You are on page 1of 1

police power

salus populi est suprema lex,


Police power cannot be bargained away through the medium of a
treaty or a contract Ichong v. Hernandez
Eminent domain may be used as an implement to attain the police
objective [Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
“Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003”When conditions so demand, as determined by the
legislature, property rights must bow to the primacy of police power because
property rights, though sheltered by the due process clause, must yield to the
general welfare
Who may exercise the power. The power is inherently vested in the
Legislature. However, Congress may validly delegate this power to the President,
to administrative bodies and to lawmaking bodies of local government units. Local
government units exercise the power under the general welfare clause.
Limitations (Tests for Valid Exercise):
a) Lawful subject:Theinterestsofthepublicinqeneral.asdistinquished
from those of a particular class, require the exercise of the power.
This means that the activity or property sought to be regulated affects the general welfare
b. Lawful Means: The means employed are reasonably necessary for
the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive on individuals.
The proper exercise of the police power requires compliance
with the following requisites:
(a) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the intereference by the State;
and
(b) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the attainment of the object sought and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals.
Additional Limitations [When exercised by delegate]:
a) Express grant by law [ for local government units]
b) Within territorial limits [for local government units, except when exercised to protect water supply],
c) Must not be contrary to law. [an activity allowed by law may be regulated, but
not prohibited.

eminent domain
The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the State to
condemn private property to public use upon payment of just compensation.
without just compensation”, merely imposes a limit on the government’s exercise of this power and provides a measure of
protection to the individual’s right to property
the court is duty bound to determine the amount of just compensation to be paid for the property
Who may exercise the power. Congress and, by delegation, the President, administrative bodies, local government units, and
even private enterprises performing public services
failed to prove that before it filed its complaint,
it made a written, definite and valid offer to acquire the property, as required under Sec. 19, R.A. 7160 [Jesus is Lord Christian
School Foundation v.Municipality of Pasig,
Requisites for exercise:
a) Necessity
i) When the power is exercised by the Legislature, the question of
necessity is generally a political question [Municipality of Meycauayan, Bulacan v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, 157 SCRA 640];
but when exercised by a delegate,
the determination of whether there is genuine necessity for the exercise is a
justiciable question [Republic v. La Orden de Po. Benedictinos
The issue of the necessity of the expropriation is a matter properly addressed to the RTC in the course of the expropriation
proceedings. If the property owner objects to the necessity of the takeover. The RTC has the power to inquire
into the legality of the exercise of the right of eminent domain and to determine
whether there is a genuine necessity for it
The foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is genuine necessity and that necessity must be of public character
Private property already devoted to public use cannot be expropriated by a delegate of legislature acting under a general grant
of authority
[City of Manila v. Chinese Community
Even services may be subject to eminent domain [Republic v. PLDT,