1.

Define:

police poweris the power vested in the legislature by the Constitution to make, ordain, establish
all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws for the good and welfare of the State and its
people. (ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS. CITY MAYOR, July 31, 1967)
The basic purposes of police power are:
a.
to promote the general welfare, comfort and convenience of the people;
(ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. SECRETARY, 175 SCRA 343; US VS. TORIBIO, 15 Phil.
85
b.

to promote and preserve public health; (VILLANUEVA VS. CASTANEDA, September 21,

1987; DECS VS. SAN DIEGO, 180 SCRA 533 [NMAT]; LORENZO VS. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH, 50
Phil. 595apprehend and confine lepers in a leprosarium)

PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS COMMISSION VS. ARLENE DE GUZMAN, ET AL., June 21, 2004
POLICE POWER/Public Health; THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE A PROFESSION
Facts:
After the Professional Regulations Commission (PRC) released the names of successful examinees
in the Medical Licensure Examination, the Board of Medicines observed that the grades of the 79
Fatima College of Medicine successful examinees were unusually and exceptionally high in the
two (2) most difficult subjects of the exam, i.e., Biochemistry and Obstetrics and Gynecology.
The Board then issued Resolution No. 19 withholding the registration as physicians of all the
examinees from Fatima College of Medicine. Compared with other examines from other schools,
the results of those from Fatima were not only incredibly high but unusually clustered close to
each other. The NBI Investigation found that the Fatima examinees gained early access to the
test questions.
On July 5, 1993, the respondents-examinees filed a petition for mandamus before the RTC of
Manila to compel the PRC to give them their licenses to practice medicine. Meanwhile on July 21,
1993, the Board of medicine issued Resolution No. 21 charging the respondents of immorality,
dishonest conduct, fraud and deceit and recommended that the test results of the Fatima
Examinees be nullified.

On December 19, 1994, the RTC of Manila promulgated its decision ordering the PRC to allow the
respondents to take the physicians oath and to register them as physicians. The same was
appealed by the PRC to the Court of Appeals which sustained the RTC decision.
Hence, this petition.
Held:
It must be stressed that the power to regulate the practice of a profession or pursuit of an
occupation cannot be exercised by the State in an arbitrary, despotic or oppressive manner.
However, the regulating body has the right to grant or forbid such privilege in accordance with
certain conditions.
But like all rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, their exercise may be regulated
pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order,
safety, and general welfare of the people. As such, mandamus will not lie to compel the Board of
Medicine to issue licenses for the respondents to practice medicine.
RA 2382 which prescribes the requirements for admission to the practice of medicine, the
qualifications of the candidates for the board examination, the scope and conduct of the
examinations, the grounds for the denying of the issuance of a physicians license, or revoking a
license that has been issued. It is therefore clear that the examinee must prove that he has fully
complied with all the conditions and requirements imposed by law and the licensing authority to
be granted the privilege to practice medicine. In short, he shall have all the qualifications and
none of the disqualifications. The petition is therefore granted.
c.

to promote and protect public safety; (AGUSTIN VS. EDU, 88 SCRA 195; TAXICAB

OPERATORS VS. JUINIO, 119 SCRA 897 )

d.

to maintain and safeguard peace and order; (GUAZON VS. DE VILLA)

e.
to protect public morals; (DE LA CRUZ VS. PARAS, 123 SCRA 569; ERMITA MALATE
HOTEL VS. CITY MAYOR, July 31, 1967; JMM PROMOTIONS VS. CA, 260 SCRA 319; VELASCO VS.
VILLEGAS, February 13, 1983)
f.

to promote the economic security of the people. (ichong vs. hernandez, 101 Phil.

11155)
Not a valid exercise of police power:
a.

CITY GOVERNMENT OF QC VS. ERICTA, 122 SCRA 759; (6%)

b.

YNOT VS. IAC, 148 SCRA 659; the Director of Animal Industry or the Chairman if the

National Meat Commission may dispose of the carabeef to charitable agencies as he may deem
fit. This is oppressive and unreasonable since the owner is denied due process of law and he is
given so much discretion as the law is not complete in itself nor is there a standard to guide the
official.
c.

