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 ustification is found in the ancient latin ma!ims, salus populi est suprema le! " "The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law" and #ic $tere 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 sub ects affecting the public welfare. Power of Eminent Domain is the highest and most e!act idea of property remaining in the government acquired for some public purpose through a method in the nature of a compulsory sale to the #tate Power of Taxation is the method in implementing ta!es whereby proportional contributions from person and property are enforced, levied by the #tate by virtue of its sovereignty, for the support of &overnment 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 e!ercised by it without need of

e!press constitutional grant.

2. They are not only necessary but indispensable. The state cannot continue or be

effective if it is unable to e!ercise 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 e!ercised 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 ta!ation affect only property rights

2. The police power and power of ta!ation may only be e!ercised by the

government. The power of eminent domain may be e!ercised by some private entities. 3. The property taken in the e!ercise of police power is destroyed because it is no!ious or intended for a no!ious purpose. The property taken under the power of eminent domain and power of ta!ation is intended for public use or purpose and is therefore wholesome. 4. The compensation of the person sub ected 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 e!propriated or protection and public improvements of the ta!es paid Limitations (lthough inherent and indispensable the three inherent powers of the state may not be e!ercised arbitrarily, to the pre udice of the )ill of *ights. 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+ ,ence the e!ercise of these fundamental powers is sub ect at all times to the limitations and requirements of the constitution and may in proper cases be annulled by the courts of ustice.

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 "iolate the equal protection clause of the #onstitution because sufficient $rounds e%ist for the distinction between alien and citi&en in the e%ercise of the occupation re$ulated nor the due process of law clause because the law is prospecti"e in operation and reco$ni&es the pri"ile$e of aliens already en$a$ed in the occupation and reasonably protects their pri"ile$e

Ichong vs Hernande Scope of Police power ! 't has been said the police power is so far ( reachin$ in scope that it
has become almost impossible to limit its sweep. )s it deri"es its e%istence from the "ery e%istence of the *tate itself it does not need to be e%pressed or defined in its scope! it is said to be co(e%tensi"e with self(protection and sur"i"al and as such it is the most positi"e and acti"e of all $o"ernmental processes the most essential insistent and illimitable. +specially is it so under a modern democratic framewor, where the demands of society and of nations ha"e multiplied to almost unima$inable proportions. *o it is that #onstitutions do not define the scope or e%tent of the police power of the *tate! what they do is to set forth the limitations thereof. The most important of these are the due process clause and the e-ual protection clause.

b. .imitations on police power. / The basic limitations of due process and e-ual protection are found in the followin$ pro"isions of our #onstitution0 *+#T'12 1.314 2o person shall be depri"ed of life liberty or property without due process of law nor any person be denied the e-ual protection of the laws. 3)rticle ''' 5hil. #onstitution4 These constitutional $uarantees which embody the essence of indi"idual liberty and freedom in democracies are not limited to citi&ens alone but are admittedly uni"ersal in their application without re$ard to any differences of race of color or of nationality. c. The e-ual protection clause. / The e-ual protection of the law clause is a$ainst undue fa"or and indi"idual or class pri"ile$e as well as hostile discrimination or the oppression of ine-uality. 't is not intended to prohibit le$islation which is limited either in the ob6ect to which it is directed or by territory within which is to operate. 't does not demand absolute e-uality amon$ residents! it merely re-uires that all persons shall be treated ali,e under like circumstances and conditions both as to pri"ile$es conferred and liabilities enforced. The e-ual protection clause is not infrin$ed by le$islation which applies only to those persons fallin$ within a specified class if it applies ali,e to all persons within such class and reasonable $rounds e%ists for ma,in$ a distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not. d. The due process clause. / The due process clause has to do with the reasonableness of le$islation enacted in pursuance of the police power. 's there public interest a public purpose! is public welfare in"ol"ed7 's the )ct reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the le$islature8s purpose! is it not unreasonable arbitrary or oppressi"e7 's there sufficient foundation or reason in connection with the matter

in"ol"ed! or has there not been a capricious use of the le$islati"e power7 #an the aims concei"ed be achie"ed by the means used or is it not merely an un6ustified interference with pri"ate interest7 These are the -uestions that we as, when the due process test is applied.
The test or standard as always is reason. The police power le$islation must be firmly $rounded on public interest and welfare and a reasonable relation must e%ist between purposes and means. )nd if distinction and classification has been made there must be a reasonable basis for said distinction.

