Constitution

-a body of rules and maxim in accordance to the

power of sovereignty which is habitually
exercise (Collie)
-fundamental law of the land
Philippine Constitution
-a written instrument enacted by direct action of
the people through which the power of the
government are established, generally defined
and this power are distributed among the several
departments namely, executive department,
judicial department and legislative department
for the benefit of the body politic
(Justice Malcom)

the territory of the state. Must be able to

anticipate the vision
Brief- must have the basic principles of the
state, for the governance of the state
Definite-the provisions thereof must not provide
a room for ambiguity, that it can be easily
understood by a common people

(Check the maxim)

The principle that provisions must be construed
as self-executing provisions
The principle that all provisions in the Article III
Bill of Rights are all self-executing provisions
while in Article II is non- self executing
provisions

Parts of a Good Written Constitution

Constitution of Liberty- refers to the part of the
constitution which provides the political and
civil rights of the people, and that it import
limitation in the exercise of the government
powers (Article III Bill of Rights)

Constitution may the fundamental law of the

land. However there are powers of the state
which is not granted by constitution.
Notwithstanding that the constitution is the
fundamental law of the land.
Inherent Power of the State:

Written- a constitution in which embodied into

one instrument
Unwritten- not entirely unwritten but rather the
provisions are scattered not integrated into one
document

Constitution of Government- refers to the part

of the constitution, which allocate the powers of
the government, and defining the privilege of the
department

Police power-the power of the state to regulate

liberty and property rights of the citizen for the
promotion of the general welfare

Enacted- one which is formally adopted by a

body politic or a ruler
Evolved-a product of time

Constitution of Sovereignty- this part of the

constitution outlines the process, through which
we can produce amendments or the revision of
the constitution (Article XVII)

Power of eminent domain- refers to the power

of the state to take away private property for
public purpose upon payment of just
compensation and due process

*Normally a unwritten constitution is a an

evolved constitution

*How do we interpret the provision of the

Constitution?

Flexible- susceptible for ammendment

Rigid- not susceptible for change

Verba Legis-enunciates the principle of the

word must given an ordinary meaning

Power of taxation-refers to the power of the

state to demand from the citizen our contribution
for the maintenance and the operation of the
state

*The Phil. Constitution is a written, enacted, and

rigid

Ratio Legis Anima- enunciates the principle

that where there is doubt in the interpretation of
the provisions, the intent of the lawmakers must
prevail,

*Advantages of a written constitution are that it

cannot be capriciously amended. However it
cannot be susceptible to change or amendments
Character of a Good Written Constitution
Broad- it does not only provide the organization
of the government but covered all things inside

(Inaudible ang maxim Please check)

All provisions of the constitution must be
construed all together that to effectuate the real
meaning there on

*This power although different from each other

has similarities, in a sense that they are inherent
powers of the state and can be exercised without
the express grant in the constitution.
Sec. 1 Art III of Bill of Rights No person shall
be deprived of life, liberty, and property without
due process of law
*It refers to the limitation imposed upon the
exercise of police power of the state as it had

mentioned property rights and regulation of

liberty.

two other powers are affect only property rights

of the person.

Sec. 9 Art III Bill of Rights Private property

shall not be taken for public purpose without
payment of just compensation

Power of eminent domain can be exercise of

private entities, upon delegation of the Congress
(ex. NPC) while power of taxation and police
power can only be exercise by the government

*It refers to the limitation for the exercise of the

power of eminent domain
Sec.28 par 3 Art. IV of the 1987 Constitution
Charitable institutions----( please check the full
provision)
*It imposes limitation in exercising the power of
taxation
Common Characteristics of the Inherent
Power of the State:
This powers are not only necessary only
necessary but also indispensable, that without
this power the state may not be able to function
accordingly.

The properties to be taken in police power are

properties that are obnoxious, while the
properties to be taken in eminent domain are
private properties intended for public purpose
The power of taxation and power of eminent
domain presupposes payment of just
compensation in the form of tangible property.
Like power of taxation in delivery of education
and eminent domain in a form of money, while
the police power entail payment of just
compensation but such compensation would be
in intangible that you conceded in a form that
you have participated in the promotion of public
welfare
POLICE POWER

These powers primarily lodged in the

Legislature (Congress). However these powers
can be exercised with other governmental
entities upon delegation of the Congress.
This is power is a method used by the
government to enter private property
This powers presupposes payment of just
compensation
Different Characteristics of the Inherent
Power of the State
Police power involved not only property right
but also liberty of an individual. Whereas the

*Whether or not properties that are not

obnoxious could be taken under police power?
Yes. Generally property to be taken under police
power is obnoxious and hazardous property,
while when police power could be. However
when police power utilizes other inherent power
of the state, like power of taxation or power of
eminent domain In the case of
CarlosSuperDrug vs DSWD, which there is a
law that has been passed giving discounts to
senior citizen, the SC upholds the validity of the
law as police power of the state that in taking of
net profits (money is property) is justified to be
a police power using the implementing rule of
the power of taxation.