DE LA CRUZ VS. PARAS, 123 SCRA 569

power of eminent domain

power of taxation
2.

Differences and similarities

Didipio earth savers multi purpose association vs. denr sec. Elisea gozu, et al., 485 scra 586
Chico-Nazario, J.
1.
The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the State to condemn or to take
private property for public use upon payment of just compensation while police power is the
power of the state to promote public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and
property without compensation;
2.
In the exercise of police power, enjoyment of a property is restricted because the
continued use thereof would be injurious to public welfare. In such case, there is no compensable
taking provided none of the property interests is appropriated for the use or for the benefit of the
public. Otherwise, there should be compensable taking if it would result to public use.
3.
Properties condemned under police power are usually noxious or intended for noxious
purpose; hence , no compensation shall be paid. Likewise, in the exercise of police power,
property rights of private individuals are subjected to restraints and burdens in order to secure
the general comfort, health and prosperity of the state.
While the power of eminent domain often results in the appropriation of title to or possession of
property, it need not always be the case. Taking may include trespass without actual eviction of
the owner, material impairment of the value of the property or prevention of the ordinary uses for
which the property was intended such as the establishment of an easement.
As such, an imposition of burden over a private property through easement (by the government) is
considered taking; hence, payment of just compensation is required. The determination of just
compensation, however, is a judicial function (EPZA vs. Dulay, 149 SCRA 305) and initial
determinations on just compensation by the executive department and Congress cannot prevail
over the courts findings.

Finally, service contracts with foreign corporations is not prohibited under the 1987 Philippine
Constitution with foreign corporations or contractors would invest in and operate and manage
extractive enterprises, subject to the full control and supervision of the State; this time, however,
safety measures were put in place to prevent abuses of the past regime.
3.

Limitations in the exercise of said powers

4.

Tests for a valid exercise of police power

a.

the interests of the public, not mere particular class, require the exercise of police

power; (LAWFUL SUBJECT)

b.

the means employed is reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and

not unduly oppressive to individuals. (LAWFUL MEANS). In short, the end does not justify the
means.
5.

Read:

a.

JMM Promotions vs. CA, 260 SCRA 319

b.

ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL VS. MAYOR OF MANILA, July 31, 1967;

c.

ICHONG VS. HERNANDEZ, 101 Phil. 1155

d.

CHURCHILL VS. RAFFERTY, 32 Phil. 580

e.

PEOPLE VS. POMAR, 46 Phil. 447

f.

US VS. TORIBIO, 15 Phil. 85

g.

VELASCO VS. VILLEGAS, February 13, 1983

h.

ILOILO ICE & COLD STORAGE VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, 24 Phil. 471

i.

AGUSTIN VS. EDU, 88 SCRA 195

j.

YNOT VS. IAC, 148 SCRA 659

RESTITUTO YNOT VS. THE ITERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, G.R. No. 74457,March 20, 1987

Cruz, J.
Facts:

1. On January, 13, 1984, Ynot transported six carabaos by using a pumpboat from Masbate to
Iloilo. The six carabaos, were, however, confiscated by the Police Station Commander of Baratoc
Nuevo, Iloilo for alleged violation of Executive Order No. 626-A which prohibits the inter-provincial
transporting of carabaos and carabeefs which does not comply with the provisions of
Executive No.626;
2. That Section 1 of the said law provides that henceforth, no carabaos regardless of age, sex
physical condition or purpose and no carabeef shall be transported from one province to another.
The carabao or carabeef transported in violation of the said law shall be subjected to confiscation
and forfeiture by the government to be distributed to charitable institution and similar institutions
as the Chairman of the National meat inspection Commission may see fit in the case of the
carabeef, and to deserving farmers through the dispersal of the Director of Animal Industry, in
the case of carabaos;
3. Ynot filed a suit for recovery and the carabao were returned to him upon the issuance of a
writ of replevin upon his filing of a supersede as bond in the amount of P12,000.00;
4. After trial of the case, the Judge upheld the validity of the act of the Police Station
Commander in confiscating the carabaos. Ynot was ordered to returned the carabaos but since he
could not do so, the court ordered the confiscation of the bond. The court refused to rule on the
constitutionality of the said Executive Order on the ground of lack of authority to do so and also
because of its presumed validity;
5. The petitioner appealed to the IAC but the said court upheld the decision of the Trial Court.
Hence this petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court where YNOT claimed that
the penalty of confiscation is INVALID the same was imposed without according the owner the
right to be heard before a competent and impartial tribunal as guaranteed by due process.
Issues:
1. May a lower court (like the MTC, RTC, of the Court of Appeals) declare a law unconstitutional?
2. Is Executive Order No. 626-A constitutional?
Sub-issues under this are:
a. Was it a valid police power measure?
b. Was there an undue delegation of legislative power?
Held:

