Police Power

Aquino v. Municipality of Alay Aklan

KEY TAKE-AWAY OR DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER

 In the exercise of police power and the general welfare clause, property rights of individuals may be subjected
to restraints and burdens in order to fulfill the objectives of the government. The government may enact
legislation that may interfere with personal liberty, property, lawful businesses and occupations
to promote the general welfare.

 Requirements for the exercise of the power are present:

1. Illegality of structures
2. Observance of procedural due process rights

FACTS

1. Petitioner is the president and CEO of Boracay Island West Cove. In 2010, the company applied for a zoning
compliance with the municipal government of Malay, Aklan. While the company was already operating a resort
in the area, the application sought the issuance of a building permit covering the construction of a three-story
hotel over a parcel of land which is covered by a Forest Land Use Agreement for Tourism Purposes (FLAgT)
issued by DENR in favor of Boracay West Cove.
2. Through a Decision on Zoning, the Municipal Zoning Administrator denied petitioner’s application on the
ground that the proposed construction site was within the “no build zone” demarcated in a Municipal
Ordinance. Petitioner appealed but no action was taken.
3. A Notice of Assessment was sent to petitioner asking for the settlement of the company’s unpaid taxes and other
liabilities under pain of a recommendation for closure in view of its continuous commercial operation since
2009 sans the necessary zoning clearance, building permit, and business and mayor’s permit.
4. In reply, petitioner expressed willingness to settle the company’s obligations, but the municipal treasurer
refused to accept the tendered payment. Meanwhile, petitioner continued with the construction, expansion,
and operation of the resort hotel.
5. Subsequently, a Cease and Desist Order was issued by the municipal government, enjoining the expansion of
the resort, and. The Office of the Mayor of Malay, Aklan issued the assailed EO 10, ordering the closure and
demolition of the hotel.
6. Said EO was implemented and as such, the respondents demolished the improvements introduced by the hotel.
As such, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with CA on the following arguments:
 Judicial proceedings should first be conducted before the respondent mayor could order the
demolition of the company's establishment.
 The Boracay West Cove was granted a FLAgT by the DENR, which bestowed the company the right to
construct permanent improvements on the area in question.
 Since the area is a forestland, it is the DENR — and not the municipality of Malay, or any other local
government unit for that matter — that has primary jurisdiction over the area, and that the Regional
Executive Director of DENR-Region 6 had officially issued an opinion regarding the legal issues
involved in the present case; that the Ordinance admits of exceptions.
 It is the mayor who should be blamed for not issuing the necessary clearances in the company’s favor.
7. Respondents argued the following:
 The FLAgT does not excuse the company from complying with the Ordinance and PD 1096 (National
Building Code of the Philippines).
 The demolition needed no court order because the municipal mayor has the express
power under the Local Government Code to order the removal of illegally constructed
buildings.
8. CA dismissed the petition solely on procedural ground because according to the appellate court, the petitioner
should have sought declaratory relief and not certiorari. Hence, the present petition.
 ISSUE/S STATUTES/ARTICLES INVOLVED

WON the mayor could validly order the Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
demolition of the hotel without first without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
conducting judicial proceedings, thereby protection of the laws.
violating the petitioner’s right to due process.

HELD

1. YES. Generally, LGUs have no power to declare a particular thing as a nuisance unless such a thing is a nuisance
per se. Despite the hotel’s classification as a nuisance per accidens, however, the Court still find in this case that
the LGU may nevertheless properly order the hotel’s demolition. This is because, in the exercise of police
power and the general welfare clause, property rights of individuals may be subjected to
restraints and burdens in order to fulfill the objectives of the government. Otherwise stated, the
government may enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty, property, lawful
businesses and occupations to promote the general welfare.

2. One such piece of legislation is the LGC, which authorizes city and municipal governments, acting through their
local chief executives, to issue demolition orders. Under existing laws, the office of the mayor is given powers
not only relative to its function as the executive official of the town; it has also been endowed with authority to
hear issues involving property rights of individuals and to come out with an effective order or resolution thereon.

3. Requirements for the exercise of the power are present:

 Illegality of structures – Petitioner admittedly failed to secure the necessary permits, clearances, and
exemptions before the construction, expansion, and operation of the hotel. To recall, petitioner declared
that the application for zoning compliance was still pending with the office of the mayor even though
construction and operation were already ongoing at the same time. As such, it could no longer be denied
that petitioner openly violated Municipal Ordinance 2000-131.

