Notes - Constitutional Law 2 (Police Power) Digested-1

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- NOTES
Alfreda C. Abis, MPA

ILLUSTRATIVE CASES - DIGESTED
POLICE POWER
Definition
1. Churchill vs. Rafferty G.R. No. L-10572 December 21, 1915 32 Phil 580
FACTS:
Plaintiffs put up a billboard on a private land located in Rizal Province. However, after due investigation made
upon the complaints of the British and German Consuls, defendant Rafferty, Collector of Internal Revenue,
decided to remove the billboards.
Act No. 2339 authorized the then Collector of Internal Revenue to remove after due investigation, any billboard
exposed to the public view if it decides that it is offensive to the sight or is otherwise a nuisance.
In the agreed statement of facts submitted by the parties, the plaintiffs "admit that the billboards mentioned
were and still are offensive to the sight."
The Court of First Instance rendered its decision in favor of the plaintiffs perpetually restrains and prohibits the
defendant and his deputies from collecting and enforcing against the plaintiffs and their property the annual tax
mentioned and described in subsection (b) of section 100 of Act No. 2339, effective July 1, 1914, and from
destroying or removing any sign, signboard, or billboard, the property of the plaintiffs and decrees the
cancellation of the bond given by the plaintiffs. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
WON Act No. 2339 was a legitimate exercise of the police power of the Government?
HELD:
YES. Things offensive to the senses, such as sight, smell or hearing, may be suppressed by the State especially
those situated in thickly populated districts. Aesthetics may be regulated by the police power of the state, as
long as it is justified by public interest and safety.
Moreover, if the police power may be exercised to encourage a healthy social and economic condition in the
country, and if the comfort and convenience of the people are included within those subjects, everything which
encroaches upon such territory is amenable to the police power of the State. Hence, the judgment of the CFI is
reversed.
PRINCIPLE:
The definition of Police power was discussed in this case.
1. the authority of the state "to regulate unwholesome trades, slaughter houses, operations offensive to the
senses;
2. 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 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;
3. The right of the State, or state functionary, to prescribe regulations for the good order, peace, health,
protection, comfort, convenience and morals of the community, which do not violate any of the provisions
of the organic law; and
4. Police power is the name given to that inherent sovereignty which it is the right and duty of the
government or its agents to exercise whenever public policy, in a broad sense, demands, for the benefit of
society at large, regulations to guard its morals, safety, health, order or to insure in any respect such
economic conditions as an advancing civilization of a high complex character requires.
2. People vs. Pomar G.R. No. L-22008, November 3, 192446 Phil 126
FACTS:
Julio Pomar is the manager and person -in-charge of La Flor de la Isabela, a tobacco factory pertaining to La
Campania General de Tabacos de Filipinas, a corporation duly authorized to transact business in the City of
Manila. under his employ is Macaria Fajardo, whom he granted vacation leave by reason of her pregnancy.
1
POLICE POWER
However, Pomar did not pay her the wages she is entitled to corresponding to 30 days before and 30 days after
her delivery and confinement. Despite demands made by her, Pomar still refused to pay Fajardo.
The CFI found Pomar guilty of violating section 13 in connection with section 15 of Act No. 3071. Pomar
appealed questioning the constitutionality of the Act.
Said section 13 was enacted by the Legislature of the Philippine Islands in the exercise of its supposed police
power, with the praiseworthy purpose of safeguarding the health of pregnant women laborers in “factory, shop
or place of labor of any description,” and of insuring to them, to a certain extent, reasonable support for one
month before and one month after their delivery.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Act 3071 has been adopted in the reasonable and lawful exercise of the police power of the
state.
RULING:
NO.
Section 13 of Act 1307 mandates all employers to grant their women employees a vacation leave with pay who
may become pregnant during their employment. The law is equally applicable to each case and takes no account
of contracts for the employment of women by the day nor by the piece. Therefore, employers who hires women
who subsequently gets pregnant could be compelled under the law to pay for sixty days during which no
