Course Notes in CONSTITUTION LAW 2 : FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

II.

Atty Karen Canulas- Armada

FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

A. DEFINITION, SIMILARITIES, DISTINCTION
1. ENUMERATION
a. Police Power
b. Power of Eminent Domain
c. Power of Taxation
*All powers of the government are limited by the Bill of Rights
*All powers of the government belong to the essence of government and
without them, no government can exist. They belong to government as much as
spirit and mind belong to the essence of man. A Constitution can only define
and delimit them and allocate their exercise among various government
agencies. A Constitution does not grant them.
2. SIMILARITIES
a. They are inherent in the State and may be exercised by it without need of
express constitutional grant.
b. They are not only necessary but indispensable. The State cannot continue or be
effective unless it is able to exercise them.
c. They are methods by which the State interferes with private rights.
d. They all presuppose an equivalent compensation for the private rights interfered
with.
e. They are exercised primarily by the legislature.
3. COMMON LIMITATIONS
a. May not be exercised arbitrarily to the prejudice of the Bill of Rights
b. Subject at all times to the limitations and requirements of the Constitution and
may in proper cases be annulled by the courts, i.e. when there is grave abuse of
discretion.
4. DIFFERENCE

AS OF

POLICE POWER

TAXATION

Extent of Power

Regulates liberty
and property
Exercised only
by the
government
Property taken is
destroyed
Intangible;
General welfare

Affects only
property rights
Exercised only
by the
government
Property taken is
for public use
Protection and
public
improvements

Person/s
exercising
Purpose
Compensation

EMINENT
DOMAIN
Affects only
property rights
Exercised only
by the private
entities
Property taken is
for public use
Value of the
property
expropriated

LIMITATIONS: Generally, the Bill of Rights, although in some cases the exercise of power prevails
over specific constitutional guarantees. The courts may annul the improvident exercise of
police power eg, in Quezon City v. Ericta, 122 SCRA 759 and in Philippine Press Institute v.
COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272

NACHURA, BERNAS, CRUZ NOTES

AI VALERIANO

Course Notes in CONSTITUTION LAW 2 : FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

Atty Karen Canulas- Armada

CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY VS. ERICTA [122 SCRA 759; G.R. No. L-34915; 24 Jun 1983]
http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/city-government-of-quezon-city-vs.html

Facts: Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64, entitled "Ordinance Regulating The Establishment,
Maintenance And Operation Of Private Memorial Type Cemetery Or Burial Ground Within The
Jurisdiction Of Quezon City And Providing Penalties For The Violation Thereof" provides:
Sec. 9. At least six (6) percent of the total area of the memorial park cemetery shall be set aside for
charity burial of deceased persons who are paupers and have been residents of Quezon City for at
least 5 years prior to their death, to be determined by competent City Authorities. The area so
designated shall immediately be developed and should be open for operation not later than six
months from the date of approval of the application.
For several years, the afore-quoted section of the Ordinance was not enforced but seven years after
the enactment of the ordinance, the Quezon City Council passed a resolution to request the City
Engineer, Quezon City, to stop any further selling and/or transaction of memorial park lots in Quezon
City where the owners thereof have failed to donate the required 6% space intended for paupers
burial.
The Quezon City Engineer then notified respondent Himlayang Pilipino, Inc. in writing that Section 9 of
the ordinance would be enforced.
Respondent Himlayang Pilipino reacted by filing a petition for declaratory relief, prohibition and
mandamus with preliminary injunction seeking to annul Section 9 of the Ordinance in question.
Respondent alleged that the same is contrary to the Constitution, the Quezon City Charter, the Local
Autonomy Act, and the Revised Administrative Code.

Issue: Whether or Not Section 9 of the ordinance in question is a valid exercise of police power.