 Observance of procedural due process rights

1. Public officers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. The burden
is on the petitioner herein to prove that Boracay West Cove was deprived of the opportunity to
be heard before EO 10 was issued. Regrettably, copies of the Cease and Desist Order issued by
the LGU and of the assailed EO 10 itself were never attached to the petition before this Court,
which documents could have readily shed light on whether or not petitioner has been accorded
the 10-day grace period provided in Section 10 of the Ordinance. In view of this fact, the
presumption of regularity must be sustained.

2. EO 10 states that petitioner received notices from the municipality government on March 7 and
28, 2011, requiring Boracay West Cove to comply with the zoning ordinance and yet it failed to
do so. If such was the case, the grace period can be deemed observed and the establishment was
already ripe for closure and demolition by the time EO 10 was issued in June.

3. The observance of the 10-day allowance for the owner to demolish the hotel was never questioned
by petitioner so there is no need to discuss the same.
Police Power
MMDA v. Bel Air
KEY TAKE-AWAY OR DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER

 Police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It has been defined as the power vested by the Constitution in
the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and
ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good
and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same. The power is plenary, and its scope is vast and
pervasive, reaching and justifying measures for public health, public safety, public morals, and the general welfare.
 Police power is lodged primarily in the National Legislature which may delegate the power to the President and
administrative boards as well as the lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or LGUs. Our Congress delegated
police power to LGUs in the Local Government Code of 1991. This delegation is found in Section 16 of the same Code,
known as the general welfare clause.
 LGUs exercise police power through their respective legislative bodies. They are empowered by the LGC to enact
ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the province, city or municipality
and its inhabitants.
 There is no syllable in RA 7924 that grants the MMDA police power, let alone legislative power. They are limited to
the formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation, management, monitoring, setting of
policies, installation of a system and administration. As such, there is no grant of authority to enact ordinances and
regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis.

FACTS

1. MMDA is a government agency tasked with the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila. Bel-Air Village Association,
Inc. (BAVA) is a non-stock, non-profit corporation whose members are homeowners in Bel-Air Village, a private
subdivision in Makati City.
2. BAVA is the registered owner of Neptune Street, a road inside BelAir Village. In 1995, it received from MMDA
Chairman a notice requesting it to open Neptune Street to public vehicular traffic starting January 2, 1996. On the
same day, it was told that the perimeter wall separating the subdivision from the adjacent Kalayaan Avenue would be
demolished.
3. BAVA instituted a civil case against MMDA before RTC Makati praying for the issuance of a TRO and preliminary
injunction enjoining the opening of Neptune Street and prohibiting the demolition of the perimeter wall. RTC issues
TRO but denied the preliminary injunction. On appeal, CA issued said preliminary injunction and found that MMDA
has no authority to order the opening of Neptune Street, a private subdivision road and cause the demolition of its
perimeter walls. It held that the authority is lodged in the City Council of Makati by ordinance. Hence the present
petition.
4. MMDA argues that it has the authority to open Neptune Street to public traffic because it is an agent of the state
endowed with police power in the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila. One of these basic services is traffic
management which involves the regulation of the use of thoroughfares to ensure the safety, convenience and welfare
of the general public.

ISSUE/S STATUTES/ARTICLES INVOLVED

WON MMDA is endowed with police power in the Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
delivery of basic services in Metro Manila and thus has without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
the authority to open a private subdivision road to protection of the laws.
public traffic.

HELD

NO. It is the LGU who is endowed with police power by virtue of the Local Government Code, not the MMDA because the
latter is only an agency created for the purpose of laying down policies and coordinating with the various national
government agencies, people’s organizations, non-governmental organizations and the private sector for the efficient and
expeditious delivery of basic services in the vast metropolitan area. All its functions are administrative in nature and these
are actually summed up in the charter itself.
Police Power
Philippine Association of Service Exporters v. Drilon
KEY TAKE-AWAY OR DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER

 The concept of police power is well-established in this jurisdiction. It has been defined as the "state authority to
enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare."
As defined, it consists of (1) an imposition of restraint upon liberty or property, (2) in order to foster the
common good. It is not capable of an exact definition but has been, purposely, veiled in general terms to
underscore its all-comprehensive embrace. "Its scope, ever-expanding to meet the exigencies of the times, even
to anticipate the future where it could be done, provides enough room for an efficient and flexible response to
conditions and circumstances thus assuring the greatest benefits."

 The police power of the State finds no specific Constitutional grant for the plain reason that it does not owe its
origin to the Charter. Along with the taxing power and eminent domain, it is inborn in the very fact of
statehood and sovereignty. It is a fundamental attribute of government that has enabled it to perform the
most vital functions of governance.

