Chapter 3 INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE Police power and taxation, along with eminent domain, are inherent powers of sovereignty which the State might share with local government units by delegation given under a constitutional or a statutory fiat. All these inherent powers are for a public purpose and legislative in nature but the similarities end there. The basic aim of police power is public good and welfare. Taxation, in its case, focuses on the power of government to raise revenue in order to support its existence and carry out its legitimate objectives, Although correlative to each other in many respects, the grant of one does not necessarily carry with it the grant of the other. The two powers are, by tradition and jurisprudence, separate and distinct powers, varying in their respective concepts, character, scopes and limitations. (Land Transportation Office, et al. v. City of Butuan, et al., G.R. No. 131512, January 20, 2000) |. Police Power Police power, while incapable of an exact definition, has been purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide enough room for an efficient and flexible response as the conditions warrant. Police power is based upon the concept of necessity of the State and its corresponding right to protect itself and its people. Police power has been used as justification for numerous and varied actions by the State, These range from the regulation of dance halls, movie theaters, gas stations, and cockpits. The awesome scope of police power is best demonstrated by the fact that in its hundred or so years of presence in our nation’s legal system, its use has rarely been denied. (White Light Corporation v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009, En Banc, Tinga, J.) an CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 wer vested in the legisla, promote the health, morale and general welfare of thy, cognition that salus Poput is the supreme law), (Sociat February 13, 2008) Police power is the plenary P0' to make statutes and ordinances to peace, education, good order or safety, people. This power flows from the re est suprema lex (the welfare of the people Justice Society v, Atienza, G.R. No. 156052, Scope of Police Power The scope of police power has been held to be 59 comprehensive as to encompass almost all matters affecting the health, safety, peace, order, morals, comfort, and convenience of the community. Police power is essentially regulatory in nature and the power to issue licenses or grant business Permits, if exercised for a regulatory and not revenue-raising purpose, is within the ambit of this power. (Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. » Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100152, March 31, 2000) The Latin maxim salus populi est suprema lex embodies the character of the entire spectrum of public laws aimed at promoting the general welfare of the people under the State's police power, As an inherent attribute of sovereignty which virtually “extends to all public needs,” this “least limitable” of governmental powers grants a wide panoply of instruments through which the state, as parens patriae gives effect to a host of its regulatory powers. Thus, police power concerns government enactments which precisely interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare or the common good. (JMM Promotions and Management, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120095, August 5, 1996) Police Power Is an Inherent Attribute of Sovereignty Police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It has been defined as the power vested by the Constitution in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner of whole- some and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either with or without penalties, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth,CHAPTERS INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE and for the subjects of the same. The power is plenary, and its scope is vast and pervasive, reaching, and justifying measures for public health, public safety, public morals, and the general welfare. (Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc,, G.R. No, 135962, March 27, 2000) Elements of Police Power Police power has been defined as the “state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare.” It consists of two essential elements. First, it is an imposition of restraint upon liberty or property. Second, the power is exercised for the benefit of the common good. Its definition in elastic terms underscores its all- encompassing and comprehensive embrace. It is and still is the most essential, insistent, and illimitable” of the State’s powers. It is familiar knowledge that unlike the power of eminent domain, police power is exercised without provision for just compensation for its paramount consideration is public welfare. (Agan, Jr. . Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc., G.R. No. 155001, January 21, 2004) Law of Overruling Necessity It is the power of promoting public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property. It is based on public necessity and the right of the State and of the public to self-protection and self-preservation. ‘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 tobe that inherent and plenary power in the state which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society.’ Carried onward by the current of legislature, 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aN * CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 interfere with the right of the individual. (Rubi v. Provincial Boary of Mindoro, G.R. No. L-14078, March 7, 1919) Who May Exercise Police Power? It bears stressing that police power lodged primarily in the National Legislature. It cannot be exercised by any 8roup or body of individuals not possessing legislative power. The National Legislature, however, may delegate this power to the President and administrative boards as well as the lawmakin, bodies of municipal corporations or local government units, Once delegated, the agents can exercise only such legislative Powers as are conferred on them by the national lawmaking body. (Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc., G.R. No. 135962, March 27, 2000) Police Power Is Lodged Primarily In the Legislature Police poweris lodged primarily in the National Legislature, but also upon valid delegation, it may be exercised by: 1) The. President, 2) Administrative bodies, and 3) Law-making bodies of Local Government Unit (LGU). While police power rests primarily with the national legislature, such power may be delegated. Section 16 of the Local Government Code (LGC), known as the general welfare clause, encapsulates the delegated police power to local governments: Section 16. General Welfare, — Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as Powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and Support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and Support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic Prosperity and social justice, Promote full employment among their residents, maintainCHAPTERS INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE peace and order, and preserve the comfort, and convenience of their inhabitants, _ LGUs like the City of Manila exercise police power through their respective legislative bodies, in this case, the Sangguniang Parilungsod or the city council. (Social Justice Society v. Atienza, G.R. No. 156052, February 13, 2008) Requisites for the Valid Exercise of Police Power As with the State, 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 bea concurrence of a lawful subject and lawful method. (Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc. v. JAC Liner, Inc., February 23, 2005) In theexercise of police power, property rights of individuals may be subjected to restraints and burdens in order to fulfill the objectives of the government. Otherwise stated, the government may enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty, property, lawful