When the state uses the police power of the state

in implementing other powers of the state that
could be an instance in which there is a taking of
beneficial property.
Essential Characteristics of the Police Power:
-The most pervasive, the least limitable, and the
most demanding of the three powers.
It is the most pervasive in a sense that it covered
most of all human activities
-This power cannot be bargain away with a
medium of a treaty or a contract. In the book the
case of Ichong v Renantes a law was enacted
preventing aliens in engaging to a retail trade
business in which Ichong is a Chinese
businessman, the SC holds that the law is not in
conflict of the amity treaty of the Philippines to
China as it an exercise of the police power of the
state. Eventually Ichiong is convicted in
violation of that law. However in another case
the SC has now shifted into another ruling that
should now that any rule or law must comply
with the treaty formation Manila Bank v
Commisssioner of Internal Revenue which
enjoins the state to comply with treaty
agreement. But the fact remains that if there is
conflict with our local law and treaty then our
local law must prevail
*In a domestic contract in the case of Ortigas v
CA, that the Municipal resolution in classifying
the area as commercial could have retroactive
effect notwithstanding the impairment of the
contract agreement. For the Resolution is an
exercise police power of the local government.
In other words the police power has the power to
evade, alter, change or modify obligation in
contracts also in MMDA v Garin, in which
Garin argue that he has property rights over his
license which partakes in a the form of contract
but the Supreme Court said that it is nothing but
a privilege given by the state, that can be

revoked or suspended by the state all in the

name of the police power another case is that in
the case of Chavez v Rumulo in which this
involves the revocation to license firearm, in
which SC ruled again that the permit to carry
license is nothing but a privilege given by the
state which can be revoked and suspended all in
the name of the police power of the state. Also
in the case of Stone v UCCP cited in the
textbook, in which there is grant of franchise in
favor of few persons in consideration for them to
operate lottery for a period of 25 yrs but after a
year it was cancelled by the state, such
cancellation therefore and again it has been
justified that such cancellation is meritorious all
in the name of the police power.
-The police power is dynamic as you have
observed in the past that there is no CyberCrime Law, also is the privatization among
governmental services. One example also is the
US in which same sex marriage has been
legalized which in the past it is considered taboo
-Wider in scope compare to taxation and
eminent domain
-Police power utilizes the other inherent powers
of the state (Like Sin tax law which it is enacted
not in the power of taxation but to the police
power of the state that it imposes higher tax in a
hope that discourage people in smoking in the
use of cigarette and alcohol consumption) In the
case of CarlosSuperDrug v DSWD and in the
case of Lutz v Araneta in which there is a law
enacted imposing higher tax on sugar and the
purpose is that for the rehabilitation of the
supply of sugar. In which the SC upholds the
law saying that it is an exercise of the police
power of state pursuant for the rehabilitation of
the sugar industry using the other power of the
state as tool in implementing thereof.

Also in enacting Agrarian Reform Program in

which private properties is distributed to
farmers beneficiaries, In like manner that as an
exercise of police power it can take beneficial
properties thats why in the case of Phil Press
Institute v COMELEC the SolGen tried to
justify the COMELEC space as an exercise of
police power of the state but it was not further
elaborated by the SolGen and the Supreme
Court said that the COMELEC Space is a taking
of private property without just compensation.
But the case of PPI v COMELEC should be
distinguished in the case of Telecommunication
and Broadcast Attorneys of the Phil v
COMELEC, wherein the issue is in the validity
of the Section 92 of OMNIBUS Election Code
mandating TV networks provide free airtime to
the COMELEC. However the SC granted free
airtime and upholds the validity of the law as a
valid exercise of police power.
The distinction is that in former case it involves
tangible property which in part of the newspaper
while in latter case what was granted is a
franchise to operate a telecommunication
(intangible) and you recall upon Sec. 17 Art. XII
that the grant upon such franchise for
telecommunication, that is can be modified,
repealed, or suspended by the state
Also in case of Small Landowners Farmers v
Phil. Agriculture that the power to distribute
lands to the landed under the CARP is justified
under police power using as an implementing
thereof the power of eminent domain
Basis of Police Power:
-It is rooted on a maxim (inaudible ang maxim
check nlang) The welfare of the people is the
supreme law of the land