e. Legislative discretion not subject to judicial review. / 2ow in this matter of e-uitable balancin$ what is the proper place and role of the courts7 't must not be o"erloo,ed in the first place that the le$islature which is the constitutional repository of police power and e%ercises the prero$ati"e of determinin$ the policy of the *tate is by force of circumstances primarily the 6ud$e of necessity ade-uacy or reasonableness and wisdom of any law promul$ated in the e%ercise of the police power or of the measures adopted to implement the public policy or to achie"e public interest. 1n the other hand courts althou$h &ealous $uardians of indi"idual liberty and ri$ht ha"e ne"ertheless e"inced a reluctance to interfere with the e%ercise of the le$islati"e prero$ati"e. They ha"e done so early where there has been a clear patent or palpable arbitrary and unreasonable abuse of the le$islati"e prero$ati"e. 9oreo"er courts are not supposed to o"erride le$itimate policy and courts ne"er in-uire into the wisdom of the law. "acts: ''. Pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 1180 :epublic )ct 2o. 11;< is entitled ")n )ct to :e$ulate the :etail =usiness." 'n effect it nationali&es the retail trade business. The main pro"isions of the )ct are0 314 a prohibition a$ainst persons not citi&ens of the 5hilippines and a$ainst associations partnerships or corporations the capital of which are not wholly owned by citi&ens of the 5hilippines from en$a$in$ directly or indirectly in the retail trade! 324 an e%ception from the abo"e prohibition in fa"or of aliens actually en$a$ed in said business on 9ay 15 1>54 who are allowed to continue to en$a$ed therein unless their licenses are forfeited in accordance with the law until their death or "oluntary retirement in case of natural persons and for ten years after the appro"al of the )ct or until the e%piration of term in case of 6uridical persons! 334 an e%ception therefrom in fa"or of citi&ens and 6uridical entities of the ?nited *tates! 344 a pro"ision for the forfeiture of licenses 3to en$a$e in the retail business4 for "iolation of the laws on nationali&ation control wei$hts and measures and labor and other laws relatin$ to trade commerce and industry! 354 a prohibition a$ainst the establishment or openin$ by aliens actually en$a$ed in the retail business of additional stores or branches of retail business 3@4 a pro"ision re-uirin$ aliens actually en$a$ed in the retail business to present for re$istration with the proper authorities a "erified statement concernin$ their businesses $i"in$ amon$ other matters the nature of the business their assets and liabilities and their offices and principal offices of 6udicial entities! and 3A4 a pro"ision allowin$ the heirs of aliens now en$a$ed in the retail business who die to continue such business for a period of si% months for purposes of li-uidation. 5etitioner for and in his own behalf and on behalf of other alien residents corporations and partnerships ad"ersely affected by the pro"isions of :epublic )ct. 2o. 11;< brou$ht this action to obtain a 6udicial declaration that said )ct is unconstitutional and to en6oin the *ecretary of

Binance and all other persons actin$ under him particularly city and municipal treasurers from enforcin$ its pro"isions. 5etitioner attac,s the constitutionality of the )ct contendin$ that0 314 it denies to alien residents the e-ual protection of the laws and depri"es of their liberty and property without due process of law ! 324 the sub6ect of the )ct is not e%pressed or comprehended in the title thereof! 334 the )ct "iolates international and treaty obli$ations of the :epublic of the 5hilippines! 344 the pro"isions of the )ct a$ainst the transmission by aliens of their retail business thru hereditary succession and those re-uirin$ 1<<C Bilipino capitali&ation for a corporation or entity to entitle it to en$a$e in the retail business "iolate the spirit of *ections 1 and 5 )rticle D''' and *ection ; of )rticle D'E of the #onstitution. there e%ists a $eneral feelin$ on the part of the public that alien participation in the retail trade has been attended by a pernicious and intolerable practices the mention of a few of which would suffice for our purposes! that at some time or other they ha"e cornered the mar,et of essential commodities li,e corn and rice creatin$ artificial scarcities to 6ustify and enhance profits to unreasonable proportions! that they ha"e hoarded essential foods to the incon"enience and pre6udice of the consumin$ public so much so that the Fo"ernment has had to establish the 2ational :ice and #orn #orporation to sa"e the public from their continuous hoardin$ practices and tendencies! that they ha"e "iolated price control laws especially on foods and essential commodities such that the le$islature had to enact a law 3*ec. > :epublic )ct 2o. 11@;4 authori&in$ their immediate and automatic deportation for price control con"ictions! that they ha"e secret combinations amon$ themsel"es to control prices cheatin$ the operation of the law of supply and demand! that they ha"e conni"ed to boycott honest merchants and traders who would not cater or yield to their demands in unlawful restraint of freedom of trade and enterprise. They are belie"ed by the public to ha"e e"aded ta% laws smu$$led $oods and money into and out of the land "iolated import and e%port prohibitions control laws and the li,e in derision and contempt of lawful authority.

ISSUE and

E!"# '. !e "#ual Protection Limitation

a. 1b6ections to alien participation in retail trade. / The ne%t -uestion that now poses solution is Goes the law deny the e-ual protection of the laws7 )s pointed out abo"e the mere fact of aliena$e is the root and cause of the distinction between the alien and the national as a trader. The alien resident owes alle$iance to the country of his birth or his adopted country! his stay here is for personal con"enience show the e%istence of real and actual positi"e and fundamental differences between an alien and a national which fully 6ustify the le$islati"e classification adopted in the retail trade measure. These differences are certainly a "alid reason for the *tate to prefer the national o"er the alien in the retail trade. He would be doin$ "iolence to fact and reality were we to hold that no reason or $round for a le$itimate distinction can be found between one and the other. ISSUE and E!"# ''. !e $ue Process of Law Limitation. a. Reasonabilit%& t!e test of t!e limitation' determination b% legislature decisive. / He now come to due process as a limitation on the e%ercise of the police power. 't has been stated by the hi$hest authority in the ?nited *tates that0

. . . . )nd the $uaranty of due process as has often been held demands only that the law shall not be unreasonable arbitrary or capricious and that the means selected shall ha"e a real and substantial relation to the sub6ect sou$ht to be attained. . . . . %%% %%% %%% *o far as the re-uirement of due process is concerned and in the absence of other constitutional restriction a state is free to adopt whate"er economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare and to enforce that policy by le$islation adapted to its purpose. The law in question is dee$ed a%solutel& necessar& to %rin' a%out the desired le'islati(e o%)ecti(e* i.e.* to free national econo$& fro$ alien control and do$inance. ISSUE and E!"# '''. Alleged defect in t!e title of t!e law ) subordinate $round or reason for the alle$ed in"alidity of the law is the claim that the title thereof is misleadin$ or decepti"e as it conceals the real purpose of the bill which is to nationali&e the retail business and prohibit aliens from en$a$in$ therein. The constitutional pro"ision which is claimed to be "iolated in *ection 21 314 of )rticle E' which reads0 2o bill which may be enacted in the law shall embrace more than one sub6ect which shall be e%pressed in the title of the bill. Hhat the abo"e pro"ision prohibits is duplicity that is if its title completely fails to appraise the le$islators or the public of the nature scope and conse-uences of the law or its operation ISSUE and E!"# 'E. Alleged violation of international treaties and obligations