businesses and occupations to promote the general welfare. However, the interference must be reasonable and not arbitrary. And to forestall arbitrariness, the methods or means used to protect public health, morals, safety or welfare must have a reasonable relation to the end in view. (Social Justice Society v. Atienza, G.R. No. 156052, February 13, 2008) To successfully invoke the exercise of police power as the rationale for the enactment of the Ordinance, and to free it from the imputation of constitutional infirmity, the following requisites must be present: 1. Lawful subject — generally, the emphasis must be on the interest of the public even it means interference with private rights,CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 e adopted must 2 Lawful means — the means a ‘ reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose ang Rot unduly oppressive upon individuals. It must be evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of privaty Tights can work. A reasonable relation must exist between the Purposes of the police measure and the means employed fo, 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, Lackin, @ concurrence of these two requisites, the police measure shajj be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights — 4 violation of the due process clause. (City of Manila v. Laguio, GR No, 118127, April 12, 2005, En Banc) Police Power of the Local Government Units As with the State, local governments may be considered as having properly exercised their police power only ifthe followin requisites are met: (1) the interests of the public generally, a¢ distinguished from those of a particular class, require its exercise and (2) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment ofthe purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. In short, there must be a concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful method. (Socal Justice Society v. Atienza, GR. No. 156052, February 13, 2008) Police Power of the Local Government Units Must Be Exercised through Their Respective Legislative Bodies Local government units exercise police power through their respective legislative bodies; in this case, the sangguniang Panlungsod or the city council. The Code empowers the legislative bodies to “enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the province! city / municipality and its inhabitants Pursuant to Section 16 of the Code and in the Proper exercise of the corporate powers of the province/city / municipality provided under the Code.” The inquiry in this Petition is concemed with the validity of theCHAPTERS a INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE exercise of such delegated power, The police power of the City Council, however broad and far-reaching, is subordinate to the constitutional limitations thereon; and is subject to the limitation that its exercise must be reasonable and for the public good. The police power granted to local government units must always be exercised with utmost observance of the rights of the people to due process and equal protection of the law. Such power cannot be exercised whimsically, arbitrarily or despotically as its exercise is subject to a qualification, limitation or restriction demanded by the respect and regard due to the prescription of the fundamental law, particularly those forming part of the Bill of Rights. Individual rights, it bears emphasis, may be adversely affected only to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public interest or public welfare. Due process requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty, and property. (City of Manila v. Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005) Tests of a Valid Ordinance The tests of a valid ordinance are well established. A long line of decisions has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and must be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2) must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable, (Tatel v. Municipality of Virac, G.R. No, 40243, March 11, 1992, 207 SCRA 157, 161) The MMDA Is Not Vested with Police Power Police Power... having been lodged primarily in the National Legislature, it cannot be exercised by any group or body* CONSTITUTIONAL LAW? of individuals not possessing | Legislature, however, may deleg: and administrative boards as We! Municipal corporations or local II as the lawmaking bogj, delegated, the agents can & as are conferred on them by Metropolit 0 Several local government units, No. 7924 in 1995, Metropolitan development and administrative of “metro-wide” basic services af “a development authority” referred to as the MMDA. Thus; the national lawmaking body, Manila was declared as a “s vs. The powers of the MMDA are limited to the following aa formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation, management, monj- toring, setting of policies, installation of a system and administration. There is no syllable in R.A. No. 7924 that grants the MMDA police power, let alone legislative power. Even the Metro Manila Council has not been delegated any legislative power. Unlike the legislative bodies of the local government units, there is no provision in RA. No. 7924 that empowers the MMDA or its Council to “enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare” of the inhabitants of Metro Manila. The MMDA is, as termed in the charter itself, a “development authority.” It is an agency created for the purpose of laying down policies and coordinating with the various national government agencies, people's organizations, non-governmental organizations and the private sector for the efficient and expeditious delivery of basic services in the vast metropolitan area. All its functions are administrative in nature and these are actually summed up in the charter itself. ++» Clearly, the MMDA is not a political unit of government. The power delegated to the MMDA is that given to the Metro Manila Council to a tro Manila is a body composeq an or Metro With the passage of Republic ay e region” and the administratig ffecting the region placed unger 1 islati » The Nati, legislative power. aio ate this power to the prog; del ies government units (LGUs), a sxercise only such legislative PowerCHAPTER 3 INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE promulgate administrative rules and regulations in the implementation of the MMDA’s functions. There is no grant of authority to enact ordinances and regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis. A last word. The MMDA was intended to coordinate services with metro-wide impact that transcend local political boundaries or would entail huge expenditures if provided by the individual LGUs, especially with regard to transport and traffic management, and we are aware of the valiant efforts of the petitioner to untangle the increasingly traffic snarled roads of Metro Manila. But these laudable intentions are limited by the MMDA‘s enabling law, which we can but interpret, and petitioner must be reminded that its eforts in this respect must be authorized dy a valid law, or ordinance, or regulation arising from a legitimate source. (MMDA ». Garin, G.R. No. 130230, April 15, 2005) Il. The Power of Eminent Domain Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. (Section 9, Article Il, 1987 Constitution) The Power of Eminent Domain The power of eminent domain is the inherent power of the state to take, or to authorize the taking of, private property for a public use provided the owner is paid just compensation. Eminent domain is also often referred to as expropriation or condemnation. Eminent Domain Is an Effective Means Eminent domain may be the most effective, as well as the speediest means by which such goals may be accomplished. Not only does it enable immediate possession after satisfaction of the requisites under the law, it also has a built-in procedure through which just compensation may be ascertained. (Republic v. Gingoyon, G.R. No. 166429, December 19, 2005)