ATTY. VIC BYRON T.

FERNANDEZ

Constitutional Law II Police Power is the power of promoting public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property Scope Police power affects both the property rights and liberty of private persons thus affects virtually all the people in contrast to Power of eminent domain which affects only those people whose property are needed for conversion to public use and from Power of taxation which though imposed on most people directly demands only part of their money as contribution to the upkeep of the government. Characteristic Police power is the most pervasive, the least limitable and the most demanding of all the powers. It operates from the womb to the tomb, protecting the person even before he is born and prescribing stricture and requirements as to the disposition of his body and his estate, if any, when he dies. In between practically everything a person does or owns comes under the police power. The justification is found in the ancient latin maxims, salus populi est suprema lex "The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law" and Sic Utere tuo ut alieanum non laedas use [what is] yours so as not to harm [what is] of others. It calls for the subordination of individual benefit to the interest of the greater number. Thus it was held that the police power may not be bargained away through the medium of a contract or treaty. The non-impairment clause must yield to the police power when it deals with subjects affecting the public welfare. Power of Eminent Domain is the highest and most exact idea of property remaining in the government acquired for some public purpose through a method in the nature of a compulsory sale to the State Power of Taxation is the method in implementing taxes whereby proportional contributions from person and property are enforced, levied by the State by virtue of its sovereignty, for the support of Government and for all public needs. Similarities: The three inherent powers of the state are similar in the following respects: 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 if it is unable to exercise them. 3. They are methods by which the state interferes with private rights.

1|Page

4. They all presuppose an equivalent compensation for the private rights interfered with. 5. They are exercised primarily by the legislature. Differences: The three inherent powers of the state are different in the following ways: 1. The police power regulates both liberty and property. The power of eminent domain and power of taxation affect only property rights 2. The police power and power of taxation may only be exercised by the government. The power of 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 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 concrete, to wit, the full and fair equivalent of the property expropriated or protection and public improvements of the taxes paid Limitations
Although inherent and indispensable the three inherent powers of the state may not be exercised arbitrarily, to the prejudice of the Bill of Rights. The presumption on libertarian societies is in favour of private rights and against attempts on the part of the state to interfere with them. Constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property are to be liberally construed Hence the exercise of these fundamental powers is subject at all times to the limitations and requirements of the constitution and may in proper cases be annulled by the courts of justice.

2|Page

Eminent Domain Who may exercise

Section 19. Eminent Domain. - A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws: Provided, however, That the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner, and such offer was not accepted:

San Roque Realty and Development Corporation vs Republic The Supreme Court held that the power of eminent domain is to be strictly construed against the expropriator. The payment of just compensation for private property taken for public use is an indispensable requirement. Failure to observe this requirement renders the taking ineffectual

Requisites for exercise Necessity Lagcao vs Judge Labra The foundation of right to exercise eminent domain is genuine necessity and that necessity must be of public character. RA 7279 is the law that governs the local expropriation of property for purposes of urban land reform and housing. Sections 9 and 10 thereof provide: SEC 9. Priorities in the Acquisition of Land. Lands for socialized housing shall be acquired in the following order: (a) Those owned by the Government or any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; Alienable lands of the public domain; Unregistered or abandoned and idle lands; Those within the declared Areas or Priority Development, Zonal Improvement Program sites, and Slum Improvement and Resettlement Program sites which have not yet been acquired;

(b) (c) (d)

3|Page

(e)

Bagong Lipunan Improvement of Sites and Services or BLISS which have not yet been acquired; and Privately-owned lands.