)nother subordinate ar$ument a$ainst the "alidity of the law is the supposed "iolation thereby of the #harter of the ?nited 2ations and of the Geclaration of the Iuman :i$hts adopted by the ?nited 2ations Feneral )ssembly. He find no merit in the 2ations #harter imposes no strict or le$al obli$ations re$ardin$ the ri$hts and freedom of their sub6ects and the Geclaration of Iuman :i$hts contains nothin$ more than a mere recommendation or a common standard of achie"ement for all peoples and all nations The Treaty of )mity between the :epublic of the 5hilippines and the :epublic of #hina of )pril 1; 1>4A is also claimed to be "iolated by the law in -uestion. )ll that the treaty $uarantees is e-uality of treatment to the #hinese nationals "upon the same terms as the nationals of any other country." =ut the nationals of #hina are not discriminatin$ a$ainst because nationals of all other countries e%cept those of the ?nited *tates who are $ranted special ri$hts by the #onstitution are all prohibited from en$a$in$ in the retail trade. =ut e"en supposin$ that the law infrin$es upon the said treaty the treaty is always sub6ect to -ualification or amendment by a subse-uent law and the same may ne"er curtail or restrict the scope of the police power of the *tate E. (onclusion we hold that the disputed law was enacted to remedy a real actual threat and dan$er to national economy posed by alien dominance and control of the retail business and free citi&ens and country from dominance and control! that the enactment clearly falls within the scope of the police power of the *tate thru which and by which it protects its own personality and insures its security and future! that the law does not "iolate the e-ual protection clause of the #onstitution because sufficient $rounds e%ist for the distinction between alien and citi&en in the e%ercise of

the occupation re$ulated nor the due process of law clause because the law is prospecti"e in operation and reco$ni&es the pri"ile$e of aliens already en$a$ed in the occupation and reasonably protects their pri"ile$e! that the wisdom and efficacy of the law to carry out its ob6ecti"es appear to us to be plainly e"ident that the pro"isions of the law are clearly embraced in the title and this suffers from no duplicity and has not misled the le$islators or the se$ment of the population affected! and that it cannot be said to be "oid for supposed conflict with treaty obli$ations because no treaty has actually been entered into on the sub6ect and the police power may not be curtailed or surrendered by any treaty or any other con"entional a$reement. *ome members of the #ourt are of the opinion that the radical effects of the law could ha"e been made less harsh in its impact on the aliens. Thus it is stated that the more time should ha"e been $i"en in the law for the li-uidation of e%istin$ businesses when the time comes for them to close. 1ur le$al duty howe"er is merely to determine if the law falls within the scope of le$islati"e authority and does not transcend the limitations of due process and e-ual protection $uaranteed in the #onstitution. :emedies a$ainst the harshness of the law should be addressed to the .e$islature! they are beyond our power and 6urisdiction. The petition is hereby denied with costs a$ainst petitioner.
Taxation has #een made the implement of the state$s police power%

TIU (s Video'ra$ Re'ulator& Board +acts# This petition was filed on #eptember -, -./0 by petitioner on his own behalf and purportedly on behalf of other videogram operators adversely affected. It assails the constitutionality of Presidential 1ecree 2o. -./3 entitled 4(n (ct Creating the 5ideogram *egulatory )oard4 with broad powers to regulate and supervise the videogram industry 6hereinafter briefly referred to as the )7(*18. The 1ecree was promulgated on 7ctober 9, -./9 and took effect on (pril -:, -./0, fifteen 6-98 days after completion of its publication in the 7fficial &a;ette. 7n 2ovember 9, -./9, a month after the promulgation of the abovementioned decree, Presidential 1ecree 2o. -..< amended the 2ational Internal *evenue Code providing, inter alia'
#=C. -><. Video Tapes. ? There shall be collected on each processed video%tape cassette, ready for playback, regardless of length, an annual ta! of five pesos@ Provided, That locally manufactured or imported blank video tapes shall be sub ect to sales ta!.

7n 7ctober A>, -./0, the &reater Banila Theaters (ssociation, Integrated Bovie Producers, Importers and 1istributors (ssociation of the Philippines, and Philippine Botion Pictures Producers (ssociation, hereinafter collectively referred to as the Intervenors, were permitted by the Court to intervene in the case, over petitionerCs opposition, upon the allegations that intervention was necessary for the complete protection of their rights and that their 4survival and very e!istence is threatened by the unregulated proliferation of film piracy.4 ISSUE# ,oN it "iolates the constitutional re-uirement that e"ery bill shall embraced only one sub6ect which shall be e%pressed in the title thereof. ):T E' sec. 2@314 E!"# The Constitutional requirement that 4every bill shall embrace only one sub ect which shall be e!pressed in the title thereof4 & is sufficiently complied with if all the parts

