Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A COMPILATION OF
POLICE POWER
DIGEST CASES FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
2014006964
Valeriano, Iris Y. Sanchez
09168649597
Page 2 of 18
POLICE POWER CASES
Table of Contents
Case Title
Page
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
14
15
17
Page 3 of 18
POLICE POWER CASES
Binay v. Domingo
Facts: Resolution 60 confirming the ongoing burial assistance program initiated by the
mayors office. Under this program, bereaved families whose gross family income does not
exceed 2k/month will receive a 500php cash relief to be taken out of unappropriated
available funds existing in the municipal treasury. The Metro Manila Commission approved
Resolution 60. Thereafter, the municipal secretary certified a disbursement of P400,000 for the
implementation of the Burial Assistance Program. R 60 was referred to the Commission on
Audit for its expected allowance in audit. Based on its preliminary findings, COA disapproved
R 60 and disallowed in audit the disbursement of funds for the implementation thereof. The
program was stayed by COA Decision No. 1159.
Issues:
WON R 60 is a valid exercise of police power under the general welfare clause.
Held:
YES.
Police power is inherent in the state but not in municipal corporations. Before a municipal
corporation may exercise such power, there must be a valid delegation of such power by
the legislature which is the repository of the inherent powers of the State. A valid delegation
of police power may arise from express delegation, or be inferred from the mere fact of the
creation of the municipal corporation; and as a general rule, municipal corporations may
exercise police powers within the fair intent and purpose of their creation which are
reasonably proper to give effect to the powers expressly granted, and statutes conferring
powers on public corporations have been construed as empowering them to do the things
essential to the enjoyment of life and desirable for the safety of the people.
Municipal governments exercise this power under the general welfare clause: authority to
"enact such ordinances and issue such regulations as may be necessary to carry out and
discharge the responsibilities conferred upon it by law, and such as shall be necessary and
proper to provide for the health, safety, comfort and convenience, maintain peace and
order, improve public morals, promote the prosperity and general welfare of the municipality
and the inhabitants thereof, and insure the protection of property therein."
Sec 7 of BP 337: every LGU shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily
implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary and proper for governance such as to
promote health and safety, enhance prosperity, improve morals, and maintain peace and
order in the LGU, and preserve the comfort and convenience of the inhabitants therein."
Police power: power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace,
education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people. It is the most essential,
insistent, and illimitable of powers; greatest and most powerful attribute of the government;
elastic and must be responsive to various social conditions.
COA: there is no perceptible connection or relation between the objective sought to be
attained under R 60 and the alleged public safety, general welfare. etc. of the inhabitants of
Makati
Page 4 of 18
POLICE POWER CASES
Apparently, COA tries to re-define the scope of police power by circumscribing its exercise
to "public safety, general welfare, etc. of the inhabitants of Makati ."
Police power of a municipal corporation: broad, and has been said to be commensurate
with, but not to exceed, the duty to provide for the real needs of the people in their health,
safety, comfort, and convenience as consistently as may be with private rights. It extends to
all the great public needs, and, in a broad sense includes all legislation and almost every
function of the municipal government. It covers a wide scope of subjects, and, while it is
especially occupied with whatever affects the peace, security, health, morals, and general
welfare of the community, it is not limited thereto, but is broadened to deal with conditions
which exists so as to bring out of them the greatest welfare of the people by promoting
public convenience or general prosperity, and to everything worthwhile for the preservation
of comfort of the inhabitants of the corporation. Thus, it is deemed inadvisable to attempt to
frame any definition which shall absolutely indicate the limits of police power.
COA is not attuned to the changing of the times. Public purpose is not unconstitutional
merely because it incidentally benefits a limited number of persons. OSG: "the drift is towards
social welfare legislation geared towards state policies to provide adequate social services
(Section 9, Art. II, Constitution), the promotion of the general welfare (Section 5, Ibid) social
justice (Section 10, Ibid) as well as human dignity and respect for human rights. (Section 11,
Ibid."
The care for the poor is generally recognized as a public duty. The support for the poor has
long been an accepted exercise of police power in the promotion of the common good.
There is no violation of the equal protection clause in classifying paupers as subject of
legislation. Paupers may be reasonably classified. Different groups may receive varying
treatment. Precious to the hearts of our legislators, down to our local councilors, is the
welfare of the paupers. Thus, statutes have been passed giving rights and benefits to the
disabled, emancipating the tenant-farmer from the bondage of the soil, housing the urban
poor, etc.
