3 Inherent Powers of the State:
- material impairment of the value of the
1. Police Power;
2. Power of Eminent Domain or Power of
Expropriation; and
3. Power of Taxation
Purpose:
1. for public good or welfare - Police Power
2. for public use - Power of Eminent Domain
3. for revenue - Power of Taxation
1. POLICE POWER is the power of
promoting the public welfare by restraining
and regulating the use of both liberty and
property of all the people. It is considered to
be the most all-encompassing of the three
powers. It may be exercised only by the
government. The property taken in the
exercise of this power is destroyed because it
is noxious or intended for a noxious purpose.
It lies primarily in the discretion of the
legislature. Hence, the President, and
administrative boards as well as the
lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels,
including the barangay may not exercise it
without a valid delegation of legislative
power. Municipal governments exercise this
power by virtue of the general welfare clause
of the Local Government Code of 1991. Even
the courts cannot compel the exercise of this
power through mandamus or any judicial
process.
Requisites of a valid police measure:
(a.) Lawful Subject – the activity or property
sought to be regulated affects the public
welfare. It requires the primacy of the welfare
of the many over the interests of the few.
(b.) Lawful Means – the means employed
must be reasonable and must conform to the
safeguards guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
2. POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
affects only property RIGHTS. It may be
exercised by some private entities. The
property forcibly taken under this
power, upon payment of just compensation,
is needed for conversion to public use or
purpose.
The taking of property in law may include:
- trespass without actual eviction of the
owner;
property; or
- prevention of the ordinary uses for which
the property was intended.
The property that may be subject for
appropriation shall not be limited to private
property. Public property may be
expropriated provided there is a SPECIFIC
grant of authority to the delegate. Money and
a chose in action are the only things exempt
from expropriation.
Although it is also lodged primarily in the
national legislature, the courts have the
power to inquire the legality of the right of
eminent domain and to determine whether
or not there is a genuine necessity therefore.
3. POWER OF TAXATION affects only
property rights and may be exercised only by
the government. The property taken under
this power shall likewise be intended for a
public use or purpose. It is used solely for the
purpose of raising revenues, to protect the
people and extend them benefits in the form
of public projects and services (I hope so).
Hence, it cannot be allowed to be
confiscatory, except if it is intended for
destruction as an instrument of the police
power.
It must conform to the requirements of
due process. Therefore, taxpayers are entitled
to be notified of the assessment proceedings
and to be heard therein on the correct
valuation to be given the property. It is also
subject to the general requirements of the
equal protection clause that the rule of
taxation shall be uniform and equitable.
Regalian Doctrine
All lands of the public domain belong to the
State, which is the source of any asserted
right to ownership of land. All lands not
otherwise appearing to be clearly within
private ownership are presumed to belong to
the State.[1] All lands not otherwise clearly
appearing to be privately-owned are
presumed to belong to the State.[2]
WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF JURE
REGALIA?
(REGALIAN DOCTRINE)
> Generally, under this concept, private title
to land must be traced to some grant, express
or implied, from the Spanish Crown or its
successors, the American Colonial
Government, and thereafter, the Philippine
Republic
> In a broad sense, the term refers to royal
rights, or those rights to which the King has
by virtue of his prerogatives
> The theory of jure regalia was therefore
nothing more than a natural fruit of conquest
CONNECTED TO THIS IS THE STATE’S
POWER OF DOMINUUM
> Capacity of the state to own or acquire
property—foundation for the early Spanish
decree embracing the feudal theory of jura
regalia
> This concept was first introduced through
the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas
> The Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of
discovery and conquest. Consequently, all
lands became the exclusive patrimony and
dominion of the Spanish Crown.
> The Law of the Indies was followed by the
Ley Hipotecaria or the Mortgage Law of 1893.
