INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE
POLICE POWER
§ Requisites
1- LAWFUL SUBJECT: The interests of the public
generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the
exercise of the police power
2- LAWFUL MEANS: The means employed are reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals
§ MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association,
Inc., 328 SCRA 836, March 27, 2000 , 1st Div. [Puno]
Police power is
an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It
has been defined as the power vested by the Constitution in the legislature to
make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and 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 the
commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same.
It bears
stressing that police power is lodged primarily in the National Legislature.
It cannot be exercised by any group or body of individuals not
possessing legislative power. The National Legislature, however, may
delegate this power to the President and administrative boards as well as the
lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or local government units.
Once delegated, the agents can exercise only such legislative powers as
are conferred on them by the national lawmaking body.
§ Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. v. CA, 329
SCRA 314, March 31, 2000 ,
En Banc [Purisima]
The
scope of police power has been held to be so comprehensive as to encompass
almost all matters affecting the health, safety, peace, order, morals, comfort
and convenience of the community. Police
power is essentially regulatory in nature and the power to issue licenses or
grant business permits, if exercised for a regulatory and not revenue-raising
purpose, is within the ambit of this power.
§ Philtread Workers Union
[PTWU] v. Confesor, 269 SCRA 393, March 12, 1997
Article 263(g) of the Labor Code (vesting upon the Secretary
of Labor the discretion to determine what industries are indispensable to the
national interest and thereafter, assume jurisdiction over disputes in said
industries)
does not
interfere with the workers’ right to strike but merely regulates it, when in
the exercise of such right, national interests will be affected. The rights granted by the Constitution are
not absolute. They are still subject to
control and limitation to ensure that they are not exercised arbitrarily. The interests of both the employers and the
employees are intended to be protected and not one of them is given undue
preference.
The Labor Code
vests upon the Secretary of Labor the discretion to determine what industries
are indispensable to national interest.
Thus, upon the determination of the Secretary of Labor that such
industry is indispensable to the national interest, it will assume jurisdiction
over the labor dispute of said industry.
The assumption of jurisdiction is in the nature of police power
measure. This is done for the promotion
of the common good considering that a prolonged strike or lockout can be
inimical to the national economy.
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
-
Who
May Exercise?
§ Heirs of Alberto Suguitan v. City of Mandaluyong March 14, 2000 ,
3rd Div. [Gonzaga-Reyes]
The exercise of the right of
eminent domain, whether directly by the State, or by its authorized agents, is
necessarily in derogation of private rights, and the rule in that case is that
the authority must be strictly construed.
No species of property is held by individuals with greater tenacity, and
none is guarded by the Constitution and the laws more sedulously, than the
right to the freehold of inhabitants.
When the legislature interferes with that right, and, for greater public
purposes, appropriates the land of ah individual without his consent, the plain
meaning of the law should not be enlarged by doubt[ful] interpretation.
-
Exercise
of Eminent Domain by LGUs
§ Municipality of Paranaque July 20, 1998
[Panganiban]
The power of eminent domain is lodged in the legislative
branch of government, which may delegate the exercise thereof to LGUs, other
public entities and public utilities. An LGU may therefore exercise the power
to expropriate private property only when authorized by Congress and subject to
the latter's control and restraints imposed "through the law conferring
the power or in other legislations." In this case, Section 19 of RA 7160,
which delegates to LGUs the power of eminent domain, also lays down the
parameters for its exercise.
Thus, the following essential requisites must concur
before an LGU can exercise the power of eminent domain:
1. An ordinance is enacted by the local
legislative council authorizing the local chief executive, in behalf of the
LGU, to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation
proceedings over a particular private property.
2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for
public use, purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the
landless.
3. There is payment of just compensation, as
required under Section 9, Article III of the Constitution, and other pertinent
laws.
4. A valid and definite offer has been
previously made to the owner of the property sought to be expropriated, but
said offer was not accepted.