The resolution is a paragon of the continuing program of our government towards social
justice. The Burial Assistance Program is a relief of pauperism, though not complete. The loss
of a member of a family is a painful experience, and it is more painful for the poor to be
financially burdened by such death. Resolution No. 60 vivifies the very words of the late
President Ramon Magsaysay 'those who have less in life, should have more in law."
Page 5 of 18
POLICE POWER CASES
Page 6 of 18
POLICE POWER CASES
Page 7 of 18
POLICE POWER CASES
Page 8 of 18
POLICE POWER CASES
Page 9 of 18
POLICE POWER CASES
Page 10 of 18
POLICE POWER CASES
TAXICAB OPERATORS OF METRO MANILA, INC vs. THE BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION (1982)
On October 10, 1977, BOT issued Memorandum Circular No. 77-42 that aimed to phase
out and replace old dilapidated taxis to insure only safe comfortable units are used by the
public, to respond to complaints by metro manila residents regarding the old dilapidated
taxis, to make the commuting public more comfortable, have more convenience and
safety. 6 years is enough for taxi operators to get back cost of unit plus profits. No car
beyond 6 years can still be operated as taxi.
Taxis model 1971 were considered withdrawn on Dec 31, 1977, applied it to succeeding
years just add one year to both dates. They had to surrender the expired taxis plates to the
BoT for turnover to Land Transpo Commission.
Pursuant to the above BOT circular, respondent Director of the Bureau of Land
Transportation (BLT) issued Implementing Circular No. 52, dated August 15, 1980, instructing
the Regional Director, the MV Registrars and other personnel of BLT, all within the NCR, to
implement the phasing out of the taxis.
On January 27, 1981, petitioners filed a Petition with the BOT, docketed as Case No. 807553, seeking to nullify MC No. 77-42 or to stop its implementation; to allow the registration
and operation in 1981 and subsequent years of taxicabs of model 1974, as well as those of
earlier models which were phased-out, provided that, at the time of registration, they are
roadworthy and fit for operation.
The issues were in the form of questions that the petitioners presented to the SC through a
query.
A.
Did BOT and BLT promulgate the questioned memorandum circulars in accord with the
manner required by Presidential Decree No. 101, thereby safeguarding the petitioners'
constitutional right to procedural due process?
B.
Granting, arguendo, that respondents did comply with the procedural requirements
imposed by Presidential Decree No. 101, would the implementation and enforcement of the
assailed memorandum circulars violate the petitioners' constitutional rights to.
(1) Equal protection of the law;
(2) Substantive due process; and
(3) Protection against arbitrary and unreasonable classification and standard?
Page 11 of 18
POLICE POWER CASES
HELD:
The court here did not answer the queries directly they just dealt with the ff issues
1.
2.
WON the procedural and substantive due process rights of the taxi operators were
violated NO.
WON their equal protection rights were violated NO.
PET claim that they were denied due process because they were not asked to submit
position papers or to attend conferences regarding the assailed circ.
SC held that the PD provides a wide leeway as to how the board will choose to gather data
in formulating its policy. NOT ALL OPTIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE DONE FOR POLICY TO BE
VALID the board has the choice of which avenue to pursue in collecting data.
PET also claim that 6 year limit was arbitrarily set oppressive they want each taxi cab
to be inspected regarding their condition WON it was still safe and roadworthy despite age.
Page 12 of 18
POLICE POWER CASES
Court held that their proposed standard is not practicable and can open the door to
multiple standards and corruption
Court furthers aid that 6 years is a reasonable time based on experience and based on cost
and fair returns on the units
CONCLUSIONS:
Manila has more traffic which means that taxis in Metro Manila are more heavily used and
more likely to deteriorate.
The public has a right to convenience, comfort and safety in their public commute.
The danger posed by the dilapidated and old taxis is a valid nuisance that the Board can
abate through the circular that it passed.
Absent a clear showing of any repugnancy of the circular it is deemed valid.
Petition DISMISSED
Page 13 of 18
POLICE POWER CASES
Page 14 of 18
POLICE POWER CASES
Page 15 of 18
POLICE POWER CASES
Page 16 of 18
POLICE POWER CASES
municipal waters which allows the establishment of "closed seasons." The second objective
(to protect the coral in the marine waters of the City of Puerto Princesa and the Province of
Palawan from further destruction due to illegal fishing activities) falls within both the general
welfare clause of the LGC and the express mandate thereunder to cities and provinces
to protect the environment and impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the
environment.