of the statute are related, and are germane to the sub ect matter e!pressed in the title, or as long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general sub ect and title. The foregoing provision is allied and germane to, and is reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of, the general ob ect of the 1=C*==, which is the regulation of the video industry through the 5ideogram *egulatory )oard as e!pressed in its title. The ta! provision is not inconsistent with, nor foreign to that general sub ect and title. ISSUE# ,oN the -./ ta0 i$posed is harsh and oppressi(e and is therefore in (iolation of the due process clause of the constitution HELD: Petitioner also submits that the thirty percent 6>:D8 ta! imposed is harsh and oppressive, confiscatory, and in restraint of trade. ,owever, it is beyond serious question that a ta! does not cease to be valid merely because it regulates, discourages, or even definitely deters the activities ta!ed. ' The power to impose ta!es is one so unlimited in force and so searching in e!tent, that the courts scarcely venture to declare that it is sub ect to any restrictions whatever, e!cept such as rest in the discretion of the authority which e!ercises it. ( In imposing a ta!, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive ta!ation. &) The ta! imposed by the 1=C*== is not only a regulatory but also a revenue measure prompted by the reali;ation that earnings of videogram establishments of around P0:: million per annum have not been sub ected to ta!, thereby depriving the &overnment of an additional source of revenue. ISSUE# ,oN there was no le$al nor factual basis for the basis for the promulgation of the 1=C*== by the former President under (mendment 2o. 0 of the -.3> Constitution providing that 4whenever in the udgment of the President ... , there e!ists a grave emergency or a threat or imminence thereof, or whenever the interim )atasang Pambansa or the regular 2ational (ssembly fails or is unable to act adequately on any matter for any reason that in his udgment requires immediate action, he may, in order to meet the e!igency, issue the necessary decrees, orders, or letters of instructions, which shall form part of the law of the land.4 HELD: In refutation, the Intervenors and the #olicitor &eneralCs 7ffice aver that the /th 4whereas4 clause sufficiently summari;es the ustification in that grave emergencies corroding the moral values of the people and betraying the national economic recovery program necessitated bold emergency measures to be adopted with dispatch. Ehatever the reasons 4in the udgment4 of the then President, considering that the issue of the validity of the e!ercise of legislative power under the said (mendment still pends resolution in several other cases, we reserve resolution of the question raised at the proper time. ISSUE# ,oN there has been an undue dele$ation of le$islati"e power E!"# The grant in #ection -- of the 1=C*== of authority to the )7(*1 to 4solicit the direct assistance of other agencies and units of the government and deputi;e, for a fi!ed and limited period, the heads or personnel of such agencies and units to perform enforcement functions for the )oard4 is not a delegation of the power to legislate but merely a conferment of authority or discretion as to its e!ecution, enforcement, and implementation.

ISS*E: +o, it violative of the e! post facto principle HELD: it is now well settled that 4there is no constitutional ob ection to the passage of a law providing that the presumption of innocence may be overcome by a contrary presumption founded upon the e!perience of human conduct, and enacting what evidence shall be sufficient to overcome such presumption of innocence4 6People vs. Bingoa .A Phil. /90 F-.9>G at /9/%9., citing - C77L=H, ( T*=(TI#= 72 T,= C72#TIT$TI72(L LIBIT(TI72#, 0>.%0<-8. (nd the 4legislature may enact that when certain facts have been proved that they shall be prima facie evidence of the e!istence of the guilt of the accused and shift the burden of proof provided there be a rational connection between the facts proved and the ultimate facts presumed so that the inference of the one from proof of the others is not unreasonable and arbitrary because of lack of connection between the two in common e!perience4. &(pplied to the challenged provision, there is no question that there is a rational connection between the fact proved, which is non%registration, and the ultimate fact presumed which is violation of the 1=C*==, besides the fact that the prima facie presumption of violation of the 1=C*== attaches only after a forty%five%day period counted from its effectivity and is, therefore, neither retrospective in character. ISS*E: +o, the video industry is being over%regulated and is being eased out of e!istence as if it were a nuisance HELD: In the last analysis, what petitioner basically questions is the necessity, wisdom and e!pediency of the 1=C*==. These considerations, however, are primarily and e!clusively a matter of legislative concern. In fine, petitioner has not overcome the presumption of validity which attaches to a challenged statute. Ee find no clear violation of the Constitution which would ustify us in pronouncing Presidential 1ecree 2o. -./3 as unconstitutional and void. E,=*=I7*=, the instant Petition is hereby dismissed.

.smena vs .r#os

"acts: 7ctober -:, -./<, President Ierdinand Barcos issued P.1. -.90 creating a
#pecial (ccount in the &eneral Iund, designated as the 7il Price #tabili;ation Iund 67P#I8. The 7P#I was designed to reimburse oil companies for cost increases in crude oil and imported petroleum products resulting from e!change rate ad ustments and from increases in the world market prices of crude oil. #ubsequently, the 7P#I was reclassified into a 4trust liability account,4. President Cora;on C. (quino promulgated =. 7. ->3 e!panding the grounds for reimbursement to oil companies for possible cost under recovery incurred as a result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products. The petitioner argues inter alia that 4the monies collected pursuant to . . P.1. -.90, as amended, must be treated as a C#P=CI(L I$21,C not as a Ctrust accountC or a Ctrust fund,C and that 4if a special ta! is collected for a specific purpose, the revenue generated therefrom shall Cbe treated as a special fundC to be used only for the purpose indicated, and not channeled to another government ob ective.4 Petitioner further points out that since 4a Cspecial fundC consists of monies collected through the ta!ing power of a #tate, such amounts belong to the State , although the use thereof is limited to the special purposeJob ective for which it was created.4
The OPSF is thus a buffer mechanism through which the domestic consumer prices of oil and petroleum products are stabilized, instead of fluctuating every so often, and oil companies are allowed to recover those portions of their costs which they would not otherwise recover given the level of domestic prices existing at any given time. To the extent that some tax revenues are also put into it, the OPSF is in effect a device through which the domestic prices of petroleum products are subsidized in part. t appears to the !ourt that the establishment and maintenance of the OPSF is well within that pervasive and non"waivable power and responsibility of the government to secure the physical and economic survival and well"being of the community, that comprehensive sovereign authority we designate as the police power of the State. The stabili;ation, and subsidy of domestic prices of petroleum products and fuel oil ? clearly critical in importance considering, among other things, the continuing high level of dependence of the country on imported crude oil ? are appropriately regarded as public purposes.