In the case at bar, the local chief executive sought to
exercise the power of eminent domain pursuant to a resolution of the municipal
council. Thus, there was no compliance with the first requisite that the mayor
be authorized through an ordinance.
A municipal ordinance is different from a resolution. An
ordinance is a law, but a resolution is merely a declaration of the sentiment
or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter. An ordinance possesses a general and
permanent character, but a resolution is temporary in nature. Additionally, the
two are enacted differently — a third reading is necessary for an ordinance,
but not for a resolution, unless decided otherwise by a majority of all the
Sanggunian members.
-
Requisites
for Proper Exercise
1- Taking of private property
2- Public use/purpose
3- Payment of just compensation
4- Valid offer to buy and refusal of offer
Requisites for valid exercise by LGU
1- An ordinance must be enacted by the Sanggunian
authorizing the local chief executive to expropriate on behalf of the LGU.
2- The taking of the private property must be for a
public use/purpose, welfare or for the benefit of the poor and landless
3- Payment of just compensation
4- There must first be a valid and definite offer to
the owner of the property and said offer was refused.
-
“TAKING”
in the Constitutional Sense
May include trespass without actual eviction of the
owner, material impairment of the value of the property or prevention of the
ordinary uses fro which the property was intended. [notes]
Requisites for a valid taking:
1. Exproprietor must enter a private property
2. Entry must be for more than a momentary period
3. Entry must be under warrant or color of authority
4. Property must be devoted to public use or otherwise
informally appropriated or injuriously affected
5. Utilization of the property must be in such a way as
to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment
- “Taking” under Eminent Domain distinguished from “Taking” under the Police Power
§
PPI
v. COMELEC, [G.R. No.
119694. May 22, 1995 .]
To compel print media companies to donate
"Comelec space" of the dimensions specified in Section 2 of
Resolution No. 2722, amounts to "taking" of private personal property
for public use or purposes…xxx
The extent of the taking or
deprivation is not insubstantial; this is not a case of a de minimis temporary
limitation or restraint upon the use of private property. The monetary value of
the compulsory "donation," measured by the advertising rates
ordinarily charged by newspaper publishers whether in cities or in non-urban
areas, may be very substantial indeed. The taking of private property for public
use is, of course, authorized by the Constitution, but not without payment of
"just compensation" (Article III, Section 9). And apparently the
necessity of paying compensation for "Comelec space" is precisely
what is sought to be avoided by respondent Commission, whether Section 2 of
Resolution No. 2772 is read as petitioner PPI reads it, as an assertion of
authority to require newspaper publishers to "donate" free print
space for Comelec purposes, or as an exhortation, or perhaps an appeal, to
publishers to donate free print space, as Section 1 of Resolution No. 2772-A
attempts to suggest. The threshold requisites for a lawful taking of private
property for public use need to be examined here: one is the necessity for the
taking; another is the legal authority to effect the taking. The element of
necessity for the taking has not been shown by respondent Comelec…xxx
Similarly, it has not been
suggested, let alone demonstrated, that Comelec has been granted the power of
eminent domain either by the Constitution or by the legislative authority. A
reasonable relationship between that power and the enforcement and
administration of election laws by Comelec must be shown; it is not casually to
be assumed. . . . Section 2 does not constitute a valid exercise of the power
of eminent domain.
§ TELEBAP, Inc. v. COMELEC, 289
SCRA 337, April 21, 1998
[Mendoza
In truth, radio
and television broadcasting companies, which are given franchises, do not own
the airwaves and frequencies through which they transmit broadcast signals and
images. They are merely given the
temporary privilege of using them. Since
a franchise is a mere privilege, the exercise of the privilege may reasonably
be burdened with the performance by the grantee of some form of public service.
Consequently, “a
license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to
be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the
exclusion of his fellow citizens. There
is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the government from requiring
a licensee to share his frequency with others and to conduct himself as a proxy
or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are
representative of his community and which would otherwise, by necessity, be
barred from the airwaves.” As radio and television broadcast stations
do not own the airwaves, no private property is taken by the requirement that
they provide airtime to the Comelec.