Page 17 of 18
POLICE POWER CASES
Ermita Malate Hotel & Motel Operators Association v. City of Manila [GR L-24693, 31 July
1967]
En Banc, Fernando (J): 7 concur, 2 on leave
Facts: On 13 June 1963, Ordinance 4760 was issued by the municipal board of the City of
Manila and approved by Vice Mayor Herminio Astorga, who was at the time acting Mayor
of the City of Manila.
The ordinance
(1) imposes a P6,000.00 fee per annum for first class motels and P4,500.00 for second class
motels;
(2) requires the owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of a hotel, motel,
or lodging house to refrain from entertaining or accepting any guest or customer or letting
any room or other quarter to any person or persons without his filling up the prescribed form
in a lobby open to public view at all times and in his presence, wherein the surname, given
name and middle name, the date of birth, the address, the occupation, the sex, the
nationality, the length of stay and the number of companions in the room, if any, with the
name, relationship, age and sex would be specified, with data furnished as to his residence
certificate as well as his passport number, if any, coupled with a certification that a person
signing such form has personally filled it up and affixed his signature in the presence of such
owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized representative, with such registration forms and
records kept and bound together;
(3) provides that the premises and facilities of such hotels, motels and lodging houses would
be open for inspection either by the City Mayor, or the Chief of Police, or their duly
authorized representatives.
The ordinance also classified motels into two classes and required the maintenance of
certain minimum facilities in first class motels such as a telephone in each room, a dining
room or restaurant and laundry;
while second class motels are required to have a dining room.
It prohibited a person less than 18 years old from being accepted in such hotels, motels,
lodging houses, tavern or common inn unless accompanied by parents or a lawful guardian
and made it unlawful for the owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of
such establishments to lease any room or portion thereof more than twice every 24 hours. It
provided a penalty of automatic cancellation of the license of the offended party in case of
conviction. On 5 July 1963, the Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association
(EMHMOA), its member Hotel del Mar, and a certain Go Chiu filed a petition for prohibition
against the mayor of the City of Manila in his capacity as he is charged with the general
power and duty to enforce ordinances of the City of Manila and to give the necessary
orders for the faithful execution and enforcement of such ordinances. There was a plea for
the issuance of preliminary injunction and for a final judgment declaring the above
ordinance null and void and unenforceable. The lower court on 6 July 1963 issued a writ of
preliminary injunction ordering the Mayor to refrain from enforcing said Ordinance
4760 from and after 8 July 1963. After the submission of the memoranda, ruled that the City
of Manila lack authority to regulate motels and rendering Ordinance 4760 unconstitutional
and therefore null and void. It made permanent the preliminary injunction issued by the
Page 18 of 18
POLICE POWER CASES
Mayor and his agents to restrain him from enforcing the ordinance. The Mayor of Manila
appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether the regulations imposed on motels and hotels (increasing license fees,
partially restricting the freedom to contract, and restraining the liberty of individuals) is valid
and/or constitutional.
Held: Yes. The ordinance was enacted to minimize certain practices hurtful to public morals.
It was made as there is observed an alarming increase in the rate of prostitution, adultery
and fornication in Manila traceable in great part to the existence of motels, which provide a
necessary atmosphere for clandestine entry, presence and exit and thus become the ideal
haven for prostitutes and thrill seekers. The ordinance proposes to check the clandestine
harboring of transients and guests of these establishments by requiring these transients and
guests to fill up a registration form, prepared for the purpose, in a lobby open to public view
at all times, and by introducing several other amendatory provisions calculated to shatter
the privacy that characterizes the registration of transients and guests. The increase in the
license fees was intended to discourage establishments of the kind from operating for
purpose other than legal and to increase the income of the city government. Further, the
restriction on the freedom to contract, insofar as the challenged ordinance makes it
unlawful for the owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of any hotel,
motel, lodging house, tavern, common inn or the like, to lease or rent any room or portion
thereof more than twice every 24 hours, with a proviso that in all cases full payment shall be
charged, cannot be viewed as a transgression against the command of due process. It is
neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. Precisely it was intended to curb the opportunity for the
immoral or illegitimate use to which such premises could be, and, are being devoted.
Furthermore, the right of the individual is necessarily subject to reasonable restraint by
general law for the common good. The liberty of the citizen may be restrained in the interest
of the public health, or of the public order and safety, or otherwise within the proper scope
of the police power. State in order to promote the general welfare may interfere with
personal liberty, with property, and with business and occupations. Persons and property
may be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general
comfort, health, and prosperity of the state.