services were rendered.
The law takes account of the necessities of only one party to the contract. It ignores the necessities of the
employer by compelling him to pay not less than a certain sum, not only whether the employee is capable of
earning it, but irrespective of the ability of his business to sustain the burden, generously leaving him, of course,
the privilege of abandoning his business as an alternative for going on at a loss. Within the limits of the
minimum sum, he is precluded, under penalty of fine and imprisonment, from adjusting compensation to the
differing merits of his employees. It compels him to pay at least the sum fixed in any event, because the
employee needs it, but requires no service of equivalent value from the employee. It (the law) therefore
undertakes to solve but one-half of the problem. The other half is the establishment of a corresponding standard
of efficiency; and this forms no part of the policy of the legislation, although in practice the former half without
the latter must lead to ultimate failure, in accordance with the inexorable law that no one can continue
indefinitely to take out more than he puts in without ultimately exhausting the supply. The law takes no account
of periods of distress and business depression, or crippling losses, which may leave the employer himself
without adequate means of livelihood. To the extent that the sum fixed exceeds the fair value of the services
rendered, it amounts to a compulsory exaction from the employer for the support of a partially indigent person,
for whose condition there rests upon him no peculiar responsibility, and therefore, in effect, arbitrarily shifts to
his shoulders a burden which, if it belongs to anybody, belongs to society as a whole.
Therefore, section 13, of Act No. 3071 of the Philippine Legislature was declared unconstitutional and void.
Further, the sentence of the lower court was revoked and the complaint was dismissed.
PRINCIPLE:
The police power of the state is a growing and expanding power as civilization develops. But that power cannot
grow faster than the fundamental law of the state, nor transcend or violate the express inhibition of the people’s
law – the constitution. If the people desire to have the police power extended and applied to conditions and
things prohibited by the organic law, they must first amend that law.
3. Philippine Long-Distance Telephone Co. vs. City of Davao, etal. G.R. No. L-23080 October 30,
1965
FACTS:
2
POLICE POWER
The City of Davao Council passed resolutions authorizing the establishment and maintenance of a
city-wide telephone system, owned, maintained, and operated by Davao City. Pursuant thereto,
Davao City entered into a contract with ITT Philippipnes, INc.
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
3
POLICE POWER
4. Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. vs. Franklin M. Drilon G.R. No. 81958 June
30, 1988
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
4
POLICE POWER
5. Jesus P. Morfe vs. Amelito R. Mutuc, et al. G.R. No. L-20387January 31, 1968
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
5
POLICE POWER
6. Pres. Common Good Govt. vs. Emmanuel G. Peña G.R. No. 77663 April 12, 1988
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
6
POLICE POWER
Scope/Characteristics
7. United States vs. Silvestre Pompeya G.R. No. L-10255 August 6, 1915
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
7
POLICE POWER
Public Health
8. Edwin William Case, et al vs. La Junta de Sanidad de Manila, et al. G.R. No. L-7595 February
4, 1913
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
8
POLICE POWER
9. YNOT VS. IAC, 148 SCRA 659
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
9
POLICE POWER
10. Zabal v. Duterte, G.R. No. 238467, February 12, 2019
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
10
POLICE POWER
Public morals
11. Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Asso., Inc., et al. vs.City Mayor of Manila, et
al.G.R. No. L-24693July 31, 1967
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
11
POLICE POWER
12. CITY OF MANILA vs. LAGUIO, JR. G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
12
POLICE POWER
13. CITY OF MANILA, VS. LAGUIO G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2008
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
13
POLICE POWER
14. WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION VS. CITY OF MANILA G.R. No. 122846, January 20,
2009.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
14
POLICE POWER
15. De La Cruz, et al. vs. Paras, et al.G.R. No. L-42571-72July 25, 1983
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
15
POLICE POWER
General Welfare
20%, DISCOUNT FOR SENIOR CITIZENS AND PWDs