The Court thus holds, that the reimbursement of financing charges is not authori;ed by paragraph A of K / of P.1. -.90, for the reason that they were not incurred as a result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products. $nder the same provision, however, the payment of inventory losses is upheld as valid, being clearly a result of domestic price reduction, when oil companies incur a cost underrecovery for yet unsold stocks of oil in inventory acquired at a higher price. ISS*E: +o, the monies collected are to be classified as trust fund or special fund under article 5I sec A.6>8 HELD: it seems clear that while the funds collected may be referred to as ta!es, they are e!acted in the e!ercise of the police power of the #tate. Boreover, that the 7P#I is a special fund is plain from the special treatment given it by =.7. ->3. It is segregated from the general fund
The OPSF is thus a buffer mechanism through which the domestic consumer prices of oil and petroleum products are stabilized, instead of fluctuating every so often, and oil companies are allowed to recover those portions of their costs which they would not otherwise recover given the level of domestic prices existing at any given time. To the extent that some tax revenues are

also put into it, the OPSF is in effect a device through which the domestic prices of petroleum products are subsidized in part. It appears to the Court that the establishment and maintenance of the OPSF is well within that pervasive and non-waivable power and responsibility of the government to secure the physical and economic survival and wellbeing of the community, that comprehensive sovereign authority we designate as the police power of the State%

ISS*E: +o, there is violation of delegation of powers HELD: Ior a valid delegation of power, it is essential that the law delegating the power must be 6-8 complete in itself, that is it must set forth the policy to be e!ecuted by the delegate and 6A8 it must fi! a standard ? limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable ? to which the delegate must conform. The standard, as the Court has already stated, may even be implied. In that light, there can be no ground upon which to sustain the petition, inasmuch as the challenged law sets forth a determinable standard which guides the e!ercise of the power granted to the =*). )y the same token, the proper e!ercise of the delegated power may be tested with ease. It seems obvious that what the law intended was to permit the additional imposts for as long as there e!ists a need to protect the general public and the petroleum industry from the adverse consequences of pump rate fluctuations. ISS*E: +o, there has been illegal reimbursements to the Petroleum companies HELD: the payment of certain items or accounts in favor of the petroleum companies 6i#e., inventory losses, financing charges, fuel oil sales to the 2ational Power Corporation, etc.8 because not authori;ed by law. Petitioner contends that 4these claims are not embraced in the enumeration in K / of P.1. -.90 . . since none of them was incurred $as a result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products ,C4 /0 and since these items are reimbursements for which the 7P#I should not have responded, the amount of the P-A./33 billion deficit 4should be reduced by P9,A33.A million.4 The Court thus holds, that the reimbursement of financing charges is not authori;ed by paragraph A of K / of P.1. -.90, for the reason that they were not incurred as a result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products. $nder the same provision, however, the payment of inventory losses is upheld as valid, being clearly a result of domestic price reduction, when oil companies incur a cost underrecovery for yet unsold stocks of oil in inventory acquired at a higher price. 1ssociation of Small Landowners vs Secretar2 of 1grarian 3eform Eminent D.41I, 56st compensation It is well%settled that ust compensation means the
equivalent for the value of the property at the time of its taking.

There are traditional distinctions between the police power and the power of eminent domain that logically preclude the application of both powers at the same time on the same sub ect. In the case of !ity of %aguio v# &'('S', /0 for e!ample, where a law required the transfer of all municipal waterworks systems to the 2(E(#( in e!change for its assets of equivalent value, the Court held that the power being e!ercised was eminent domain because the property involved was wholesome and intended for a public use.

Property condemned under the police power is no!ious or intended for a no!ious purpose, such as a building on the verge of collapse, which should be demolished for the public safety, or obscene materials, which should be destroyed in the interest of public morals. The confiscation of such property is not compensable, unlike the taking of property under the power of e!propriation, which requires the payment of ust compensation to the owner. "acts: These are 3 cases consolidated -uestionin$ the constitutionality of the )$rarian :eform )ct. )rticle D''' on *ocial Justice and Iuman :i$hts includes a call for the adoption by the *tate of an a$rarian reform pro$ram. The *tate shall by law underta,e an a$rarian reform pro$ram founded on the ri$ht of farmers and re$ular farmwor,ers who are landless to own directly or collecti"ely the lands they till or in the case of other farmwor,ers to recei"e a 6ust share of the fruits thereof. :) 3;44 )$ricultural .and :eform #ode had already been enacted by #on$ress on )u$ust ; 1>@3. This was substantially superseded almost a decade later by 5G 2A which was promul$ated on 1ct 21 1>A2 alon$ with martial law to pro"ide for the compulsory ac-uisition of pri"ate lands for distribution amon$ tenant(farmers and to specify ma%imum retention limits for landowners. 1n July 1A 1>;A #ory issued +1 22; declarin$ full land ownership in fa"or of the beneficiaries of 5G 2A and pro"idin$ for the "aluation of still un"alued lands co"ered by the decree as well as the manner of their payment. This was followed on July 22 1>;A by 55 131 institutin$ a comprehensi"e a$rarian reform pro$ram 3#):54 and +1 22> pro"idin$ the mechanics for its implementation. )fterwhich is the enactment of :) @@5A #omprehensi"e )$rarian :eform .aw of 1>;; which #ory si$ned on June 1<. This law while considerably chan$in$ the earlier mentioned enactments ne"ertheless $i"es them suppletory effect insofar as they are not inconsistent with its pro"isions. 'n considerin$ the rentals as ad"ance payment on the land the e%ecuti"e order also depri"es the petitioners of their property ri$hts as protected by due process. The e-ual protection clause is also "iolated because the order places the burden of sol"in$ the a$rarian problems on the owners only of a$ricultural lands. 2o similar obli$ation is imposed on the owners of other properties. The petitioners maintain that in declarin$ the beneficiaries under 5G 2A to be the owners of the lands occupied by them +1 22; i$nored 6udicial prero$ati"es and so "iolated due process. Horse the measure would not sol"e the a$rarian problem because e"en the small farmers are depri"ed of their lands and the retention ri$hts $uaranteed by the #onstitution. 'n his comment the *ol(Fen asserted that the alle$ed "iolation of the e-ual protection clause the su$ar planters ha"e failed to show that they belon$ to a different class and should be differently treated. Iss6e: Ehether or 2ot the aforementioned =7Ls, P1, and *( were constitutional. Held: The promulgation of P1 A3 by President Barcos was valid in e!ercise of Police power and eminent domain. The power of President (quino to promulgate Proc. ->- and =7 AA/ and AA. was authori;ed under #ec. 0 of the Transitory Provisions of the -./3 Constitution. Therefore it is a valid e!ercise of Police Power and =minent 1omain.