1. While the lower courts should observe a becoming modesty in examining constitutional
question, THEY ARE NOT PREVENTED FROM RESOLVING THE SAME WHENEVER WARRANTED, subject
only to review by the supreme court. This is so because under Section 5,[2(a)], Art. VIII, of the
1987 Constitution provides that the Supreme Court has the power to review, revise, reverse,
modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the rules of court may provide, final judgements and
orders of the lower courts in all cases involving the constitutionality of certain measures. This
simply means that lower courts may declare whether or not a law is constitutional.
2. In order that a measure or law may be justified under the police power of the state, it
must meet two tests:
a. the subject must be lawful; and
b. the means employed is lawful.
Since the prohibition of the slaughtering of carabaos except where they are at least 7 years old
when male and at least 11 years old when female is in furtherance of the public interest since said
carabaos are very useful to the work at the farm, it is conceded that the Executive Order meets
the first test- it has lawful subject.
But does the law meets the second requisite or test which is lawful method?
Executive Order No. 626-A imposes an absolute ban not on the slaughtering of carabaos BUT ON
THIER MOVEMENT, providing that no carabao regardless of age, sex, physical condition or purpose
and no carabeef shall be transported from one province to another. The reasonable connection
between the means employed and the purpose sought to be achieved by the question measure is
missing. We do not see how the prohibition of the inter-provincial transport can prevent their
indiscriminate slaughter considering that they can be killed any where, with no less difficulty in
one province than in the other. Obviously, retaining a carabao in one province will not prevent
their slaughter there, any more than moving them to another province will make it easier to kill
them there.
The law is unconstitutional because it struck at once and pounced upon the petitioner without
giving him a chance to be heard, thus denying him the centuries-old guarantee of elementary fair
play.
Since the Executive Order in question is a penal law, then violation thereof should be pronounce
not by the police BUT BY A COURT OF JUSTICE, WHICH ALONE WOULD HAVE HAD THE AUTHORITY
TO IMPOSE THE PRESCRIBED PENALTY, AND ONLY AFTER TRIAL AND CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED.
Also, there is no reasonable guidelines or bases of the Director of Animal Industry or the Chairman
of the NATIONAL Meat Inspection Commission in the disposition of the carabaos or carabeef other

than what they may see fit which is very dangerous and could result to opportunities for
partiality and abuse, and even graft and corruption.
The Executive Order is, therefore, invalid and unconstitutional and not a valid police power
measure because the METHOD EMPLOYED TO CONSERVE 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 (like the police) OF THE POWER TO ADJUDGE THE GUILT OF THE
SUPPOSED OFFENDER IS A CLEAR ENCROACHMENT OF JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS AND MILITATES AGAINST
THE DOCTRINE OF SEPARATIION OF POWERS.
Also, there is undue delegation of legislative power to the officers mentioned therein (Director of
Animal Industry and Head of the National Meat Commission) because they were given unlimited
discretion in the distribution of the property confiscated.
k.
l.