16. Carlos Superdrug v. Department of Social Welfare and Development G.R. No. 166494, 29 June
2007, 526 SCRA 130
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
16
POLICE POWER
17. Manila Memorial Park, Inc., et al. Vs. Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and
Development, et al. G.R. No. 175356. December 3, 2013
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
17
POLICE POWER
18. Southern Luzon Drug Corporation Vs. The Department of Social Welfare and Development
G.R. No. 199669. April 25, 2017
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
18
POLICE POWER
19. ESTOCONING VS. PEOPLE G.R. No. 231298, October 07, 2020
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
19
POLICE POWER
Regulation of vehicular traffic

20. Luque vs. Villegas, et al. G.R. No. L-22545November 28, 1969
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
20
POLICE POWER
21. PANTALEON VS. METRO MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, G.R. No. 194335,
November 17, 2020
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
21
POLICE POWER
Public peace
22. Chavez vs. Romulo, et al. G.R. No. 157036 June 9, 2004
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
22
POLICE POWER
23. ACOSTA VS. OCHOA G.R. No. 211559, October 15, 2019
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
23
POLICE POWER
Public safety
24. Agustin vs. Edu, et al. G.R. No. L-49112 February 2, 1979
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
24
POLICE POWER
25. Edu vs. Ericta, et al. G.R. No. L-32096 October 24, 1970
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
25
POLICE POWER
26. Mirasol, et al. vs. Dept. of Public Works & Highways, et alG.R. No. 158793 June 8, 2006
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
26
POLICE POWER
27. TAXICAB OPERATORS VS. BOT, 119 SCRA 597, G.R. No. L-59234 September 30, 1982
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
27
POLICE POWER
Promote morality in public service

28. Morfe vs. Mutuc, et al.G.R. No. L-20387January 31, 1968
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
28
POLICE POWER
Regulatory in nature
29. Council of Teachers and Staff of Colleges and Universities of the Philippines v. Secretary of
Education, G.R. No. 216930, October 9, 2018
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
29
POLICE POWER
30. Pimentel vs Legal Education Board, G.R. No. 230642, September 10, 2019
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
30
POLICE POWER
31. The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Viron Transportation Co., Inc., 557 Phil.
121, 140. (2007).
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
31
POLICE POWER
32. Tablarin vs. Gutierrez G.R. No. 78164. July 31, 1987
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
32
POLICE POWER
Power to issue franchise, licenses or grant business permits

33. Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 100152 March 31, 2000, 385
Phil. 956
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
33
POLICE POWER
34. Alfredo S. Lim vs. Felipe G. Pacquing G.R. No. 115044 January 27, 1995
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
34
POLICE POWER
Power of the State to regulate the exercise of a profession or pursuit of an occupation

35. United States vs. Dominador Gomez Jesus G.R. No. L-9651, August 4, 1915
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
35
POLICE POWER
36. Professional Regulation Board Vs. Arlene De Guzman, et al.G.R. No. 144681. June 21, 2004
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
36
POLICE POWER
37. JMM Promotion And Management, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, etal. G.R. No. 120095
August 5, 1996
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
37
POLICE POWER
38. FLORES VS. COMMISSIONERS TEOFILO S. PILANDO G.R. No. 251816. November 23,
2021
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
38
POLICE POWER
Promote Social Justice

39. KILUSANG MAYO UNO V. AQUINO, G.R. No. 210500, April 02, 2019
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
39
POLICE POWER
A public utility subject to strict regulation by the State

40. Manila Electric Company Vs. Ramoy G.R. No. 158911. March 4, 2008
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
40
POLICE POWER
Stevedoring services are subject to the states police power

41. The Philippine Ports Authority Vs. Cipres Stevedoring &Arrastre, Inc.G.R. No. 145742. July
14, 2005
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
41
POLICE POWER
Police Power vs Bill of Rights

42. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND THE
JAIL WARDEN, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER VS. YUAN
WENLE, RESPONDENT. G.R. No. 242957. February 28, 2023
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
42
POLICE POWER
Police power is superior to the non-impairment clause

43. Goldenway Merchandising Corporation Vs. Equitable PCI BankG.R. No. 195540. March 13,
2013
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
43
POLICE POWER
44. Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) Partylist
represented by Salvador B. Britanico Vs. Commission on Elections G.R. No. 177508. August 7,
2009
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
44
POLICE POWER
45. Philippine American Life Insurance Co. vs. Auditor General G.R. No. L-19255January 18,
1968
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
45
POLICE POWER
46. Santiago P. Alalayan, et al. vs. National Power Corporation, et al.G.R. No. L-24396 July 29,
1968
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
46
POLICE POWER
47. Maritime Manning Agencies, Inc., et al. vs.Philippine Overseas Employment Admin., et
al.G.R. No. 114714April 21, 1995
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
47
POLICE POWER
48. Villanueva vs. Castañeda, Jr. G.R. No. L-61311September 2l, 1987
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
48
POLICE POWER
49. Ortigas& Co. Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals , et al G.R. No. 126102 December 4, 2000
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
49
POLICE POWER
50. Melchor, Jr. vs. Moya G.R. No. L-35256March 17, 1983
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
50
POLICE POWER
51. Ortigas& Co., Limited Partnership vs. Feati Bank And Trust Co G.R. No. L-24670 December
14, 1979.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
51
POLICE POWER
52. United BF Homeowners' Asso., Inc., et al. vs. The City Mayor of Paranaque City, et al. G.R.
No. 141010 February 7, 2007
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
52
POLICE POWER
53. Ernesto Del Rosario vs. Victorino de los Santos, et al. G.R. No. L-20589-90 March 21, 1968
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
53
POLICE POWER
54. Mateo de Ramas vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-19555 May 29, 1964
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
54
POLICE POWER
Police power vs. constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt

55. Lozano vs. Martinez G.R. No. L-63419 December 18, 1986
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
55
POLICE POWER
Police Power, the right to due process of law and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures
Police power is no license to seize property in disregard of due process

56. Leo Pita vs. Court of Appeals, et al .G.R. No. 80806, October 5, 1989
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
56
POLICE POWER
Police Power vs. Due Process and Equal Protection

57. Bautista, et al. vs. Juinio, et al. G.R. No. L-50908January 31, 1984
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
57
POLICE POWER
void-for-vagueness doctrine
58. People of the Philippines vs. Evangeline Siton y sacil, et al. G.R. No. 169364 September 18,
2009
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
58
POLICE POWER
property rights must bow to the primacy of police power

59. Remman Enterprises, Inc., et al. vs. Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Services, et
al. G.R. No. 197676 February 4, 2014
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
59
POLICE POWER
Police power vs. Eminent Domain

60. United States vs. Toribio G.R. No. L-5060 January 26, 1910
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
60
POLICE POWER
61. The Office of the Solicitor General Vs. Ayala Land Incorporated, et al. G.R. No. 177056.
September 18, 2009
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
61
POLICE POWER
62. Ass'n of Small Landowners In the Philippines, Inc. vs. Sec. of Agrarian Reform G.R. No.
78742July 14, 1989
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
62
POLICE POWER
63. Didipio Earth-Savers' Multi-Purpose Association, Inc. et al. vs. Gozun, et al. G.R. No. 157882
March 30, 2006
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
63
POLICE POWER
64. Telecommunications And Broadcast Attys. of the Philippines, Inc., et al. vs. Commission On
Elections G.R. No. 132922April 21, 1998
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
64
POLICE POWER
65. City Government of Quezon City vs. Ericta G.R. No. L-34915 June 24, 1983
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
65
POLICE POWER
66. EQUITABLE PCI BANK, INC. (NOW BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC.) VS. SOUTH
RICH ACRES, INC., TOP SERVICE, INC. G.R. No. 202384, May 04, 2021
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
66
POLICE POWER
Police power vs. power of taxation

67. Planters Products Inc., et al. vs. Fertiphil Corp. G.R. No. 166006 March 14, 2008
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
67
POLICE POWER
68. Romeo P. Gerochi, et al vs. Dept of Energy, et al. G.R. No. 159796 July 17, 2007
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
68
POLICE POWER
69. Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Romeo F. Edu, et al. G.R. No. L- 41383August 15, 1988
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
69
POLICE POWER
70. Gaston v. Republic Planters Bank 242 Phil. 377 (1988)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
70
POLICE POWER
71. Gerochi v. Department of Energy 554 Phil. 563 (2007)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
71
POLICE POWER
72. Petron Corporation v. Tiangco 574 Phil. 620 (2008)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
72
POLICE POWER
73. Mobil Philippines v. City Treasurer of Makati 501 Phil. 666 (2005)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
73
POLICE POWER
74. BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND JOHN HAY

MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. CITY GOVERNMENT OF BAGUIO CITY, AS
REPRESENTED BY ITS MAYOR, CITY TREASURER, AND CITY LEGAL OFFICER.
[ G.R. No. 192694. February 22, 2023
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
74
POLICE POWER
Power to regulate as an exercise of police power does not include the power to impose fees for revenue
purposes
75. G.A. Cuunjieng vs. Patstone G.R. No. L-16254February 21, 1922
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
75
POLICE POWER
76. American Mail Line, et al. vs. City of Basilan, et al. G.R. No. L-12647May 31, 1961
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
76
POLICE POWER
77. Republic vs.Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc .G.R. No. L-26862March 30, 1970
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
77
POLICE POWER
Taxation may be made the implement of the state’s police power