 Police power constitutes an implied limitation on the Bill of Rights. Significantly, the Bill of Rights itself does
not purport to be an absolute guaranty of individual rights and liberties "Even liberty itself, the greatest of all
rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's will." It is subject to the far more overriding demands
and requirements of the greater number.

 It is true that police power is the domain of the legislature, but it does not mean that such an authority may not
be lawfully delegated. As we have mentioned, the Labor Code itself vests the Department of Labor and
Employment with rulemaking powers in the enforcement whereof.

 Non-impairment clause must yield to the demands and necessities of State's power of regulation to provide a
decent living to its citizens.

FACTS

1. PASEI, a firm "engaged principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers, male and female, for overseas
placement," challenges the constitutional validity of DO 1, S.1988, issued by DOLE temporarily suspending the
deployment of Filipino Domestic and Household Workers on the following grounds:

 It discriminates against males or females because it does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to
domestic helpers and females with similar skills.
 It is violative of the right to travel.
 It is an invalid exercise of the lawmaking power, police power being legislative, and not executive, in
character.
 It violates Article 13, Section 3 because it was passed in the absence of prior consultations.
 It is in violation of the Charter’s non-impairment clause, in addition to the "great and irreparable injury"
that PASEI members face should the Order be further enforced.

2. In its reply on behalf of the government, the Solicitor General invoked the police power of the State.

ISSUE/S STATUTES/ARTICLES INVOLVED

WON the issuance of DO 1 is valid exercise of the

State’s police power. WON it is valid under the
Constitution.

HELD
YES.
1. There is no question that DO 1 applies only to "female contract workers," but it does not thereby make an undue
discrimination between the sexes. It is well-settled that "equality before the law" does not import a perfect
identity of rights among all men and women. It admits of classifications, provided that (1) such classifications
rest on substantial distinctions; (2) they are germane to the purposes of the law; (3) they are not confined to
existing conditions; and (4) they apply equally to all members of the same class.

2. The Court is satisfied that the classification made—the preference for female workers—rests on substantial
distinctions since there is enough evidence to prove that the female labor force abroad is experiencing various
forms of physical and personal abuses as opposed to the male labor force. Had the ban been given universal
applicability, then it would have been unreasonable and arbitrary.

3. The consequence the deployment ban has on the right to travel does not impair the right. The right to travel is
subject, among other things, to the requirements of "public safety," "as may be provided by law."

4. Neither is there merit in the contention that DO 1 constitutes an invalid exercise of legislative power. It is true
that police power is the domain of the legislature, but it does not mean that such an authority may not be lawfully
delegated. As we have mentioned, the Labor Code itself vests DOLE with rule-making powers in the enforcement
whereof.

5. The petitioners’ reliance on the Constitutional guaranty of worker participation "in policy and decision-making
processes affecting their rights and benefits" is not well taken. The right granted by this provision, again, must
submit to the demands and necessities of the State's power of regulation. "Protection to labor" does not signify
the promotion of employment alone. What concerns the Constitution more paramountcy is that such an
employment be above all, decent, just, and humane.

6. The non-impairment clause of the Constitution, invoked by the petitioner, must yield to the loftier purposes
targeted by the Government. Freedom of contract and enterprise, like all other freedoms, is not free from
restrictions, more so in this jurisdiction, where laissez faire has never been fully accepted as a controlling
economic way of life.

7. This Court understands the grave implications the questioned Order has on the business of recruitment. The
concern of the Government, however, is not necessarily to maintain profits of business firms. In the ordinary
sequence of events, it is profits that suffer as a result of Government regulation. The interest of the State is to
provide a decent living to its citizens.
Police Power
Ichong v. Hernandez
KEY TAKE-AWAY OR DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER

 Police power is far-reaching in scope, and it is almost impossible to limit its sweep. It derives its existence from the
very existence of the State itself and does not need to be expressed or defined in its scope. It is said to be co-extensive
with self-protection and survival, and as such it is the most positive and active of all governmental processes, the
most essential, insistent and illimitable. Especially is it so under a modern democratic framework where the demands
of society and of nations have multiplied to almost unimaginable proportions; the field and scope of police power has
become almost boundless, just as the fields of public interest and public welfare have become almost all-embracing
and have transcended human foresight.

 The constitutional guarantees in Section I, Article III, of the Constitution, which embody the essence of individual
liberty and freedom in democracies, are not limited to citizens alone but are admittedly universal in their application,
without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality.

