POLICE POWER

G.R. No. 199669 G.R. No. 81958 G.R. No. 195003 G.R. No. 198860 G.R. No. 126102

SOUTHERN PHILIPPINE CITY OF ABRAHAM ORTIGAS & CO.

LUZON DRUG ASSOCIATION OF BATANGAS RIMANDO LTD.
CORPORATION SERVICE vs. vs. vs.
vs. EXPORTERS, INC. PHILIPPINE SHELL NAGUILIAN THE COURT OF
DSWD, NCWDP, vs. PETROLEUM EMISSION APPEALS
DOF, and BIR HON. FRANKLIN CORPORATION TESTING CENTER,
M. DRILON and SHELL INC.
PHILIPPINES
EXPLORATION
B.V.,
Police power is the power of the state to promote public welfare by restraining and regulating the use
of liberty and property. It is the most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most demanding of the
three fundamental powers of the State. The justification is found in the Latin maxim salus populi est
suprema lex (the welfare of the people is the supreme law) and sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas
(so use your property as not to injure the property of others). As an inherent attribute of sovereignty
which virtually extends to all public needs, police power grants a wide panoply of instruments
through which the State, as parens patriae, gives effect to a host of its regulatory powers. We have
held that the power to "regulate" means the power to protect, foster, promote, preserve, and
control, with due regard for the interests, first and foremost, of the public, then of the utility and of
its patrons.

The duty to care for the elderly and the disabled lies not only upon the State, but also on the
community and even private entities. As to the State, the duty emanates from its role as parens
patriae which holds it under obligation to provide protection and look after the welfare of its people
especially those who cannot tend to themselves. Parens patriae means parent of his or her country
and refers to the State in its role as "sovereign", or the State in its capacity as a provider of protection
to those unable to care for themselves. In fulfilling this duty, the State may resort to the exercise of
its inherent powers: police power, eminent domain, and power of taxation.

Issues of just compensation finds no relevance if the power being exercised by the State was its police
power. Unlike in the exercise of the power of eminent domain, just compensation is not required in
wielding police power. This is precisely because there is no taking involved, but only an imposition of
burden.

The right to travel is subject, among other things, to the requirements of "public safety," "as may be
provided by law." Department Order No. 1 is a valid implementation of the Labor Code, in particular,
its basic policy to "afford protection to labor,” pursuant to the respondent Department of Labor's
rule-making authority vested in it by the Labor Code.

POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN

G.R. No. 135087 G.R. No. 165354 G.R. No. 150640 G.R. No. 127820 G.R. No. 221366
HEIRS OF NATIONAL ISMAEL MUNICIPALITY OF CITY OF MANILA
ALBERTO POWER GUTIERREZ, PARAÑAQUE vs.
SUGUITAN CORPORATION vs. vs. ALEJANDRO
vs. vs. COURT OF V.M. REALTY ROCES PRIETO, et.
CITY OF HEIRS OF APPEALS, JOSE CORPORATION, al.
MANDALUYONG SATURNINO Q. MAGTOTO III, and
BORBON PATRICIA
SINDAYAN,
Eminent domain is the right or power of a sovereign state to appropriate private property to
particular uses to promote public welfare. It is an indispensable attribute of sovereignty; a power
grounded in the primary duty of government to serve the common need and advance the general
welfare. Thus, the right of eminent domain appertains to every independent government without the
necessity for constitutional recognition. The provisions found in modern constitutions of civilized
countries relating to the taking of property for the public use do not by implication grant the power to
the government but limit a power which would otherwise be without limit. Thus, our own
Constitution provides that "private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation." Furthermore, the due process and equal protection clauses act as additional
safeguards against the arbitrary exercise of this governmental power.

The power of eminent domain is essentially legislative in nature. It is firmly settled, however, that
such power may be validly delegated to local government units, other public entities and public
utilities, although the scope of this delegated legislative power is necessarily narrower than that of
the delegating authority and may only be exercised in strict compliance with the terms of the
delegating law.

The basis for the exercise of the power of eminent domain by local government units is section 19 of
RA 7160 which provides that:

A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance,
exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, purpose, or welfare for the benefits of the poor
and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution
and pertinent laws; Provided, however, That the power of eminent domain may not be exercised
unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner, and such offer was not
accepted; Provided, further, That the local government unit may immediately take possession of the
property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit with the proper
court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current
tax declaration of the property to be expropriated; Provided, finally, That the amount to be paid for
the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, based on the fair market value at
the time of the taking of the property.