NACHURA, BERNAS, CRUZ NOTES

AI VALERIANO

Course Notes in CONSTITUTION LAW 2 : FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

Atty Karen Canulas- Armada

Held: Section 9 of the City ordinance in question is not a valid exercise of police power. Section 9
cannot be justified under the power granted to Quezon City to tax, fix the license fee, and regulate
such other business, trades, and occupation as may be established or practiced in the City.
Bill of rights states that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
law' (Art. Ill, Section 1 subparagraph 1, Constitution). On the other hand, there are three inherent
powers of government by which the state interferes with the property rights, namely-. (1) police
power, (2) eminent domain, (3) taxation.
The police power of Quezon City is defined in sub-section 00, Sec. 12, Rep. Act 537 that reads as
follows:
To make such further ordinance and regulations not repugnant to law as may be necessary to carry
into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred by this act and such as it shall deem
necessary and proper to provide for the health and safety, , and for the protection of property
therein; and enforce obedience thereto with such lawful fines or penalties as the City Council may
prescribe under the provisions of subsection (jj) of this section.
The power to regulate does not include the power to prohibit. The power to regulate does not
include the power to confiscate. The ordinance in question not only confiscates but also prohibits the
operation of a memorial park cemetery, because under Section 13 of said ordinance, 'Violation of
the provision thereof is punishable with a fine and/or imprisonment and that upon conviction thereof
the permit to operate and maintain a private cemetery shall be revoked or cancelled. The
confiscatory clause and the penal provision in effect deter one from operating a memorial park
cemetery.
Moreover, police power is defined by Freund as 'the power of promoting the public welfare by
restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property'. It is usually exerted in order to merely
regulate the use and enjoyment of property of the owner. If he is deprived of his property outright, it is
not taken for public use but rather to destroy in order to promote the general welfare.
It seems to the court that Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, Series of 1964 of Quezon City is not a mere
police regulation but an outright confiscation. It deprives a person of his private property without due
process of law, nay, even without compensation.
NACHURA, BERNAS, CRUZ NOTES

AI VALERIANO

Course Notes in CONSTITUTION LAW 2 : FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

Atty Karen Canulas- Armada

Phil. Press Institute, Inc. vs. Comelec

244 scra 272
Facts:
In this Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining
Order, PPI, a non-stock, non-profit organization of newspaper and magazine publishers, asks us to
declare Comelec Resolution No. 2772 unconstitutional and void on the ground that it violates the
prohibition imposed by the Constitution upon the government, and any of its agencies, against the
taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Petitioner also contends that the
22 March 1995 letter directives of Comelec requiring publishers to give free "Comelec Space" and at
the same time process raw data to make it camera-ready, constitute impositions of involuntary
servitude, contrary to the provisions of Section 18 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Finally, PPI
argues that Section 8 of Comelec Resolution No. 2772 is violative of the constitutionally guaranteed
freedom of speech, of the press and of expression.
On the other hand, The Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment on behalf of respondent
Comelec alleging that Comelec Resolution No. 2772 does not impose upon the publishers any
obligation to provide free print space in the newspapers as it does not provide any criminal or
administrative sanction for non-compliance with that Resolution. According to the Solicitor General,
the questioned Resolution merely established guidelines to be followed in connection with the
procurement of "Comelec space," the procedure for and mode of allocation of such space to
candidates and the conditions or requirements for the candidate's utilization of the "Comelec space"
procured. At the same time, however, the Solicitor General argues that even if the questioned
Resolution and its implementing letter directives are viewed as mandatory, the same would
nevertheless be valid as an exercise of the police power of the State. The Solicitor General also
maintains that Section 8 of Resolution No. 2772 is a permissible exercise of the power of supervision or
regulation of the Comelec over the communication and information operations of print media
enterprises during the election period to safeguard and ensure a fair, impartial and credible election.
Issue:
Whether or not Resolution No. 2772 issued by respondent Commission on Elections is valid.
Held:
WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition is GRANTED in part and
Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 in its present form and the related letter-directives dated 22 March
1995 are hereby SET ASIDE as null and void, and the Temporary Restraining Order is hereby MADE
PERMANENT. The Petition is DISMISSED in part, to the extent it relates to Section 8 of Resolution No.
NACHURA, BERNAS, CRUZ NOTES
AI VALERIANO

Course Notes in CONSTITUTION LAW 2 : FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

Atty Karen Canulas- Armada

2772. No pronouncement as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi:
1. Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772, in its present form and as interpreted by Comelec in its 22 March
1995 letter directives, purports to require print media enterprises to "donate" free print space to
Comelec. As such, Section 2 suffers from a fatal constitutional vice and must be set aside and
nullified.
2. To the extent it pertains to Section 8 of Resolution No. 2772, the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
must be dismissed for lack of an actual, justiciable case or controversy.

NACHURA, BERNAS, CRUZ NOTES

AI VALERIANO