3 Inherent Powers of the State: 1. Police Power; 2. Power of Eminent Domain or Power of Expropriation; and 3.

Power of Taxation Purpose: 1. for public good or welfare - Police Power 2. for public use - Power of Eminent Domain 3. for revenue - Power of Taxation 1. POLICE POWER is the power of promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of both liberty and property of all the people. It is considered to be the most all-encompassing of the three powers. It may be exercised only by the government. The property taken in the exercise of this power is destroyed because it is noxious or intended for a noxious purpose. It lies primarily in the discretion of the legislature. Hence, the President, and administrative boards as well as the lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels, including the barangay may not exercise it without a valid delegation of legislative power. Municipal governments exercise this power by virtue of the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code of 1991. Even the courts cannot compel the exercise of this power through mandamus or any judicial process. Requisites of a valid police measure: (a.) Lawful Subject the activity or property sought to be regulated affects the public welfare. It requires the primacy of the welfare of the many over the interests of the few. (b.) Lawful Means the means employed must be reasonable and must conform to the safeguards guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. 2. POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN affects only property RIGHTS. It may be exercised by some private entities. The property forcibly taken under this power, upon payment of just compensation, is needed for conversion to public use or purpose. The taking of property in law 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. The property that may be subject for appropriation shall not be limited to private property. Public property may be expropriated provided there is a SPECIFIC grant of authority to the delegate. Money and a chose in action are the only things exempt from expropriation. Although it is also lodged primarily in the national legislature, the courts have the power to inquire the legality of the right of eminent domain and to determine whether or not there is a genuine necessity therefore. 3. POWER OF TAXATION affects only property rights and may be exercised only by the government. The property taken under this power shall likewise be intended for a public use or purpose. It is used solely for the purpose of raising revenues, to protect the people and extend them benefits in the form of public projects and services (I hope so). Hence, it cannot be allowed to be confiscatory, except if it is intended for destruction as an instrument of the police power. It must conform to the requirements of due process. Therefore, taxpayers are entitled to be notified of the assessment proceedings and to be heard therein on the correct valuation to be given the property. It is also subject to the general requirements of the equal protection clause that the rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable.
Regalian Doctrine All lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land. All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.[1] All lands not otherwise clearly appearing to be privately-owned are presumed to belong to the State.[2]

TAKE NOTE THAT THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE IS ENSHRINED IN OUR PRESENT AND PAST CONSTITUTIONS THE 1987 CONSTITUTION PROVIDES UNDER NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY THE FOLLOWING > Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant. > The abovementioned provision provides that except for agricultural lands for public domain which alone may be alienated, forest or timber, and mineral lands, as well as all other natural resources must remain with the State, the exploration, development and utilization of which shall be subject to its full control and supervision albeit allowing it to enter into coproduction, joint venture or production-sharing agreements, or into agreements with foreignowned corporations involving technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization THE 1987 PROVISION HAD ITS ROOTS IN THE 1935 CONSTITUTION WHICH PROVIDES > Section 1. All agricultural timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State, and their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution. Natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploitation, development, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twentyfive years, renewable for another twenty-five years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, in which cases beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant. THE 1973 CONSTITUTION REITERATED THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE AS FOLLOWS > Section 8. All lands of public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State. With the exception of agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, or resettlement lands of the public domain, natural resources shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploration, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twentyfive years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than development of water power, in which cases, beneficial use may by the measure and the limit of the grant. THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE DOESN'T NEGATE NATIVE TITLE. THIS IS IN PURSUANCE TO WHAT HAS BEEN HELD IN CRUZ V. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES > Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Indigenous Peoples Rights Act on the ground that it amounts to an unlawful deprivation of the State s ownership over lands of the public domain and all other natural resources therein, by recognizing the right of ownership of ICC or IPs to their ancestral domains and ancestral lands on the basis of native title. > As the votes were equally divided, the necessary majority wasn t obtained and petition was dismissed and the law s validity was upheld > Justice Kapunan: Regalian theory doesn t negate the native title to lands held in private ownership since time immemorial, adverting to the landmark case of CARINO V. LOCAL GOVERNMENT, where the US SC through Holmes held: xxx the land has been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to have been held in the same way from before the Spanish conquest, and never to have been public land. > Existence of native titie to land, or ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of possession under a claim of ownership since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish crown as an exception to the theory of jure regalia > Justice Puno: Carino case firmly established a concept of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State and was based on the strong mandate extended to the Islands via the Philippine Bill of 1902. The IPRA recognizes the existence of ICCs/IPs as a distinct sector in the society. It grants this people the ownership and possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral lands and defines the extent of these lands and domains > Justice Vitug: Carino cannot override the collective will of the people expressed in the Constitution. > Justice Panganiban: all Filipinos, whether indigenous or not, are subject to the Constitution, and that no one is exempt from its allencompassing provisions

WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF JURE REGALIA? (REGALIAN DOCTRINE) > Generally, under this concept, private title to land must be traced to some grant, express or implied, from the Spanish Crown or its successors, the American Colonial Government, and thereafter, the Philippine Republic > In a broad sense, the term refers to royal rights, or those rights to which the King has by virtue of his prerogatives > The theory of jure regalia was therefore nothing more than a natural fruit of conquest CONNECTED TO THIS IS THE STATE S POWER OF DOMINUUM > Capacity of the state to own or acquire property foundation for the early Spanish decree embracing the feudal theory of jura regalia > This concept was first introduced through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas > The Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of discovery and conquest. Consequently, all lands became the exclusive patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown. > The Law of the Indies was followed by the Ley Hipotecaria or the Mortgage Law of 1893. This law provided for the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as possessory claims > The Maura Law: was partly an amendment and was the last Spanish land law promulgated in the Philippines, which required the adjustment or registration of all agricultural lands, otherwise the lands shall revert to the State