1. Police Power

Police Power

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. v. Mayor of Manila, G.R. No. L-24693 (1967)].

It is a power coextensive with self-protection, and is not inaptly termed the “law of the overruling necessity” [Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, G.R. No. L-14078 (1919)].

Police power, while incapable of an exact definition, has been purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide enough room or an efficient and flexible response as the conditions warrant” [White Light Corporation v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846 (2009)].

Scope and Limitations

“The State in order to promote the general welfare, may interfere with personal liberty, with property, and with business and occupations. Persons may be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health and prosperity of the state and to this fundamental aim of our Government, the rights of the individual are subordinated” [Ortigas and Co., Limited Partnership v. Feati Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No. L- 24670 (1979)].

As police power derives its existence from the very existence of the State itself, it does not need to be expressed or defined in its scope. XXX So it is that Constitutions do not define the scope or extent of the police power of the State; what they do is to set forth the limitations thereof. The most important of these are the due process clause and the equal protection clause [Ichong v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995 (1957)].

Police power has been characterized as the most essential, insistent, and the least limitable of powers, extending as it does to all the great public needs [Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. Mayor of Manila, supra].

Who may Exercise Police Power

Generally: Legislature

Limitations on Delegation of Police Power

• It must be made through an express grant by law;
• It must be exercised within the territorial jurisdiction of LGUs; and
• It must not be contrary to law.

Requisites for valid exercise of police power

• Lawful subject: public interest requires interference of the State;
• The means employed to attain the purpose of the law must be reasonably necessary;
• It must not be unduly oppressive upon individuals. (NTC v, Philippine Veterans Bank. G.R. Nos. 84132-33, December 10, 1990).

Means Purpose Test

• Lawful Subject - The interests of the public, generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require such interference and that the subject of the measure is within the scope of the police power [Ichong v. Hernandez, supra]
• Lawful Means - The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals [National Development Company v. Philippine Veterans Bank, G.R. Nos. 84132-33 (1990)].

Reasonability Test

Police-power measures must satisfy due process and other applicable constitutional limits. The level of scrutiny depends on the right affected; a general reasonableness test does not govern every claim. Where reasonableness is the applicable test, so long as legitimate means can reasonably lead to create that end, it is reasonable [Morfe v. Mutuc, G.R. No. L-20387 (1968)].

Updated: Police-power measures are subject to the level of substantive due process scrutiny appropriate to the claim, not invariably a reasonableness test (Foundation for Economic Freedom, G.R. No. 214042, 13 August 2024).

When Public Safety or Order Requires Otherwise as Prescribed by Law

Prescribed by Law

It should be based upon a government official’s assessment that public safety and order demand such intrusion, as provided by law. It is not only that the discretion of the executive officer is limitable by law but also that a public officer who exercises this power must be able to point to a law under which he acts. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 2009)

Public Order and Safety

The security of human lives, liberty, and property against the activities of invaders, insurrectionists, and rebels. (1971 Constitutional Convention, Nov. 25, 1972)

Exercise of Police Power is subject to judicial inquiry

The Legislature’s determination as to what is a proper exercise of its police powers is not final or conclusive, but it is subject to the supervision of the courts [US v. Toribio, G.R. No. L-5060 (1910)]

However, courts cannot delimit beforehand the extent or scope of the police power, since they cannot foresee the needs and demands of public interest and welfare. So it is that Constitutions do not define the scope or extent of the police power of the State; what they do is to set forth the limitations thereof. The most important of these are the due process clause and the equal protection clause [Ichong v. Hernandez, supra]

Example of a Legitimate Exercise of Police Power

R.A. No. 9257, the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003, is a legitimate exercise of police power. Administrative Order No. 177 issued by the Department of Health, providing that the 20% discount privilege of senior citizens shall not be limited to the purchase of unbranded generic medicine but shall extend to both prescription and non-prescription medicine, whether branded or generic, is valid [Carlos Superdrug Corporation v. Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), G.R. No. 166494 (2007)].

License to Own and Operate Firearms

With the bearing of arms being a mere privilege, there could not have been a deprivation of right to due process in requiring a license for the possession of firearms. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution is clear that only life, liberty, or property is protected by the due process clause. It is settled that the license to possess a firearm is neither a property nor a property right.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the right to possess a firearm were considered a property right, it is doctrine that property rights are always subject to the State's police power. Further, the PNP Guidelines, which suspended the issuance of permits to carry firearms outside of residence, was a valid police power measure. The interest of the general public was satisfied, since the Guidelines were issued in response to the rise in high-profile crimes. As to the means employed to retain peace and order in society, the revocation of all permits to carry firearms outside of residence would make it difficult for criminals to commit gun violence and victimize others. Therefore, the license requirement to own and operate a firearm is a valid exercise of police power and not a violation of the right to due process. (Acosta v. Ochoa, G.R. Nos. 211559, 211567, 212570 & 215634, Oct. 15, 2019)

Not an instance of taking

Imposition of restrictions on the use of property to protect the public health safety or morals from danger is not taking as there is no dedication to public use [Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742 (1989)].

Factors to Consider

Although the urgency of the public interest sought to be secured by Congressional power restricting the individual's freedom, and the social importance and value of the freedom so restricted, are to be judged in the concrete, not on the basis of abstractions, a wide range of factors are necessarily relevant in ascertaining the point or line of equilibrium. Among these are:

• The social values and importance of the specific aspect of the particular freedom restricted by the legislation;
• The specific thrust of the restriction, i.e., whether the restriction is direct or indirect, whether or not the persons affected are few;
• The value and importance of the public interest sought to be secured by the legislation — the reference here is to the nature and gravity of the evil which Congress seeks to prevent;
• Whether the specific restriction decreed by Congress is reasonably appropriate and necessary for the protection of such public interest; and
• Whether the necessary safeguarding of the public interest involved may be achieved by some other measure less restrictive of the protected freedom. (J. Castro, Separate Opinion in Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-27833, April 18, 1969)

Lawful subject

The interests of the public in general (as distinguished from those of a particular class) require the intervention of the State, and

Concept of “Clear”

There must be a connection with the danger of the substantive evil arising from the utterance questioned.

Community Standard

Pictures depicting inhabitants of the country in their native dress as they appear and can be seen in the regions in which they live are not obscene or indecent. The pictures in question merely depict persons as they actually live, without attempted presentation of persons in unusual postures or dress [People v. Kottinger, supra].