78. Lutz vs. AranetaG.R. No. L-7859December 22, 1955
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
78
POLICE POWER
79. Philippine Airlines v. Edu 247 Phil. 283 (1988)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
79
POLICE POWER
Who may exercise the power
Delegation
80. Metro Manila Development Authority v. Bel-Air Village, Association, Inc. 385 Phil. 586 (2000).
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
80
POLICE POWER
81. Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Viron Transportation Co., Inc., 557 Phil. 121
(2007).
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
81
POLICE POWER
82. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE LAND TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS,
VS. MARIA BASA EXPRESS JEEPNEY OPERATORS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION,
INC., G.R. No. 206486. August 16, 2022
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
82
POLICE POWER
Local Government Units

83. Bacolod Vs. Phuture Visions Co., Inc. G.R. No. 190289. January 17, 2018
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
83
POLICE POWER
84. Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan (SPARK), et al. Vs. Quezon City G.R. No. 225442.
August 8, 2017
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
84
POLICE POWER
85. BatangasVs. Philippine Shell Petroleum Corporation and Shell Philippines Exploration B.V.
G.R. No. 195003. June 7, 2017
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
85
POLICE POWER
86. LaygoVs. Municipal Mayor of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya G.R. No. 188448. January 11, 2017
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
86
POLICE POWER
87. Cruz vs. Pandacan Hiker's Club, Inc. G.R. No. 188213 January 11, 2016
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
87
POLICE POWER
88. Ferrer Vs. Bautista G.R. No. 210551. June 30, 2015
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
88
POLICE POWER
89. Legaspi Vs. City of Cebu G.R. No. 159110/G.R. No. 159692. December 10, 2013
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
89
POLICE POWER
90. Rimando Vs. Naguilan Emission Testing Center, Inc., etc., et al .G.R. No. 198860. July 23, 2012
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
90
POLICE POWER
91. Gancayco Vs. City Government of Quezon City and Metro Manila Development Authority
G.R. No. 177807/G.R. No. 177933. October 11, 2011
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
91
POLICE POWER
92. Binay vs. Domingo G.R. No. 92389 September 11, 1991
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
92
POLICE POWER
93. Balacuit vs. Court of First Instance of Agusan Del Norte G.R. No. L-38429 June 30, 1988
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
93
POLICE POWER
94. Social Justice Society, et al. vs. Atienza, Jr., etc. G.R. No. 156052 February 13, 2008
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
94
POLICE POWER
95. City of Manila, et al. vs. Laguio, Jr., et al. G.R. No. 118127 April 12, 2005
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
95
POLICE POWER
96. BATANGAS CATV, INC., petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALSG.R. No. 138810.
September 29, 2004 482 Phil. 544
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
96
POLICE POWER
97. United States vs. Salaveria G.R. No. L-13678November 12, 1918
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
97
POLICE POWER
98. Velasco vs. Villegas G.R. No. L-24153February 14, 1983
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
98
POLICE POWER
99. Heirs fo Luis A. Luna, et al. vs. Afable, et al. G.R. No. 188299 January 23, 2013
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
99
POLICE POWER
100. Rural Bank of Makati, Inc., et al. vs. Municipality of Makati, et al. G.R. No. 150763July 2,
2004
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
100
POLICE POWER
101. Tano, et al. vs. Socrates, et al. G.R. No. 110249August 21, 1997
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
101
POLICE POWER
102. GARIN VS. CITY OF MUNTINLUPA G.R. No. 216492, January 20, 2021
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
102
POLICE POWER
103. CITY OF BATANGAS VS. JG SUMMIT PETROCHEMICAL CORPORATION G.R. Nos.