The e!tent that the measures under challenge merely prescribe retention limits for landowners, there is an e!ercise of the police power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. )ut where, to carry out such regulation, it becomes necessary to deprive such owners of whatever lands they may own in e!cess of the ma!imum area allowed, there is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain for which payment of ust compensation is imperative. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. Ehat is required is the surrender of the title to and the physical possession of the said e!cess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer%beneficiary. This is definitely an e!ercise not of the police power but of the power of eminent domain. Ehether as an e!ercise of the police power or of the power of eminent domain, the several measures before us are challenged as violative of the due process and equal protection clauses. Iss6e: +o, there is violation of the equal protection clause HELD: Classification has been defined as the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain particulars and different from each other in these same particulars. 7& To be valid, it must conform to the following requirements' 6-8 it must be based on substantial distinctions@ 6A8 it must be germane to the purposes of the law@ 6>8 it must not be limited to e!isting conditions only@ and 6<8 it must apply equally to all the members of the class. 7/ The Court finds that all these requisites have been met by the measures here challenged as arbitrary and discriminatory. =qual protection simply means that all persons or things similarly situated must be treated alike both as to the rights conferred and the liabilities imposed.

( law enacted in the e!ercise of police power to regulate or govern certain activities or transactions could be given retroactive effect and may reasonably impair vested rights or contracts. Police power legislation is applicable not only to future contracts, but equally to those already in e!istence. 2onimpairment of contracts or vested rights clauses will have to yield to the superior and legitimate e!ercise by the #tate of police power to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order, safety, and general welfare of the people. Boreover, statutes in e!ercise of valid police power must be read into every contract. .rtigas 8 C.% vs C1 +1CTS# 1rti$as K #o. sold to +milia Iermoso a parcel of land located in Freenhills *ubdi"ision *an Juan with se"eral restrictions in the contract of sale that said lot be used e%clusi"ely for residential purposes amon$ others until Gecember 31 2<25. .ater a &onin$ ordinance was issued by 99# 3now 99G)4 reclassifyin$ the area as commercial. 5ri"ate respondent 3'smael 9athay '''4 leased the sub6ect lot from Iermoso and built a sin$le storey buildin$ for Freenhills )utohaus 'nc. a car sales company. 1rti$as K #o. filed a petition a complaint which sou$ht the demolition of the constructed car sales company to a$ainst Iermoso as it "iolated the terms and conditions of the Geed of *ale. Trial court ruled in fa"or of 1rti$as K #o. 9athay raised the issue to the #ourt of )ppeals from which he sou$ht fa"orable rulin$. Ience the instant petition. ISSUE# Hhether or not the &onin$ ordinance may be $i"en a retroacti"e effect.

E!"# Les. The &onin$ ordinance as a "alid e%ercise of police power may be $i"en retroacti"e effect o"er any standin$ contract. ) law enacted in the e%ercise of police power to re$ulate or $o"ern certain acti"ities or transactions could be $i"en retroacti"e effect and may reasonably impair "ested ri$hts or contracts. 5olice power le$islation is applicable not only to future contracts but e-ually to those already in e%istence. 2on(impairment of contracts or "ested ri$hts clauses will ha"e to yield to the superior and le$itimate e%ercise by the *tate of police power to promote the health morals peace education $ood order safety and $eneral welfare of the people. 9oreo"er statutes in e%ercise of "alid police power must be read into e"ery contract. 2oteworthy in )angalang vs. *ntermediate Appellate (ourt& the *upreme #ourt already upheld sub6ect ordinance as a le$itimate police power measure. ISSUE# (s a secondary issue, petitioner contends that respondent Bathay III, as a mere lessee of the lot in question, is a total stranger to the deed of sale and is thus barred from questioning the conditions of said deed. Petitioner points out that the owners of the lot voluntarily agreed to the restrictions on the use of the lot and do not question the validity of these restrictions. Petitioner argues that Bathay III as a lessee is merely an agent of the owners, and could not override and rise above the status of his principals. Petitioner submits that he could not have a higher interest than those of the owners, the ,ermosos, and thus had no locus standi to file C(%&.*. #P 2o. >.-.> to dissolve the in unctive writ issued by the *TC of Pasig City. Ior his part, private respondent argues that as the lessee who built the commercial structure, it is he and he alone who stands to be either benefited or in ured by the results of the udgment in Civil Case 2o. 0<.>-. ,e avers he is the party with real interest in the sub ect matter of the action, as it would be his business, not the ,ermososL, which would suffer had not the respondent court dissolved the writ of preliminary in unction. HELD: ( real party in interest is defined as "the party who stands to be benefited or in ured by the udgment or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.+ "Interest+ within the meaning of the rule means material interest, an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. )y real interest is meant a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere e!pectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest. Tested by the foregoing definition, private respondent in this case is clearly a real party in interest.