-
Meaning
of “Public Use”
Traditional
Concept: The number of actual beneficiaries determines
public purpose. If the benefits redound
in favor of individuals, then the purpose is not public.
“Concept of
vicarious benefit”: Abandons the traditional concept. The purpose is public as long as the society
in general is indirectly benefited, i.e. conversion of a slum area into
a model housing community. There is a
vicarious advantage to the society.
§ Filstream International Incorporated
v. CA, 284 SCRA 716, Jan. 23, 1998 [Francisco]
The City of Manila
That only a few
could actually benefit from the expropriation of the property does not diminish
its public character. It is simply not
possible to provide all at once land and shelter for all who need them.
Through the
years, the public use requirement in eminent domain has evolved into a flexible
concept, influenced by changing conditions. Public use now includes the broader
notion of indirect public benefit or advantage, including in particular, urban
land reform and housing.
§ Estate of Salud Jimenez v. PEZA, 349
SCRA 240, Jan. 16, 2001 ,
2nd Div. [De Leon
In the exercise of eminent
domain, only as much land can be taken as is necessary for the legitimate
purpose of the condemnation. The term "necessary", in this connection,
does not mean absolutely indispensable but requires only a reasonable necessity
of the taking for the stated purpose, growth and future needs of the
enterprise. The respondent cannot attain a self-sustaining and viable ECOZONE
if inevitable needs in the expansion in the surrounding areas are hampered by
the mere refusal of the private landowners to part with their properties. The
purpose of creating an ECOZONE and other facilities is better served if
respondent directly owns the areas subject of the expansion program.
The Legislature may directly
determine the necessity for appropriating private property for a particular
improvement for public use, and it may select the exact location of the
improvement. In such a case, it is well-settled that the utility of the
proposed improvement, the existence of the public necessity for its
construction, the expediency of constructing it, the suitableness of the
location selected, are all questions exclusively for the legislature to
determine, and the courts have no power to interfere or to substitute their own
views for those of the representatives of the people.
In the absence of some
constitutional or statutory provision to the contrary, the necessity and
expediency of exercising the right of eminent domain are questions essentially
political and not judicial in their character.
The concept of just
compensation embraces not only the correct determination of the amount to be
paid to the owners of the land, but also the payment of the land within a
reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be
considered "just" inasmuch as the property owner is made to suffer
the consequences of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to
wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to
cope with his loss. 46 Payment of just compensation should follow as a matter
of right immediately after the order of expropriation is issued. Any delay in
payment must be counted from said order. However, the delay to constitute a
violation of due process must be unreasonable and inexcusable; it must be
deliberately done by a party in order to defeat the ends of justice.
-
Payment
of Just Compensation
Just compensation is described as a full and fair equivalent of the property taken from the
private owner by the exproprietor. This
is intended to indemnify the owner fully for the losss he has sustained as a
result of the expropriation.
Just
compensation = actual or basic value of the property
+ consequential damages
- consequential benefits (which should not
exceed the
consequential damages)
The basic
or market value of the property is the price that may be agreed upon by
parties willing but not compelled to enter into a contract of sale.
§ Acquisition of Easement of
Right-of-Way
The exercise of the power of
eminent domain does not always result in the taking or appropriation of title
to the expropriated property; it may only result in the imposition of a burden
upon the owner of the condemned property, without loss or title or
possession. In this case, while it is
true that the plaintiff is only after a right-of-way easement, it nevertheless
perpetually deprives defendants of their proprietary rights as manifested y the
imposition by the plaintiff upon the defendants that below said transmission
lines, no plant higher than 3 meters is allowed. (NPC v. Gutierrez, 193 SCRA 1)
-
How
expropriation may be initiated? Two
Stages in Expropriation of Land
§ Republic v. Salem Investment
Corporation, G.R. No. 137569, June 23, 2000 , 2nd Div. [Mendoza
The first is
concerned with the determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and the
propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in the suit. It ends with an order, if not dismissal of
the action, "of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful
right to take the property sought to be condemned, for the public use or
purpose declared in the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to be determined
as of the date of the filing of the complaint"…xxx.