TAXICAB OPERATORS VS. BOT, 119 SCRA 597

BAUTISTA VS. JUINIO, 127 SCRA 329
MARY CONCEPCION-BAUTISTA VS. ALFREDO JUINIO, ET AL, 127 SCRA 329

Fernando, C.J
Facts:
1. On May 31, 1979, President Marcos issued Letter of Instruction No. 869 prohibiting the use of
private motor vehicles with H (Heavy Vehicles) and EH (Extra Heavy Vehicles) on week-ends and
holidays from 12:00 a.m. Saturday morning to 5:00 a.m. Monday morning, or 1:00 a.m. of the
holiday to 5:00 a.m. of the day after the holiday. Motor vehicles of the following classifications
are however, exempted:
1. S-service;
2. T-Truck;
3. DPLDiplomatic;
4. CCConsular Corps; and
5. TCTourist Cars

2. On June 11, 1979, the then Commissioner of Land Transportation, ROMEO EDU issued Circular
No. 39 imposing the penalties of fine, confiscation of vehicle and cancellation of registration on
owners of the above-specified found violating such letter of Instructions;
3. Bautista is questioning the constitutionality of the LOI and the Implementing Circular on the
grounds that:
a. The banning of H and EH vehicles is unfair, discriminatory, and arbitrary and thus contravenes
the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE; and
b. The LOI denies the owners of H and EH vehicles of due process, more specifically of their right
to use and enjoy their private property and of their freedom to travel and hold family gatherings,
reunions, outings on week-ends and holidays, while those not included in the prohibition are
enjoying unrestricted freedom;
c. The Circular violates the prohibition against undue delegation of legislative power because the
LOI does not impose the penalty of confiscation.
HELD:
1. It must be pointed out that the LOI was promulgated to solve the oil crisis which was besetting
the country at that time. It was therefore a valid police power measure to ensures the countrys
economy as a result of spiralling fuel prices. In the interplay of Bautistas right to due process and
the exercise of police power by the State, the latter must be given leeway. The police power is
intended to promote public health, public morals, public safety and general welfare.
2. The petitioners claim that their right to equal protection was violated is without basis. This is
so because there is a valid classification in this case. Definitely, Heavy and Extra-Heavy vehicles
consume more gasoline that the other kinds of vehicles and it is but proper to regulate the use of
those which consumes more gasoline. If all the owner of H and EH vehicles are treated in the same
fashion, or whatever restrictions cast on some in the group is held equally binding on the rest,
there is no violation of the equal protection clause.
3. The penalty of impounding the vehicle as embodied in Circular No. 39 has no statutory basis.
Therefore, it is not valid being an ultra vires.
m.
343

ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, 175 SCRA

n.

DECS VS. SAN DIEGO, 180 SCRA 533

o.

VILLANUEVA VS. CASTANEDA, September 21, 1987

5-a. Not a valid exercise of police power

CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY VS. ERICTA, 122 SCRA 759
Reference:
Constitutional Law Reviewer by Atty. Larry D. Gacayan (2008)
College of Law
University of the Cordilleras

THE FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

A.
Similarities, Distinctions and Limitations
Similarities: Police power, taxation, eminent domain1.They are inherent in the State and may be
exercised by itwithout the need of express constitutional
grant.2.They are notonly necessary but indispensable. The Statecannot continue or be effective
unless it is able to exercisethem.3.They are methods by which the State interferes with
privaterights.Differences1.The police power regulates both liberty and property. The powerof
imminent domain and the power of taxation affectonly property rights.2.The police power and the
power of taxation may beexercised only by the government. The power of eminentdomain may be exercised by
some private entities.3.The property taken in theexercise of the police power isdestroyed because it
is noxious or intended for a noxious purpose. The property taken under the power of taxation andimminent
domain is intended for a public use or purpose andis therefore wholesome.4.The compensation for the person
subjected to the police power is the intangible altruistic feeling that he hascontributed to the general
welfare. The compensationinvolved in the other powers is more concrete, to wit, a fulland fair equivalent
of the property expropriated orprotectionand public improvement for the taxes paid.
Police Power
Definition:

The power of the Stateto enact legislation which mayinterfere the rights ofliberty and property for
the promotion of the general welfare.

Police power, as an inherent attribute of sovereignty, isthe power vested by the Constitution in the legislature
tomake, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesomeand 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
thecommonwealth, and for the subjects of the same.(MMDA v. Garin).