 The conflict between police power and the guarantees of due process and equal protection of the laws is more
apparent than real. Properly related, the power and the guarantees are supposed to coexist. The balancing is the
essence, or the indispensable means for the" attainment of legitimate aspirations of any democratic society. There
can be no absolute power, whoever exercises it, for that would be tyranny. Yet there can neither be absolute liberty,
for that would mean license and anarchy. So, the State can deprive persons of life, liberty or property, provided there
is due process of law; and persons may be classified into classes and groups, provided everyone is given the equal
protection of the law. 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 or classification has been made, there must be a reasonable basis for
said distinction.

 The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and individual or class privilege, as well as hostile
discrimination or the oppression of inequality. It does not demand absolute equality among residents; it
merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions
both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. The equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation
which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to all persons within such class,
and reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not.

 Freedom and liberty are not real and positive, if the people are subject to the economic control and domination of
others, especially if not of their own race or country. The removal and eradication of the shackles of foreign economic
control and domination is one of the noblest motives that a national legislature may pursue.

FACTS

1. Congress enacted RA 1180 entitled “An Act to Regulate the Retail Business” which seeks to
 Prohibit persons, not citizens of the Philippines, and against associations, partnerships, or corporations, the
capital of which are not wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines, from engaging directly or indirectly in
the retail trade;
 Except from said prohibition in favor of aliens actually engaged in said business on May 15, 1954, who are
allowed to continue to engage therein, unless their licenses are forfeited in accordance with the law, until
their death or voluntary retirement in case of natural persons, and for 10 years after the approval of the Act
or until the expiration of term in case of juridical persons;
 Except therefrom in favor of citizens and juridical entities of US
 Forfeit licenses (to engage in the retail business) for violation of the laws on nationalization, economic control
weights and measures and labor and other laws relating to trade, commerce and industry
 Prohibit against the establishment or opening by aliens actually engaged in the retail business of additional
stores or branches of retail business
 Require aliens actually engaged in the retail business to present for registration with the proper authorities
a verified statement concerning their businesses, giving, among other matters, the nature of the business,
their assets and liabilities and their offices and principal offices of juridical entities
 Allow the heirs of aliens now engaged in the retail business who die, to continue such business for a period of
6 months for purposes of liquidation.
 2. Petitioner assailed the constitutionality of said Act on the following grounds:
 It denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives them of their liberty and property
without due process of law;
 The subject of the Act is not expressed or comprehended in the title thereof
 The Act violates international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the Philippines
 The provisions of the Act against the transmission by aliens of their retail business thru hereditary succession,
and those requiring 100% Filipino capitalization for a corporation or entity to entitle it to engage in the retail
business, violate the spirit of Sections 1 and 5, Article XIII and Section 8 of Article XIV of the Constitution.
3. The Solicitor-General and the Fiscal of the City of Manila argued that:
 The Act was passed in the valid exercise of the police power of the State, which exercise is authorized in the
Constitution in the interest of national economic survival
 The Act has only one subject embraced in the title
 No treaty or international obligations are infringed
 As regards hereditary succession, only the form is affected but the value of the property is not impaired, and
the institution of inheritance is only of statutory origin.

ISSUE/S STATUTES/ARTICLES INVOLVED

WON the Act was passed in the valid exercise of the Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
State’s police power. without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.

HELD

1. YES. There is no question that the Act was approved in the exercise of the police power. It has been said that police
power is so far-reaching in scope, that it has become almost impossible to limit its sweep. The Constitution do not
define the scope or extent of the police power of the State, instead it sets forth the limitations thereof. The most
important of these are the due process clause and the equal protection clause. These guarantees which embody the
essence of individual liberty and freedom in democracies, is not limited to citizens alone but is universal in their
application, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality.

2. There is a well-founded fear that the present dominance of the alien retailer, especially in the big centers of
population, therefore, becomes a potential source of danger on occasions of war or other calamity. They owe no
allegiance or loyalty to the State, and the State cannot rely upon them in times of crisis or emergency.

3. We are fully satisfied upon a consideration of all the facts and circumstances that the disputed law is not the product
of racial hostility, prejudice or discrimination, but the expression of the legitimate desire and determination of the
people, thru their authorized representatives, to free the nation from the economic situation that has unfortunately
been saddled upon it rightly or wrongly, to its disadvantage. The law is clearly in the interest of the public,
nay of the national security itself, and indisputably falls within the scope of police power, thru
which and by which the State insures its existence and security and the supreme welfare of its
citizens.