- (Another maxim dli naku mklaro) One cannot

exercise his right to the detriment to the right of
others
Who can exercise police power?
-The police power of the state is primarily
lodged in the Congress but it can be delegated to
other departments of the government, provided
that it shall be expressly delegated by the
Congress that even the Office of the Pres. Or
other private entities as long as it has been
delegated by the Congress
-The Congress cannot be compelled to exercise
the police power in a writ of mandamus as the
power has been primarily lodged to them. In
short the Congress has been given the discretion
to exercise it or not.
-That when the Congress act upon a problem
exercising its police power the remedy that will
be pursued is left to the discretion of the
Congress and cannot be questioned.
-Likewise the ascertainment of facts of the
problem is left to the discretion of the Congress.
Ex. When the Congress enacts a law prohibiting
the sale of cigarettes on the ground that it can
cause lung cancer such ascertainment of facts
should be respected.
In the case of Jacobson v Masachusettes where
according to Jacobson that the smallpox
vaccination should be banned as it is not really
that effective that it could cause some kind of
implications but the US Supreme Court did not
allow the such contention, which ruled that the
ascertainment of facts attendant to the exercise
of the police power is generally left on the sound
discretion of the Congress, such that the
ascertainment of Congress is supported with
preponderance of proof then it can be justified.
However considering the expanded concept of
judicial power the act of exercising police power

of the Congress can be subject to review before

the Supreme Courts.
A valid exercise power necessitates the
existence of lawful subject and also activities
imbued with public interest, and the
employment of lawful means or reasonable
methods
Even that police power covered all human
activities there are still activities that are not
covered upon the exercise thereof. Such as right
to privacy, right to pay, right to think, right to
believe,
However right to practice of profession is can be
regulated by the state as an exercise of police
power as in the case of PRC v DeGuzman and
JMM v CA
In the employment of lawful means or
reasonable methods it must observed due
process of law as enunciated in Sec. 1 Art. III of
the Constitution which in the case of Ynot v IAC
That there was a law passed during the time of
Marcos which prohibits the transporting of
carabaos from province to another. Ynot despite
the existence of this law transported 6 carabaos
from Masbate to Ilo-ilo and while on his way

was caught by the police. In accordance with the

provisions of the PD, the carabaos were
confiscated. Ynot went to court to question the
constitutionality of the PD. The Supreme Court
declared the law as invalid as it did not
employed lawful means which is the
confiscation of the carabao without the benefit
of trial or hearing. Also in the case of City of
Manila v Laguio, in which the ordinance has
been declared invalid as it not enough that the
there is a lawful subject to end the prevalent
prostitution and that the purpose is noble it is
necessary as the means employed thereby is
lawful and another case in point is that case of
Social Justice Security v Dangerous Drugs
Board where what is in issue is the validity of
sec 38 RA9165 requiring thereby that before a
person would run for a public office to
undergone mandatory drug testing in which the
Supreme court said that there is a lawful subject
but the means employed is gone beyond the
mandate of the constitution as the candidate for
senator needs only to meet the qualifications laid
down in Sec. 3, Art. VI of the Constitution Thus
it mandate additional requirement in conflict
with the Constitution
However there are exceptions to the case of
requirement of public hearing as in the case of

Cabrera v Lapid in which there is a demolition

of the fishpond of Cabrera without a court order,
Where the Supreme Court sustained the
demolition as a valid exercise of police power as
the property of Cabrera is a nuisance per se or a
hazardous property that it can be abated without
prior notice in hearing, also in the case of
Pollution Adjudication Board v CA which the
board issued and ex parte order to the
installations in discharging untreated
wastewater, which the Supreme Court uphold
the validity of order despite the fact that there is
no prior notice in hearing
In the exercise of police power of the LGU it
must be that the scope of exercise thereof is
limited to their territorial jurisdiction it must be
and also it must be in the compliance of law that
in the case of City of Manila v Laguio it
enumerates the requirement that must be
complied with the LGU for valid exercise of
police power which are the following:
(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.