It is embraced in the public welfare which police power tries to promote are public morals, public safety,
publichealth, general welfare,and economic security and prosperity.Scope:T h i s i s t h e m o s t
pervasive
, the
least limitable
and the most
demanding

of the three powers of the state.(Ynot v. IAC)Characteristic:1.Police power cannot be bargained

away through themedium of a treatyor a contract. (Ichong v. Hernandez)2.Taxing power may be
used as an implement of police power. Stated otherwise, police power may use thetaxing power of the
state to attain its purpose or objective. (Tio v. VTRB).3.Eminent domain may also be used as implement
of police power. (Association of Small Landowners vs.Secretary of Agrarian Reform)

THE THREE INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE

POLICE POWER
It is the sovereign power to promote and protect the general
welfare. It is the most pervasive and the least limitable of the
three powers of the state, the most essential, consistent and
illimitable which enables the State to prohibit all hurtful things to
the comfort, safety and welfare of the society.
It also refers to the power vested in the legislature by the
Constitution to make, ordain, establish all manner of wholesome
and reasonable laws, statutes, or ordinances, either with
penalties, or without, nor repugnant to the constitution, as they
shall be judge to be for the good and welfare of the state and the
subjects.
Police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It can
exist even without reservation in the constitution. It is based on
necessity as without it, there can be no effective government. It is
also referred to as the law of overwhelming necessity.
What is the basis of the exercise of the police power of the state?
The exercise of police power is founded on the basic principles of
salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the people is the
supreme law) and sic utere tu et alienum non laedas (so use your
property so as not to impair another)
Who has the ultimate power to determine the necessity and the
means of exercising the police power of the state?
Congress has the ultimate power, because it is the judge of
necessity, adequacy, reasonableness and wisdom of any law. The
congress is the constitutional repository of police power and
exercise the prerogative of determining the policy of the state.
Limitations in the exercise of Police power

1. Due process clause

2. Equal protection clause
The basic purposes of Police Power are:
1. To serve the general welfare, comfort and convenience of the
people;
2. To promote and preserve public health;
3. To promote and protect public safety;
4. To maintain and safeguard public order;
5. To protect public morals; and
6. To promote the economic security of the people.
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
It is an inherent power of the state that enables it to forcibly
acquire private property, which is intended for public use, upon
the payment of just compensation. It is based on political
necessity; it is inseparable from the state unless it is denied to it
by its fundamental law.
Condemnation of private property is justified only if it is for
the public good character. It is the courts of law that have the
power to determine whether there is necessity therefore. Also
called the power of expropriation, eminent domain is described as
the highest and most exact idea of property remaining in the
government that may be acquired for some public purpose
through a method in the nature of a compulsory sale to the
state.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Who may exercise the Power of Eminent domain?

The Congress
The President
The local legislative bodies
Certain public corporations (e.g. Land Authority and the MWSS)
Quasi-public corporations (e.g. PLDT and Meralco)

What are the requisites in exercising the power of eminent

domain?
1. The property taken must be private property;
2. The taking must be within constitutional sense;

3. The taking must be for public use

4. Just compensation must be paid;
5. There must be due process of law.

1.
2.
3.
4.

The following essential requisites must concur before an LGU can

exercise the power of eminent domain:
An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council
authorizing the local chief executive to exercise the power of
eminent domain;
It is exercised for the public use, purpose and welfare;
There must be payment of just compensation; and
A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner
of the property south to be expropriated.
Taking may not only include the import of a physical
possession of the owner, as when he is ousted from his land or
relieved of his watch or car but also covers trespass without
actual eviction of the owner, material impairment of the value of
the property or prevention of the ordinary uses for which the
property was intended.

The following cases constitute taking:

Where a farmland is inundated because of the construction of a
damn nearby, the owner who is prevented from planting on the
land.
Where government planes fly over private property at such a low
altitude as to practically touch the tops of the trees.
A municipal ordinance prohibiting construction of any building
that would destroy the view of the plaza from the highway.
Query: A building which is on the verge of collapse was ordered to
be demolished. The owner objected thereto since the demolition
constitutes taking without payment of just compensation. Is the
contention of the owner correct?
Answer: No, the demolition of the building is done in the exercise
of police power. It is intended to further the interest of the public
as the structure is susceptible to harm the public, in case it
collapses. Hence, the owner is not entitled to compensation.