(f)

expropriation proceedings may be resorted to only after the other modes of acquisition are exhausted. SEC. 10. expropriation shall be resorted to only when other modes of acquisition have been exhausted: Provided further, That where expropriation is resorted to, parcels of land owned by small property owners shall be exempted for purposes of this Act Limitation: Sec.1 Sec 9 of the bill of rights Private property Taking Napocor vs Gutierrez The exercise of the power of eminent domain does not always result in the taking or appropriation of title to the expropriated property, it may only result in the imposition of a burden upon the owner of the condemned property

Republic vs Castellvi 1. 2. 3. 4. The Supreme Court enumerated the following requisites for valid taking The expropriator must enter a private property The entry must be for more than a momentary period The entry must be under warrant or color of authority The property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected 5. The utilization of the property must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property. Public use Reyes vs NHA The term public use is not confined to the actual use of the public in traditional sense. It has now been held to be synonymous with public interest, public benefit, public welfare, and public convenience,

Just Compensation Eslaban vs De Onorio Just Compensation means not only the correct amount to be paid to the owner of the land but also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking

4|Page

Rule 67(4) The payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first

Napocor vs De la Cruz While it is true that the findings of commissioners may be disregarded and the trial court may substitute its own estimate of the value, the latter may only do so for valid reasons, that is, 1. where the commissioners have applied illegal principles to the evidence submitted to them, 2. where they have disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence, or 3. where the amount allowed is either grossly inadequate or excessive.

Napocor vs Henson The principal criterion in determining just compensation is the character of the land at the time of the taking

Compensation is to be made in money and no other. Association of Small Landowners vs Secretary of Agrarian reform in agrarian reform, payment is allowed to be made partly in bonds, because under the CARP we deal with a revolutionary kind of expropriation

City of Cebus vs spouses dedamo When eminent domain is exercised by a LGU the amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property

Vicente Lim When the Government fails to pay just compensation within five years from the finality of the judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners concerned shall the right to recover possession of their property.

Agan Jr. vs Piatco

5|Page

PIATCO cannot, by mere contractual stipulation, contravene the Constitutional provision on temporary government takeover and obligate the government to pay reasonable cost for the use of the Terminal and/or Terminal Complex.

Article XII, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution provides: Section 17. In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest.

The above provision pertains to the right of the State in times of national emergency, and in the exercise of its police power, to temporarily take over the operation of any business affected with public interest. The duration of the emergency itself is the determining factor as to how long the temporary takeover by the government would last. The temporary takeover by the government extends only to the operation of the business and not to the ownership thereof. As such the government is not required to compensate the private entity-owner of the said business as there is no transfer of ownership, as the temporary takeover by the government is in exercise of its police
power and not of its power of eminent domain.

6|Page

Power of Taxation
Who may Exercise 1. Primarily vested in the national Legislature, 2. it may now also be exercise by the local legislative bodies pursuant to Article X sec. 5 of the 1987 constitution Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, fees and charges, subject to such guidelines and limitations as the congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. 3. The President when granted delegated tariff powers under sec. 28(2) Art. VI Limitation on the Exercise 1. Due process of law tax should not be confiscatory Tan vs Del Rosario - With the legislature primarily lies the discretion to determine the nature, object, extent, coverage and situs of taxation. But where a tax measure becomes so unconscionable and unjust as to amount to confiscation of property, the courts will not hesitate to strike it down, for despite all its plenitude, the power to tax cannot override constitutional provisions. 2. Equal Protection Clause sec 28(1) Art. VI Taxes should be uniform and equitable 3. Public Purpose to sustain a tax it is necessary to show that the proceeds are devoted to a public purpose - Tax for special purpose Osmena vs Orbos Sec. 29(3) Art. VI, Tax for special purpose treated as special fund and paid out for such purpose only, when the purpose if fulfilled, the balance if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the government. 4. Double Taxation 5. Tax Exemption general rule Sec. 28(4), exemption Sec.28(4) both art. VI and Sec 4(4) Sec.4(3) Art. XIV Police power vs Taxation The generation of revenue is the primary purpose and regulation is merely incidental, then the imposition is a tax, when the primary purpose is regulation then the imposition is in the exercise of police power, Gerochi vs Department of Energy

7|Page

Bill of Rights

8|Page