't is true that this #ourt has upheld the constitutional ri$ht of e"ery citi&en to select a profession or course of study sub6ect to a fair reasonable and e-uitable admission and academic re-uirements. =ut li,e all ri$hts and freedoms $uaranteed by the #harter their e%ercise may be so re$ulated pursuant to the police power of the *tate to safe$uard health morals peace education order safety and $eneral welfare of the people. P3C vs% De 96 man "acts: The respondents are all $raduates of the Batima #olle$e of 9edicine Ealen&uela #ity 9etro 9anila. They passed the 5hysician .icensure +%amination conducted in Bebruary 1>>3 by the =oard of 9edicine 3=oard4. 5etitioner 5rofessional :e$ulation #ommission 35:#4 then released their names as successful e%aminees in the medical licensure e%amination. *hortly thereafter the =oard obser"ed that the $rades of the se"enty(nine successful e%aminees from Batima #olle$e in the two most difficult sub6ects in the medical licensure e%am =iochemistry 3=io(#hem4 and 1bstetrics and Fynecolo$y 31=(Fyne4 were unusually and e%ceptionally hi$h. +le"en Batima e%aminees scored 1<<C in =io(#hem and ten $ot 1<<C in 1=(Fyne another ele"en $ot >>C in =io(#hem and twenty(one scored >>C in 1=(Fyne. The =oard also obser"ed that many of those who passed from Batima $ot mar,s of >5C or better in both sub6ects and no one $ot a mar, lower than ><C. ) comparison of the performances of the candidates from other schools was made. The =oard obser"ed that stran$ely the unusually hi$h ratin$s were true only for Batima #olle$e e%aminees. 't was a record(brea,in$ phenomenon in the history of the 5hysician .icensure +%amination. 1n June A 1>>3 the =oard issued :esolution 2o. 1> withholdin$ the re$istration as physicians of all the e%aminees from the Batima #olle$e of 9edicine. The 5:# as,ed the 2ational =ureau of 'n"esti$ation 32='4 to in"esti$ate whether any anomaly or irre$ularity marred the Bebruary 1>>3 5hysician .icensure +%amination. 5rior to the 2=' in"esti$ation the =oard re-uested Br. =ien"enido B. 2ebres *.J. an e%pert mathematician and authority in statistics and later president of the )teneo de 9anila ?ni"ersity to conduct a statistical analysis of the results in =io(#hem and 1b(Fyne of the said e%amination. 1n June 1< 1>>3 Br. 2ebres submitted his report. Ie reported that a comparison of the scores in =io(#hem and 1b(Fyne of the Batima #olle$e e%aminees with those of e%aminees from Ge .a *alle ?ni"ersity and 5erpetual Ielp #olle$e of 9edicine showed that the scores of Batima #olle$e e%aminees were not only incredibly hi$h but unusually clustered close to each other. Ie concluded that there must be some unusual reason creatin$ the clusterin$ of scores in the two sub6ects.

Bor its part the 2=' found that Mthe -uestionable passin$ rate of Batima e%aminees in the [1>>3] 5hysician +%amination leads to the conclusion that the Batima e%aminees $ained early access to the test -uestions. 3TC granted the preliminary mandatory in6unction sou$ht by the respondents. 't ordered the petitioners to administer the physicianNs oath to )rlene E. Ge Fu&man et al. and enter their names in the rolls of the 5:#. C1 re(ersed* )ccordin$ly the writ of preliminary mandatory in6unction issued by the lower court a$ainst petitioners is hereby nullified and set aside. ISSUE# ,oN the refusal of administerin$ the physicians oath in pursuance to :) 23;2 in the e%ercise of 5olice 5ower is "alid E!"# 't is true that this #ourt has upheld the constitutional ri$ht of e"ery citi&en to select a profession or course of study sub6ect to a fair reasonable and e-uitable admission and academic re-uirements. =ut li,e all ri$hts and freedoms $uaranteed by the #harter their e%ercise may be so re$ulated pursuant to the police power of the *tate to safe$uard health morals peace education order safety and $eneral welfare of the people. 't is lon$ established rule that a license to practice medicine is a pri"ile$e or franchise $ranted by the $o"ernment. 'n the present case the aforementioned $uidelines are pro"ided for in :ep. )ct 2o. 23;2 as amended which prescribes the re-uirements for admission to the practice of medicine the -ualifications of candidates for the board e%aminations the scope and conduct of the e%aminations the $rounds for denyin$ the issuance of a physicianNs license or re"o,in$ a license that has been issued. Eerily to be $ranted the pri"ile$e to practice medicine the applicant must show that he possesses all the -ualifications and none of the dis-ualifications. Burthermore it must appear that he has fully complied with all the conditions and re-uirements imposed by the law and the licensin$ authority. *hould doubt taint or mar the compliance as bein$ less than satisfactory then the pri"ile$e will not issue. Bor said pri"ile$e is distin$uishable from a matter of ri$ht which may be demanded if denied. Thus without a definite showin$ that the aforesaid re-uirements and conditions ha"e been satisfactorily met the courts may not $rant the writ of mandamus to secure said pri"ile$e without thwartin$ the le$islati"e will. The function of mandamus is not to establish a ri$ht but to enforce one that has been established by law. 'f no le$al ri$ht has been "iolated there can be no application of a le$al remedy and the writ of mandamus is a le$al remedy for a le$al ri$ht. There must be a well(defined clear and certain le$al ri$ht to the thin$ demanded. 't is lon$ established rule that a license to practice medicine is a pri"ile$e or franchise $ranted by the $o"ernment.