Query: An ordinance was passed requiring private cemeteries to

reserve 6% of their total areas for the burial paupers. The owners
of the private cemeteries demand payment of just compensation
because the ordinance sought to deprive them of their property.
However, the city invoked that such ordinance was done in the
exercise of their police power under the general welfare clause. Is
the argument of the city tenable?
Answer: No, although there was taking of private property for
public use, nevertheless, it was done without payment of just
compensation. Hence, it violates the principles governing eminent
domain. The taking of property under the police power is sought
to be destroyed.
Just compensation is the full and fair equivalent of the property
taken from the private owner by the expropriator. The measure of
this compensation is not the takers gain but the owners loss.
POWER OF TAXATION
It is the inherent power of the state to raise revenues to
defray the expenses of the government or for any public purpose.
This can be done through the imposition of burdens or imposition
on persons, properties, services, occupations or transactions.
The importance of taxation derives from the unavoidable
obligation of the government to protect the people and extend
them benefits in the form of public projects and services. Taxation
is based on necessity and the reciprocal duties of protection and
support between the state and those that are subject to its
authority.
Who may exercise the power of taxation?
It is the Congress who exercises the plenary power to tax.
However, it may be delegated by congress to local government
units under such terms and conditions as may prescribed by law.
The following are the requisites or limitations on the power to tax:
1. Public purpose;
2. Territoriality;
3. Uniformity;

4. Due process and equal protection clause;

5. Constitutionally exempt properties cannot be taxed;
6. In the assessment and collection of certain kinds of taxes, notice
and opportunity for hearing must be provided.
The power of eminent domain involves the power and right of the state (through its
government) to appropriate or take private property to be used for a public purpose. This
process of taking is popularly known as expropriation. A compulsory sale to the government,
it places a limitation on ones property rights. That is why, before the government can
validly take any private property, it must comply with strict legal requirements. This is in
accord with the Constitution which says: no person shall be deprived of property without
due process of law.pinoylegal
The following are the basic limitations on the exercise of this power:
1) It must be for a public purpose; www.pinoylegal.com
2) There must be a necessity for its exercise, which should be genuine and public in character;
and
3) The owner of the private property must be paid just compensation.
But for local government units (province, city, municipality or barangay), the requirements are
more specific.
1) There must be an ordinance enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief
executive, in behalf of the LGU, to pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular private
property. pinoylegal
2) It is exercised for public purpose, use or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the
landless.
3) There is payment of just compensation. www.pinoylegal.com
4) A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner but it was rejected.
5) It must be in accordance with RA 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992),
specifically:
a) Section 9: In the order of priority in the acquisition of land, privately-owned land ranks last.
b) Section 10: As to the modes of land acquisition, expropriation should be used only when
other modes (joint venture agreement or negotiated purchase) have been
exhausted.pinoylegal

Eminent domain (United States, the Philippines), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New
Zealand, Ireland), resumption (Hong Kong), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia),
or expropriation (France, Mexico, South Africa, Canada, Brazil, Portugal) is the power of a state or
a national government to take private property for public use. However, it can be legislatively
delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or
corporations, when they are authorized to exercise the functions of public character.[1]
The property may be taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties, who will
devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, to economic development. The most common uses
of property taken by eminent domain are for government buildings and other facilities, public utilities,

highways and railroads, or for public safety. Some jurisdictions require that the acquirer make an
offer to purchase the subject property, before resorting to the use of eminent domain.

I. 1987 Constitution
The 1987 Philippine Constitution sets limitations on the exercise of the power to tax.
The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a
progressive system of taxation. (Article VI, Section 28, paragraph 1)
All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special
fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund was
created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the
general funds of the Government. (Article VI, Section 29, paragraph 3)
The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and
subject to such limitations and restriction as it may impose, tariff rates, import and
export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the
framework of the national development program of the Government (Article VI, Section
28, paragraph 2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items
in an appropriation, revenue or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to
which he does not object. (Article VI, Section 27, second paragraph)
The Supreme Court shall have the power to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on
appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and
orders of lower courts in x x x all cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll or any penalty imposed in relation thereto. (Article VIII, Section 5,
paragraph)
Tax exemptions are limited to those granted by law. However, no law granting any tax
exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the members of
the Congress. (Article VI, Section 28, par. 4). The Constitution expressly grants tax
exemption on certain entities/institutions such as (1) charitable institutions, churches,
parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, and nonprofit cemeteries and
all lands, buildings and improvements actually, directly and exclusively used for