This law provided for the systematic
registration of titles and deeds as well as
possessory claims
> The Maura Law: was partly an amendment
and was the last Spanish land law
promulgated in the Philippines, which
required the adjustment or registration of all
agricultural lands, otherwise the lands shall
revert to the State
TAKE NOTE THAT THE REGALIAN
DOCTRINE IS ENSHRINED IN OUR
PRESENT AND PAST CONSTITUTIONS
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION PROVIDES
UNDER NATIONAL ECONOMY AND
PATRIMONY THE FOLLOWING—
> “ Section 2. All lands of the public domain,
waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy,
fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and
fauna, and other natural resources are owned
by the State. With the exception of
agricultural lands, all other natural resources
shall not be alienated. The exploration,
development, and utilization of natural
resources shall be under the full control and
supervision of the State. The State may
directly undertake such activities, or it may
enter into co-production, joint venture, or
production-sharing agreements with Filipino
citizens, or corporations or associations at
least sixty per centum of whose capital is
owned by such citizens. Such agreements
may be for a period not exceeding
twenty-five years, renewable for not more
than twenty-five years, and under such terms
and conditions as may be provided by law. In
cases of water rights for irrigation, water
supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than
the development of water power, beneficial
use may be the measure and limit of the
grant.”
> The abovementioned provision provides
that except for agricultural lands for public
domain which alone may be alienated, forest
or timber, and mineral lands, as well as all
other natural resources must remain with the
State, the exploration, development and
utilization of which shall be subject to its full
control and supervision albeit allowing it to
enter into coproduction, joint venture or
production-sharing agreements, or into
agreements with foreign-owned corporations
involving technical or financial assistance for
large-scale exploration, development, and
utilization
THE 1987 PROVISION HAD ITS ROOTS IN
THE 1935 CONSTITUTION
WHICH PROVIDES—
> Section 1. All agricultural timber, and
mineral lands of the public domain, waters,
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral
oils, all forces of potential energy and other
natural resources of the Philippines belong to
the State, and their disposition, exploitation,
development, or utilization shall be limited
to citizens of the Philippines or to
corporations or associations at least sixty per
centum of the capital of which is owned by
such citizens, subject to any existing right,
grant, lease, or concession at the time of the
inauguration of the Government established
under this Constitution. Natural resources,
with the exception of public agricultural
land, shall not be alienated, and no license,
concession, or lease for the exploitation,
development, or utilization of any of the
natural resources shall be granted for a
period exceeding twenty-five years,
renewable for another twenty-five years,
except as to water rights for irrigation, water
supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than
the development of water power, in which
cases beneficial use may be the measure and
limit of the grant.
THE 1973 CONSTITUTION REITERATED
THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE
AS FOLLOWS—
> Section 8. All lands of public domain,
waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy,
fisheries, wildlife, and other natural
resources of the Philippines belong to the
State. With the exception of agricultural,
industrial or commercial, residential, or
resettlement lands of the public domain,
natural resources shall not be alienated, and
no license, concession, or lease for the
exploration, or utilization of any of the
natural resources shall be granted for a
period exceeding twentyfive years, except as
to water rights for irrigation, water supply,
fisheries, or industrial uses other than
development of water power, in which cases,
beneficial use may by the measure and the
limit of the grant.
THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE DOESN'T
NEGATE NATIVE TITLE. THIS IS IN
PURSUANCE TO WHAT HAS BEEN HELD
IN CRUZ V. SECRETARY OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
> Petitioners challenged the constitutionality
of Indigenous Peoples Rights Act on the
ground that it amounts to an unlawful
deprivation of the State’s ownership over
lands of the public domain and all other
natural resources therein, by recognizing the
right of ownership of ICC or IPs to their
ancestral domains and ancestral lands on the
basis of native title.
> As the votes were equally divided, the
necessary majority wasn’t obtained and
petition was dismissed and the law’s validity
was upheld
> Justice Kapunan: Regalian theory doesn’t
negate the native title to lands held in private
ownership since time immemorial, adverting
to the landmark case of CARINO V. LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, where the US SC through
Holmes held: “xxx the land has been held by
individuals under a claim of private
ownership, it will be presumed to have been
held in the same way from before the Spanish
conquest, and never to have been public
land.”
> Existence of native titie to land, or
ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of
possession under a claim of ownership since
time immemorial and independent of any
grant from the Spanish crown as an exception
to the theory of jure regalia
> Justice Puno: Carino case firmly
established a concept of private land title that
existed irrespective of any royal grant from
the State and was based on the strong
mandate extended to the Islands via the
Philippine Bill of 1902. The IPRA recognizes
the existence of ICCs/IPs as a distinct sector
in the society. It grants this people the
ownership and possession of their ancestral
domains and ancestral lands and defines the
extent of these lands and domains
> Justice Vitug: Carino cannot override the
collective will of the people expressed in the
Constitution.
