitutional Law II and Human Rights

Topic: Three Inherent Powers of the State

The totality of governmental powers is contained in the three inherent

powers of the State are the 1) Police Power; 2) the Power of Eminent
Domain; and 3) the Power of Taxation

These powers are inherent and do not need to be expressly provided by

a constitutional provision on the State. They are supposed to co-exist
with the State. The moment the State comes into being, when all the
elements exists, such as 1) Territory; 2) People; 3) Government; and 4)
Sovereignty; it is deemed invested with these three powers as its innate
attributes. A State cannot sustain its existence without these three
powers. These three powers must always be attendant once a State is
formed

Briefly

1. Police power is the power of the State to regulate liberty and

property for the promotion of the general welfare

2. The Power of Eminent Domain enables the State to acquire

private property upon payment of just compensation for public
purpose

3. The Power of Taxation enable the State to demand from the

citizens their proportionate contribution in the maintenance of
the government

Similarities

1. They are inherent in the State and may be exercised by it without

need of express constitutional grant

2. They are not only necessary but indispensable. The state cannot
continue or be effective unless it is able to exercise them

3. They are methods by which the State interferes with private

rights

4. They all presuppose an equivalent compensation for the private

rights interfered with

5. They are exercised primarily by the legislature

Page two:

Differences

1. The police power regulates both liberty and property. The power
of eminent domain and power of taxation affects only the
property rights

2. The police power and power of taxation may be exercised only by

the government. The power eminent domain may be exercised by
some private entities

3. The property taken in the exercise of police power is destroyed

because it is noxious or intended for a noxious purpose. The
property taken under the power of eminent domain and power of
taxation is intended for a public use or purpose and is therefore
wholesome

4. The compensation of the person subjected to the police power is

the intangible altruistic feeling that he has contributed to the
general welfare. The compensation involved in the other powers
is more concrete, to wit, a full and fair equivalent of the property
expropriated and public improvements for the taxes paid

Police Power

Police power is the most pervasive and the least limitable of the three
powers of the State. It is based on necessity, as without it, there can be
no effective government. It is also referred to as the law of
overwhelming necessity

Police power is the power of the State to regulate liberty and property
for the promotion of the general welfare

The police power is simply defined as the power inherent in the State to
regulate liberty and property for the promotion of general welfare

It is also defined as “that inherent and plenary power of the State which
enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare
of the society

Massachusetts Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw defined police power as “ the

power vested in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all
manner of wholesome reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either
with penalties or without, not repugnant to the constitution, as they
shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of
the subjects of the same
Page three:

Professor Paul Abraham Freud describes police power as the power of

promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use
liberty and property

The promotion and protection of the general welfare of the people is the
particular function of the police power

By reason of its function, police power extends to all the great public
needs and is characterized as the most pervasive, the most extensive,
the most demanding and the least limitable among the three inherent
powers

The individual, as a member of society, is hemmed in by the police

power, which affects him even before he is born and follows him still
after he is dead – from the womb to the tomb, in practically everything
he does or owns. Its reach is virtually limitless. It is a ubiquitous and
often unwelcome intrusion. Even so, as long as the activity or the
property has some relevance to the public welfare, its regulation under
the police power is not only proper but necessary

To justify the State in thus interposing its authority in behalf of the

public, it must appear;

a) first, that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from

those a particular class, require such interference; and

b) second, that the means are reasonably necessary for the

accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals

The two tests of the exercise of the police power

1. The interests of the general public (lawful subject)

2. The means employed are reasonably necessary for the

accomplishment of the purpose (lawful means)

Please take note that there must be a concurrence of a lawful subject

and lawful method

1. Lawful subject

The first requisite simply means that the subject of the measure is
within the scope of the police power, that is, that the activity or property
sought to be regulated affects the public welfare. If it does, the
enjoyment of private rights may be subordinated to the interests of the
greater number of the people, based on the time-honored principle that
the welfare of the people is the supreme law.
Page four

General welfare includes

1) To provide comfort and convenience of the people

2) To promote and preserve public health
3) To promote and protect public safety
4) To maintain and safeguard public order
5) To protect morals
6) To promote the economic security of the people

Lawful means

The means sought to be employed to attain the lawful subject must be

reasonably necessary and must also be evident that no other alternative
for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights
can work

There is a saying in constitutional law that “the end does not justify the
means.” Even if the purpose be within the scope of police power, the law
will still be annulled if the subject sought to be regulated is in violation
of the second requirement

The lawful objective must be pursued through a lawful method; that is,
both the end the means must be legitimate. Lacking such concurrence,
the police measure shall be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion to
private rights

In fine, the means employed for the accomplishment of the police

objective must pass the test of reasonableness, specifically, conform to
the safeguards embodied in the Bill of rights for the protection of
private rights. Failing this, the law will be annulled for violation of the
second requirement.

Cited case:

United States vs Luis Toribio, G.R. No. L-5060 (Jan 26, 1910)

Luis Toribio, from Carmen, Bohol, was charged and convicted of

violating Act No. 1147, prohibiting the killing of Carabao for food,
without prior permit from the municipal treasurer and a determination
that such Carabao is declared unfit for agricultural work

Luis Toribio as part of his defense, questioned the

constitutionality of Act 1147 on the ground that said law violates his
right as guaranteed by section five (5) of the Philippine Bill of 1902,
which provides, among others, that –“no law shall be enacted which
shall deprive any person of life, liberty, and property without due
process of law”
Page five

The Court held that Act 1147 was a valid exercise of police power
by the State as required by the interests of the public generally (lawful
subject) and that the requirement of prior permit from the municipal
treasurer for the slaughter of Carabao for human consumption, so long
as these animals are unfit for agricultural work (lawful means) was
reasonably necessary limitation on private ownership, to protect the
community from the loss of the services of such animals by their
slaughter by improvident owners, tempted either by greed of
momentary gain, or by desire to enjoy the luxury of animal food, even
when by doing so the productive power of the community may be
measurably and dangerously affected

Restituto Ynot vs Intermediate Appellate Court, Station Commander,

INP Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, G.R. No. 74457 (March 20, 1987)

President Marcos issued E.O. No. 626-A, on October 25, 1980,

which amended E.O. 626, prohibiting the inter-provincial movement of
carabaos and the slaughtering of Carabao

Restituto Ynot was apprehended transporting six (6) Carabao in a

pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo, on January 13, 1984. The police
confiscated the animals and Ynot was charged criminally before the
proper court. Ynot questioned the constitutionality of E.O. 626-A before
the trial court but the trial court declined to rule on the constitutionality
issue, so he appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (now the
Court of Appeals) but the appellate court affirmed the decision of the
trial court, so he went up to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court applying the two tests, declared the

questioned E.O. 626-A as invalid, explaining that the Carabao as the
poor farmer’s agricultural implement has a direct relevance to the
public welfare and so is a lawful subject of the Executive Order No. 626,
but the method chosen in E.O. No. 626-A, which imposes an almost
absolute ban on their movement, providing that “no Carabao regardless
of age, sex, physical condition, and no carabeef shall be transported
from one province to another,” has no reasonable connection between
the means employed (banning the transport of the Carabao from one
province to another province) and the purpose sought to be achieved by
the questioned E.O. (preservation of the agriculturally fit Carabao)