Constitutional Law 1 (JD)
Tuesday (6:00PM – 9:00PM)
POLICE POWER
Meaning
The power of promoting the public
welfare by restraining and regulating the
use of liberty and property.
It the right of the State, or state
functionary, to prescribe regulations for
the good order, peace, health,
protection, comfort, convenience and
morals of the community, which do not
violate any of the provisions of the
organic law. (Francis Churchill, et al. vs.
James Rafferty, 1915)
Characteristics and Foundation
Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex
Police is the most essential, insistent
and the least limitable of powers,
extending as it does "to all the great
public needs. It is the inherent and
plenary power of the State, which
enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to
the comfort, safety, and welfare of
society. (Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel
Operators Association, Inc. et al. vs.
The Honorable Mayor of Manila, 1967)
Sic Utere Tuo Ut Alienum Non
Laedas
It is a just and legitimate exercise of the
power of the legislature to regulate and
restrain such particular use of the
property as would be inconsistent with
or injurious to the rights of the public. All
property is acquired and held under the
Atty. Madel P. Villaroman-Fiel
tacit condition that it shall not be so
used as to injure the equal rights of
others or greatly impair the public rights
and interest of the community. (United
States vs. Luis Toribio, 1910)
It would be quite impossible to
enumerate all the instances in which the
police power is or may be exercised,
because the various cases in which the
exercise by one individual of his rights
may conflict with a similar exercise by
others, or may be detrimental to the
public order or safety, are infinite in
number and in variety. And there are
other cases where it becomes
necessary for the public authorities to
interfere with the control by individuals
of their property, and even to destroy it,
where the owners themselves have fully
observed all their duties to their fellows
and to the State, but where,
nevertheless, some controlling public
necessity demands the interference or
destruction. A strong instance of this
description is where it becomes
necessary to take, use, or destroy the
private property of individuals to prevent
the spreading of a fire, the ravages of a
pestilence, the advance of a hostile
army, or any other great public calamity.
Here the individual is in no degree in
fault, but his interest must yield to that
‘necessity’ which ‘knows no law’.
(Constitutional Limitations, J. Thomas
M. Cooley)
Extent
The Supreme Court has said that police
power is so far-reaching in scope that it
1

has almost become impossible to limit
its sweep. As it derives its existence
from the very existence of the state
itself, it does not need to be expressed
or defined in its scope. Being
coextensive with self-preservation and
survival itself, it is the most positive and
active of all governmental processes,
the most essential insistent and
illimitable. (City Government of Quezon
vs. Hon. Judge Ericta, 1983)
The police power of the State is a power
co-extensive with self-protection, and is
not inaptly termed the "law of overruling
necessity." Carried onward by the
current of legislation, the judiciary rarely
attempts to dam the onrushing power of
legislative discretion, provided the
purposes of the law do not go beyond
the great principles that mean security
for the public welfare or do not arbitrarily
interfere with the right of the individual.
(Lim vs. Pacquing, 1995)
The police power is simply defined as
the power inherent in the State to
regulate liberty and property for the
promotion of the general welfare. By
reason of its function, it extends to all
the great public needs and is described
as the most pervasive, the least
limitable and the most demanding of the
three inherent powers of the State, far
outpacing taxation and eminent domain.
The individual, as a member of society,
is hemmed in by the police power,
which affects him even before he is
born and follows him still after he is
dead — from the womb to beyond the
tomb — in practically everything he
Constitutional Law 1 (JD)
Tuesday (6:00PM – 9:00PM)
Atty. Madel P. Villaroman-Fiel
does or owns. Its reach is virtually
limitless. It is a ubiquitous and often
unwelcome intrusion. Even so, as long
as the activity or the property has some
relevance to the public welfare, its
regulation under the police power is not
only proper but necessary. (Ynot vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, 1987)
Who may Exercise Police Power?
1. Essentially, the legislature;
2. Local governments through
their respective lawmaking
bodies under the general
welfare clause (Section 16,
R.A. No. 7160);
3. Limitedly, the President
subject to valid delegation of
legislative power; and
4. Administrative agencies
exercising quasi-legislative
power.
Tests for Valid Exercise of Police Power
As with the State, the local government
may be considered as having properly
exercised its police power only if the
following requisites are met: (1) the
interests of the public generally, as
distinguished from those of a particular
class, require the interference of the
State, and (2) the means employed are
reasonably necessary for the attainment
of the object sought to be accomplished
and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals. Otherwise stated, there
must be a concurrence of a lawful
subject and lawful method. (Lucena
Grand Central Terminal vs. JAC Liner,
2