> Justice Panganiban: all Filipinos, whether
indigenous or not, are subject to the
Constitution, and that no one is exempt from
its allencompassing provisions
3 Inherent Powers of the State:
1. Police Power;
2. Power of Eminent Domain or Power of
Expropriation; and
3. Power of Taxation
Purpose:
1. for public good or welfare - Police Power
2. for public use - Power of Eminent Domain
3. for revenue - Power of Taxation
1. POLICE POWER is the power of
promoting the public welfare by restraining
and regulating the use of both liberty and
property of all the people. It is considered to
be the most all-encompassing of the three
powers. It may be exercised only by the
government. The property taken in the
exercise of this power is destroyed because it
is noxious or intended for a noxious purpose.
It lies primarily in the discretion of the
legislature. Hence, the President, and
administrative boards as well as the
lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels,
including the barangay may not exercise it
without a valid delegation of legislative
power. Municipal governments exercise this
power by virtue of the general welfare clause
of the Local Government Code of 1991. Even
the courts cannot compel the exercise of this
power through mandamus or any judicial
process.
Requisites of a valid police measure:
(a.) Lawful Subject – the activity or property
sought to be regulated affects the public
welfare. It requires the primacy of the welfare
of the many over the interests of the few.
(b.) Lawful Means – the means employed
must be reasonable and must conform to the
safeguards guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
2. POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
affects only property RIGHTS. It may be
exercised by some private entities. The
property forcibly taken under this
power, upon payment of just compensation,
is needed for conversion to public use or
purpose.
The taking of property in law may include:
- trespass without actual eviction of the
owner;
- material impairment of the value of the
property; or
- prevention of the ordinary uses for which
the property was intended.
The property that may be subject for
appropriation shall not be limited to private
property. Public property may be
expropriated provided there is a SPECIFIC
grant of authority to the delegate. Money and
a chose in action are the only things exempt
from expropriation.
Although it is also lodged primarily in the
national legislature, the courts have the
power to inquire the legality of the right of
eminent domain and to determine whether
or not there is a genuine necessity therefore.
3. POWER OF TAXATION affects only
property rights and may be exercised only by
the government. The property taken under
this power shall likewise be intended for a
public use or purpose. It is used solely for the
purpose of raising revenues, to protect the
people and extend them benefits in the form
of public projects and services (I hope so).
Hence, it cannot be allowed to be
confiscatory, except if it is intended for
destruction as an instrument of the police
power.
It must conform to the requirements of
due process. Therefore, taxpayers are entitled
to be notified of the assessment proceedings
and to be heard therein on the correct
valuation to be given the property. It is also
subject to the general requirements of the
equal protection clause that the rule of
taxation shall be uniform and equitable.
Regalian Doctrine
All lands of the public domain belong to the
State, which is the source of any asserted
right to ownership of land. All lands not
otherwise appearing to be clearly within
private ownership are presumed to belong to
the State.[1] All lands not otherwise clearly
appearing to be privately-owned are
presumed to belong to the State.[2]
WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF JURE
REGALIA?
(REGALIAN DOCTRINE)
> Generally, under this concept, private title
to land must be traced to some grant, express
or implied, from the Spanish Crown or its
successors, the American Colonial
Government, and thereafter, the Philippine
Republic
> In a broad sense, the term refers to royal
rights, or those rights to which the King has
by virtue of his prerogatives
> The theory of jure regalia was therefore
nothing more than a natural fruit of conquest
CONNECTED TO THIS IS THE STATE’S
POWER OF DOMINUUM
> Capacity of the state to own or acquire
property—foundation for the early Spanish
decree embracing the feudal theory of jura
regalia
> This concept was first introduced through
the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas
> The Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of
discovery and conquest. Consequently, all
lands became the exclusive patrimony and
dominion of the Spanish Crown.
> The Law of the Indies was followed by the
Ley Hipotecaria or the Mortgage Law of 1893.