190266-67. March 15, 2023
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
103
POLICE POWER
MMDA is not vested with police power

104. Metro Manila Development Authority v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. 385 Phil. 586
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
104
POLICE POWER
105. Metropolitan Manila Development Authority Vs. Dante O. Garin. G.R. No. 130230. April 15,
2005
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
105
POLICE POWER
Limitations
106. Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc. Vs. JAC Liner, Inc.G.R. No. 148339. February 23, 2005
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
106
POLICE POWER
107. Planters Products Inc., et al. vs. Fertiphil Corp. G.R. No. 166006 March 14, 2008
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
107
POLICE POWER
108. James Mirasol, et al. vs. Dept. of Public Works & Highways, et alG.R. No. 158793 June 8, 2006
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
108
POLICE POWER
Tests for valid exercise

a. Lawful subject
b. Lawful Means
109. Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 74457March 20, 1987
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
109
POLICE POWER
110. VENUS COMMERCIAL CO., INC., VS. THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH G.R. No.
240764. November 18, 2021
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
110
POLICE POWER
111. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MARIA BASA EXPRESS JEEPNEY

OPERATORS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC., G.R. No. 206486. August 16, 2022
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
111
POLICE POWER
112. Fernando Vs. St. Scholastica's College and St. Scholastica's Academy-Marikina, Inc. G.R. No.
161107. March 12, 2013
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
112
POLICE POWER
113. Social Justice Society v. Mayor Atienza, Jr., 546 Phil. 485 (2007)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
113
POLICE POWER
114. Drugstores Association of the Philippines, Inc., et al. v. National Council on Disability Affairs,
et al., 795 Phil. 166 (2016)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
114
POLICE POWER
115. Kilusang Mayo Uno, et al. v. Aquino, et al., 850 Phil. 1168 (2019)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
115
POLICE POWER
Additional Limitations
Express grant by law
Within territorial limits
Not contrary to law
116. Ichiong vs. Hernandez, et al .G.R. No. L-7995May 31, 1957
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
116
POLICE POWER
117. Tawang Multi-Purpose Cooperative Vs. La Trinidad Water District G.R. No. 166471. March
22, 2011
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
117
POLICE POWER
118. Villacorta vs. Bernardo G.R. No. L-31249August 19, 1986
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
118
POLICE POWER
119. Homeowners' Ass'n. of the Phil., Inc., et al. vs. Municipal Board of the City of Manila, et al.
G.R. No. L-23979August 30, 1968
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
119
POLICE POWER
120. United States vs. Pacis, et al. G.R. No. 10363September 29, 1915
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
120
POLICE POWER
121. Leonardo Tan, et al. vs. Pereña G.R. No. 149743 February 18, 2005
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
121

Notes - Constitutional Law 2 (Police Power) Digested-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notes - Constitutional Law 2 (Police Power) Digested-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- NOTES

Alfreda C. Abis, MPA

9. YNOT VS. IAC, 148 SCRA 659

10. Zabal v. Duterte, G.R. No. 238467, February 12, 2019

20%, DISCOUNT FOR SENIOR CITIZENS AND PWDs

Regulation of vehicular traffic

Promote morality in public service

Power to issue franchise, licenses or grant business permits

Power of the State to regulate the exercise of a profession or pursuit of an occupation

Promote Social Justice

A public utility subject to strict regulation by the State

Stevedoring services are subject to the states police power

Police Power vs Bill of Rights

Police power is superior to the non-impairment clause

Police power vs. constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt

Police power is no license to seize property in disregard of due process

Police Power vs. Due Process and Equal Protection

property rights must bow to the primacy of police power

Police power vs. Eminent Domain

Police power vs. power of taxation

70. Gaston v. Republic Planters Bank 242 Phil. 377 (1988)

71. Gerochi v. Department of Energy 554 Phil. 563 (2007)

72. Petron Corporation v. Tiangco 574 Phil. 620 (2008)

74. BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND JOHN HAY

Taxation may be made the implement of the state’s police power

79. Philippine Airlines v. Edu 247 Phil. 283 (1988)

Who may exercise the power

82. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE LAND TRANSPORTATION

Local Government Units

98. Velasco vs. Villegas G.R. No. L-24153February 14, 1983

103. CITY OF BATANGAS VS. JG SUMMIT PETROCHEMICAL CORPORATION G.R. Nos.

MMDA is not vested with police power

Tests for valid exercise

111. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MARIA BASA EXPRESS JEEPNEY

118. Villacorta vs. Bernardo G.R. No. L-31249August 19, 1986

You might also like