2005)
A. Lawful Subject
The interests of the public in general, as
distinguished from those of a particular
class, require the exercise of police
power. This means that the activity or
property sought to be regulated affects
the general welfare; if it does, then the
enjoyment of the rights flowing
therefrom may have to yield to the
interests of the greater number.
B. Lawful Means
The means employed must be
reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose, and not
unduly oppressive on individuals.
In the case of Ynot vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court (1987), the Court
declared that the challenged measure is
an invalid exercise of the police power
because the method employed to
conserve the carabaos is not
reasonably necessary to the purpose of
the law and, worse, is unduly
oppressive. Due process is violated
because the owner of the property
confiscated is denied the right to be
heard in his defense and is immediately
condemned and punished. The
conferment on the administrative
authorities of the power to adjudge the
guilt of the supposed offender is a clear
encroachment on judicial functions and
militates against the doctrine of
separation of powers.
Constitutional Law 1 (JD)
Tuesday (6:00PM – 9:00PM)
Atty. Madel P. Villaroman-Fiel
The Court, in Balacuit vs. CFI of Agusan
Del Norte and City of Butuan (1988),
further stated that there must be public
necessity which demands the adoption
of proper measures to secure the ends
sought to be attained by the enactment
of the ordinance, and the large
discretion is necessarily vested in the
legislative authority to determine not
only what the interests of the public
require, but what measures are
necessary for the protection of such
interests. The methods or means used
to protect the public health, morals,
safety or welfare, must have some
relation to the end in view, for under the
guise of the police power, personal
rights and those pertaining to private
property will not be permitted to be
arbitrarily invaded by the legislative
department.
Exercise of Police Power by Local
Governments
Basis
The General Welfare Clause, Section
16 of Republic Act No. 7160
Every local government unit shall
exercise the powers expressly granted,
those necessarily implied therefrom, as
well as powers necessary, appropriate,
or incidental for its efficient and effective
governance, and those which are
essential to the promotion of the
general welfare. Within their respective
territorial jurisdictions, local government
units shall ensure and support, among
other things, the preservation and
3

enrichment of culture, promote health
and safety, enhance the right of the
people to a balanced ecology,
encourage and support the
development of appropriate and self-
reliant scientific and technological
capabilities, improve public morals,
enhance economic prosperity and
social justice, promote full employment
among their residents, maintain peace
and order, and preserve the comfort
and convenience of their inhabitants.
The tests of a valid ordinance are well
established. A long line of decisions
has held that to be valid, an ordinance
must conform to the following
substantive requirements:
1. It must not contravene the
constitution or any statute.
2. It must not be unfair or
oppressive.
3. It must not be partial or
discriminatory.
4. It must not prohibit but may
regulate trade.
5. It must be general and
consistent with public policy.
6. It must not be unreasonable.
The rationale of the requirement that the
ordinances should not contravene a
statute is obvious. Municipal
governments are only agents of the
national government. Local councils
exercise only delegated legislative
powers conferred on them by Congress
as the national lawmaking body. The
delegate cannot be superior to the
principal or exercise powers higher than
Constitutional Law 1 (JD)
Tuesday (6:00PM – 9:00PM)
Atty. Madel P. Villaroman-Fiel
those of the latter. It is a heresy to
suggest that the local government units
can undo the acts of Congress, from
which they have derived their power in
the first place, and negate by mere
ordinance the mandate of the statute.
(Magtajas vs. Pryce Properties
Corporation, Inc., 1994)
Distinctions between Police Power and
the Power of Eminent
In the case of City of Baguio vs.
NAWASA, for example, where a law
required the transfer of all municipal
waterworks systems to the NAWASA in
exchange for its assets of equivalent
value, the Court held that the power
being exercised was eminent domain
because the property involved was
wholesome and intended for a public
use. Property condemned under the
police power is noxious or intended for
a noxious 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
expropriation, which requires the
payment of just compensation to the
owner. (Association of Small
Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs.
Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 1989)