Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

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.
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.









The enactment clearly falls within the scope of the
police power of the State, thru which and by which it protects its own personality and insures its
security and future;
that the law does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution because sufficient grounds
exist for the distinction between alien and citizen in the exercise of the occupation regulated,
nor the due process of law clause, because the law is prospective in operation and recognizes the
privilege of aliens already engaged in the occupation and reasonably protects their privilege

The test or standard, as always, is reason. The police power legislation must be firmly grounded on
public interest and welfare, and a reasonable relation must exist between purposes and means. And if
distinction and classification has been made, there must be a reasonable basis for said distinction.


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;

(b) Alienable lands of the public domain;

(c) Unregistered or abandoned and idle lands;

(d) 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;

(e) Bagong Lipunan Improvement of Sites and Services or BLISS
which have not yet been acquired; and

(f) Privately-owned lands.

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
- The Supreme Court enumerated the following requisites for valid taking
1. The expropriator must enter a private property
2. The entry must be for more than a momentary period
3. The entry must be under warrant or color of authority
4. 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
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
- 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 thegovernment 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.
-