Cha(e2 (s Ro$ulo +acts# 'n January 2<<3 5resident Floria 9acapa$al()rroyo deli"ered a speech before the members of the 525 stressin$ the need for a nationwide $un ban in all public places to a"ert the

risin$ crime incidents. *he directed the then 525 #hief respondent +bdane to suspend the issuance of 5ermits to #arry Birearms 1utside of :esidence 35T#B1:4 5etitioner Brancisco '. #ha"e& a licensed $un owner to whom a 5T#B1: has been issued re-uested the Gepartment of 'nterior and .ocal Fo"ernment 3G'.F4 to reconsider the implementation of the assailed Fuidelines. Iowe"er his re-uest was denied. Thus he filed the present petition impleadin$ public respondents +bdane as #hief of 525! )lberto F. :omulo as +%ecuti"e *ecretary! and Ferry .. =arias as #hief of the 525(Birearms and +%plosi"es Gi"ision. 5etitionerNs submissions may be synthesi&ed into fi"e 354 ma6or issues0 +irst& whether respondent +bdane is authori&ed to issue the assailed Fuidelines! The rule which for%ids the dele'ation of le'islati(e power* howe(er* is not a%solute and infle0i%le. 't admits of e%ceptions. )n e%ception sanctioned by immemorial practice permits the le$islati"e body to dele$ate its licensin$ power to certain persons municipal corporations towns boards councils commissions commissioners auditors bureaus and directors.1[A] *uch licensin$ power includes the power to promul$ate necessary rules and re$ulations. )econd& whether the citi&ensN ri$ht to bear arms is a constitutional ri$ht7! the Supre$e Court interpreted the ri'ht to %ear ar$s under the Second 1$end$ent as referrin' to the collecti(e ri'ht of those co$prisin' the 3ilitia 4 a %od& of citi2ens enrolled for $ilitar& discipline. It does not pertain to the indi(idual ri'ht of citi2en to %ear ar$. ,iller e%presses its holdin$ as follows0 M'n the absence of any e"idence tendin$ to show that possession or use of a Oshot$un ha"in$ a barrel of less than ei$hteen inches in len$thN at this time has so$e reasona%le relationship to the preser(ation or efficienc& of a well re'ulated $ilitia* we cannot sa& that the Second 1$end$ent 'uarantees the ri'ht to 5eep and %ear such an instru$ent. #ertainly it is not within 6udicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military e-uipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. !ird whether the re"ocation of petitionerNs 5T#B1: pursuant to the assailed Fuidelines is a "iolation of his ri$ht to property7! 'n e"aluatin$ a due process claim the first and foremost consideration must be whether life liberty or property interest e%ists.2[32] The bul, of 6urisprudence is that a license authori&in$ a person to en6oy a certain pri"ile$e is neither a property nor property ri$ht. 'n an vs. !e $irector of +orestr% 3[33] we ruled that Ma license is merely a permit or pri"ile$e to do what otherwise would be unlawful and is not a contract between the authority $rantin$ it and the person to whom it is $ranted! neither is it propert& or a propert& ri'ht* nor does it create a (ested ri'ht. +ourt!& whether the issuance of the assailed Fuidelines is a "alid e%ercise of police power7! and +ift! whether the assailed Fuidelines constitute an e- post facto law7

1 2 3

The assailed Fuidelines cannot be considered as an e- post facto law because it is prospecti"e in its application. #ontrary to petitionerNs ar$ument it would not result in the punishment of acts pre"iously committed. ,oN# The assailed $uideline are a "alid e%ercise of 5olice power HELD:Police Power )t any rate assumin$ that petitionerNs 5T#B1: constitutes a property ri$ht protected by the #onstitution the same cannot be considered as absolute as to be placed beyond the reach of the *tateNs police power. )ll property in the state is held sub6ect to its $eneral re$ulations necessary to the common $ood and $eneral welfare. 'n a number of cases we laid down the test to determine the "alidity of a police measure thus0 678 The interests of the public $enerally as distin$uished from those of a particular class re-uire the e%ercise of the police power! and 698 The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressi"e upon indi"iduals. Geeper reflection will re"eal that the test merely reiterates the essence of the constitutional $uarantees of substanti"e due process e-ual protection and non(impairment of property ri$hts. 't is apparent from the assailed Fuidelines that the basis for its issuance was the need for peace and order in the society. 1win$ to the proliferation of crimes particularly those committed by the 2ew 5eopleNs )rmy 325)4 which tends to disturb the peace of the community 5resident )rroyo deemed it best to impose a nationwide $un ban. ?ndeniably the moti"atin$ factor in the issuance of the assailed Fuidelines is the interest of the public in $eneral. The only -uestion that can then arise is whether the means employed are appropriate and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and are not unduly oppressi"e. 't is apparent from the assailed Fuidelines that the basis for its issuance was the need for peace and order in the society. 1win$ to the proliferation of crimes particularly those committed by the 2ew 5eopleNs )rmy 325)4 which tends to disturb the peace of the community 5resident )rroyo deemed it best to impose a nationwide $un ban. ?ndeniably the moti"atin$ factor in the issuance of the assailed Fuidelines is the interest of the public in $eneral.