In the case of HEIRS OF ALBERTO SUGUITAN vs. CITY OF MANDALUYONG, the City of Mandaluyong
seeks to exercise the power of eminent domain over petitioners' property by means of a resolution, in
contravention of the first requisite. The law in this case is clear and free from ambiguity. Section 19 of
the Code requires an ordinance, not a resolution, for the exercise of the power of eminent domain.

In view of a discontinuance of proceedings and eventual return of the property to its owner, there is
no need to pay "just compensation" to them because their property would not be taken. Instead of
full market value of the property, therefore, there should be compensated for the disturbance of their
property rights from the time of entry until the time of restoration of the possession by paying to
them actual or other compensatory damages. As decided in the cases of NATIONAL POWER
CORPORATION vs. HEIRS OF SATURNINO Q. BORBON.

In the case of ISMAEL GUTIERREZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS, the inescapable conclusion is that the
expropriation of respondents’ lot is for the actual benefit of the Davsan II Subdivision owner, with
incidental benefit to the subdivision homeowners. Considering that the residents who need a feeder
road are all subdivision lot owners, it is the obligation of the Davsan II Subdivision owner to acquire a
right-of-way for them. However, the failure of the subdivision owner to provide an access road does
not shift the burden to petitioner. To deprive respondents of their property instead of compelling the
subdivision owner to comply with his obligation under the law is an abuse of the power of eminent
domain and is patently illegal. Without doubt, expropriation cannot be justified on the basis of an
unlawful purpose.

R.A. No. 7279 provides for a detailed description of specific areas which are the proper subjects of on-
site development, i.e., those "areas where the structures are dilapidated, obsolete, and unsanitary,
tending to depreciate the value of the land and prevent normal development and use of the area" as
defined under Section 3(1), in relation to Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 7279. It is, thus, incumbent upon
petitioner to show that the areas they sought to expropriate for socialized housing and urban
development are those contemplated under the law.

The prospective beneficiaries of the expropriation are the "underprivileged and homeless"
contemplated under Section 8 of R.A. No. 7279.

The Court has held, time and again, that in cases of land acquisitions by the government, when the
property owner rejects the offer but hints for a better price, the government should renegotiate by
calling the property owner to a conference. "The government must exhaust all reasonable efforts to
obtain by agreement the land it desires. Its failure to comply will warrant the dismissal of the
complaint." It is undisputed that after respondents rejected petitioner's offer of ₱2,000.00 per square
meter to purchase their lots for being too low compared to the fair market value of their properties,
petitioner readily instituted the present expropriation suit without bothering to renegotiate its offer.
Relevantly, thus, there is no valid and definite offer made by petitioner before it filed the
expropriation complaint. The intent of the law is for the State or the local government to make a
reasonable offer in good faith, not merely a pro forma offer to acquire the property.

There is a need to strictly comply with the conditions and restrictions set forth in the Constitution and
pertinent laws to assure that every right is protected, and every mandate is properly discharged.

POWER OF TAXATION
G.R. No. L-31156 G.R. No. 149110 G.R. No. 210551 G.R. No. 180235 G.R. No. 155650

PEPSI-COLA NATIONAL JOSE J. FERRER, ALTA VISTA GOLF MANILA

BOTTLING POWER JR. AND COUNTRY INTERNATIONAL
COMPANY OF THE CORPORATION, vs. CLUB AIRPORT
PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. CITY MAYOR vs. AUTHORITY
v CITY OF HERBERT THE CITY OF CEBU vs.
MUNICIPALITY OF CABANATUAN BAUTISTA COURT OF
TANAUAN, LEYTE APPEALS
Taxes are the lifeblood of the government, for without taxes, the government can neither exist nor
endure. A principal attribute of sovereignty, the exercise of taxing power derives its source from the
very existence of the state whose social contract with its citizens obliges it to promote public interest
and common good. The theory behind the exercise of the power to tax emanates from necessity;
without taxes, government cannot fulfill its mandate of promoting the general welfare and well-being
of the people.