religious, charitable or educational purposes (Article VI, Section 28, paragraph 3); (2)
non-stock non-profit educational institutions used actually, directly and exclusively for
educational purposes. (Article XVI, Section 4(3))
In addition to national taxes, the Constitution provides for local government taxation.
(Article X, Section 5) (Article X, Section 6) Parenthetically, the Local Government Code
provides that all local government units are granted general tax powers, as well as other
revenue-raising powers like the imposition of service fees and charges, in addition to
those specifically granted to each of the local government units. But no such taxes, fees
and charges shall be imposed without a public hearing having been held prior to the
enactment of the ordinance. The levy must not be unjust excessive, oppressive,
confiscatory or contrary to a declared national economic policy (Section 186 and 187)
Further, there are common limitations to the grant of the power to tax to the local
government, such that taxes like income tax, documentary stamp tax, etc. cannot be
imposed by the local government.

Inherent Powers of the Government

Power of Eminent Domain - 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.

Police Power is the power of the government to regulate behaviors and enforce order within its territory,
often framed in terms of public welfare, security, health, and safety. The exercise of police power can be in
the form of making laws, compelling obedience to those laws through physical means with the aim of
removing liberty, legal sanctions, or other forms of coercion and inducements.

Power of Taxation the power to impose and collect taxes and charges on individuals, goods, services,
and other to support the operation of the government.

Funds provided by taxation have been used by states and their functional equivalents throughout history
to carry out many functions. Some of these include expenditures on war, the enforcement of law and
public order, protection of property, economic infrastructure (roads, legal tender, enforcement of
contracts, etc.), public works, social engineering, and the operation of government itself. Governments

also use taxes to fund welfare and public services. These services can include education systems, health
care systems, pensions for the elderly, unemployment benefits, and public transportation. Energy, water
and waste management systems are also common public utilities.

Eminent domain example

Dear PAO,
The government is buying my uncles land for its project. Can this be validly done? How can the
owners be sure that they are being paid correctly?
Al
Dear Al,
By virtue of the power of eminent domain, the government, as a sovereign, has the authority to take
private property for public use upon observance of due process of law and payment of just
compensation (NPC vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106804, August 12, 2004 citing Visayan Refining
Co. v. Camus, 40 Phil. 550). For purposes of taking private properties, the term national government
projects shall refer to all national government structure, engineering works and service contracts,
including projects undertaken by government-owned and controlled corporations, all projects
covered by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6957, as amended by R.A. No. 7718 or the Build-Operate-and
Transfer law, and other related and necessary activities, such as site acquisition, supply and/or
installation of equipment and materials, implementation, construction, completion, operation,
maintenance, improvement, repair, and rehabilitation, regardless of the source of funding (Section 2,
RA No. 8974). The government may acquire private properties through donation, negotiated sale,
expropriation or any other mode of acquisition as provided by law (Section 3, RA No. 8974).
Article III, Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right of every owner whose land is being
taken for public use to be paid with just compensation. In case the government agency and the
owner of the property agree on a negotiated sale of the property, the just compensation to be paid to
the owner shall be based on the fair market value of the property. The following factors are
considered in determining just compensation: 1) the classification and use for which the property is
suited; 2) the developmental cost for improving the land; 3) the value declared by the owners; 4) the
current selling price of similar lands in the vicinity; 5) the reasonable disturbance compensation for
the removal and/or demolition of certain improvement on the land and for the value of improvements
thereon; 6) the size, shape or location, tax declaration and zonal valuation of the land; 7) the price of
the land as manifested in the ocular findings, oral as well as documentary evidence presented; and
8) such facts and events as to enable the affected property owners to have sufficient funds to
acquire similarly-situated lands of approximate areas as those required from them by the
government, and thereby rehabilitate themselves as early as possible (Section 5, RA 8974).

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based
solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when
other facts are changed or elaborated.