This law provided for the systematic
registration of titles and deeds as well as
possessory claims
> The Maura Law: was partly an amendment
and was the last Spanish land law
promulgated in the Philippines, which
required the adjustment or registration of all
agricultural lands, otherwise the lands shall
revert to the State
TAKE NOTE THAT THE REGALIAN
DOCTRINE IS ENSHRINED IN OUR
PRESENT AND PAST CONSTITUTIONS
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION PROVIDES
UNDER NATIONAL ECONOMY AND
PATRIMONY THE FOLLOWING—
> “ Section 2. All lands of the public domain,
waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy,
fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and
fauna, and other natural resources are owned
by the State. With the exception of
agricultural lands, all other natural resources
shall not be alienated. The exploration,
development, and utilization of natural
resources shall be under the full control and
supervision of the State. The State may
directly undertake such activities, or it may
enter into co-production, joint venture, or
production-sharing agreements with Filipino
citizens, or corporations or associations at
least sixty per centum of whose capital is
owned by such citizens. Such agreements
may be for a period not exceeding
twenty-five years, renewable for not more
than twenty-five years, and under such terms
and conditions as may be provided by law. In
cases of water rights for irrigation, water
supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than
the development of water power, beneficial
use may be the measure and limit of the
grant.”
> The abovementioned provision provides
that except for agricultural lands for public
domain which alone may be alienated, forest
or timber, and mineral lands, as well as all
other natural resources must remain with the
State, the exploration, development and
utilization of which shall be subject to its full
control and supervision albeit allowing it to
enter into coproduction, joint venture or
production-sharing agreements, or into
agreements with foreign-owned corporations
involving technical or financial assistance for
large-scale exploration, development, and
utilization
THE 1987 PROVISION HAD ITS ROOTS IN
THE 1935 CONSTITUTION
WHICH PROVIDES—
> Section 1. All agricultural timber, and
mineral lands of the public domain, waters,
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral
oils, all forces of potential energy and other
natural resources of the Philippines belong to
the State, and their disposition, exploitation,
development, or utilization shall be limited
to citizens of the Philippines or to
corporations or associations at least sixty per
centum of the capital of which is owned by
such citizens, subject to any existing right,
grant, lease, or concession at the time of the
inauguration of the Government established
under this Constitution. Natural resources,
with the exception of public agricultural
land, shall not be alienated, and no license,
concession, or lease for the exploitation,
development, or utilization of any of the
natural resources shall be granted for a
period exceeding twenty-five years,
renewable for another twenty-five years,
except as to water rights for irrigation, water
supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than
the development of water power, in which
cases beneficial use may be the measure and
limit of the grant.
THE 1973 CONSTITUTION REITERATED
THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE
AS FOLLOWS—
> Section 8. All lands of public domain,
waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy,
fisheries, wildlife, and other natural
resources of the Philippines belong to the
State. With the exception of agricultural,
industrial or commercial, residential, or
resettlement lands of the public domain, Philippine Bill of 1902. The IPRA recognizes
natural resources shall not be alienated, and the existence of ICCs/IPs as a distinct sector
no license, concession, or lease for the in the society. It grants this people the
exploration, or utilization of any of the ownership and possession of their ancestral
natural resources shall be granted for a domains and ancestral lands and defines the
period exceeding twentyfive years, except as extent of these lands and domains
to water rights for irrigation, water supply, > Justice Vitug: Carino cannot override the
fisheries, or industrial uses other than collective will of the people expressed in the
development of water power, in which cases, Constitution.
beneficial use may by the measure and the > Justice Panganiban: all Filipinos, whether
limit of the grant. indigenous or not, are subject to the
THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE DOESN'T Constitution, and that no one is exempt from
NEGATE NATIVE TITLE. THIS IS IN its allencompassing provisions
PURSUANCE TO WHAT HAS BEEN HELD
IN CRUZ V. SECRETARY OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
> Petitioners challenged the constitutionality
of Indigenous Peoples Rights Act on the
ground that it amounts to an unlawful
deprivation of the State’s ownership over
lands of the public domain and all other
natural resources therein, by recognizing the
right of ownership of ICC or IPs to their
ancestral domains and ancestral lands on the
basis of native title.
> As the votes were equally divided, the
necessary majority wasn’t obtained and
petition was dismissed and the law’s validity
was upheld
> Justice Kapunan: Regalian theory doesn’t
negate the native title to lands held in private
ownership since time immemorial, adverting
to the landmark case of CARINO V. LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, where the US SC through
Holmes held: “xxx the land has been held by
individuals under a claim of private
ownership, it will be presumed to have been
held in the same way from before the Spanish
conquest, and never to have been public
land.”
> Existence of native titie to land, or
ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of
possession under a claim of ownership since
time immemorial and independent of any
grant from the Spanish crown as an exception
to the theory of jure regalia
> Justice Puno: Carino case firmly
established a concept of private land title that
existed irrespective of any royal grant from
the State and was based on the strong
mandate extended to the Islands via the