The second phase
of the eminent domain action is concerned with the determination by the court
of "the just compensation for the property sought to be taken." This is done by the court with the assistance
of not more than three (3) commissioners…xxx
It is only upon
the completion of these two stages that expropriation is said to have been
completed. Moreover, it is only upon
payment of just compensation that title over the property passes to the government.
Therefore, until the action for expropriation has been completed and
terminated, ownership over the property being expropriated remains with the
registered owner. Consequently, the
latter can exercise all rights pertaining to an owner, including the right to
dispose of his property, subject to the power of the State ultimately to
acquire it through expropriation.
-
Is
prior unsuccessful negotiation a condition precedent for the exercise of
eminent domain?
§ SMI Development Corporation v.
Republic, 323 SCRA 862, Jan. 28, 2000 , 3rd Div. [Panganiban]
Current
effective law on delegated authority to exercise the power of eminent domain is
found in Section 12, Book III of the Revised Administrative Code, which
provides:
“SEC. 12. Power
of Eminent Domain – The President shall determine when it is necessary or
advantageous to exercise the power of eminent domain in behalf of the National
Government, and direct the Solicitor General, whenever he deems the action
advisable, to institute expropriation proceedings in the proper court.”
The foregoing
provision does not require prior unsuccessful negotiation as a condition
precedent for the exercise of eminent domain.
In Iron and Steel Authority v.
Court of Appeals, the President chose to prescribe this condition as an
additional requirement instead. In the
instant case, however, no such voluntary restriction was imposed.
-
When
Ownership transferred to Expropriator
§ Republic v. Salem Investment
Corporation, G.R. No. 137569, June 23, 2000 , 2nd Div. [Mendoza
The recognized rule,
indeed, is that title to the property expropriated shall pass from the owner to
the expropriator only upon full payment of the just compensation. Jurisprudence on this settled principle is
consistent both here and in other democratic jurisdictions.
-
When
may the Expropriator enter the Property?
Upon receipt of the landowner of the corresponding
payment or, in case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the
deposit with an accessible bank designated by DAR of the compensation in cash
or in Land Bank Bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate
possession of the land …xxx (Land
Bank v. CA & DAR v. CA)
-
When
used as Implement of Police Power
Power
of Eminent Domain is utilized as an implement of Police Power to promote the
welfare of the people.
It
is the Constitution itself which mandated the pursuit of Agrarian Reform
Program to address once and for all the plight of the landless and the poor
which for centuries has been the source of discontent and unrest. (ASLP
v. Sec. DAR)
POWER OF
TAXATION
The power to tax
includes the power to destroy if it is used as an implement of the police power
(regulatory) of the State. However,
it does not include the power to destroy if it is used solely for the purpose
of raising revenue. (ROXAS vs. CTA)
NOTES:
- >
If the purpose of taxation is regulatory in character, taxation is used to
implement the police power of the state.
- >
If the power of taxation is used to destroy things, businesses, or
enterprises and the purpose is to raise revenue, the court will come in
because there will be violation of the inherent and constitutional
limitations and it will be declared invalid.
§ Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. v. CA, 329
SCRA 314, March 31, 2000 ,
En Banc [Purisima]
The
power to tax and to grant exemptions is vested in the Congress and, to a
certain extent, in the local legislative bodies. Section 28(4), Article VI of the
Constitution, specifically provides: “No law granting any tax exemption shall
be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the members of the
Congress.” The PCGG has absolutely no
power to grant tax exemptions, even under the cover of its authority to
compromise ill-gotten wealth cases.
The RP-US Tax
Treaty is just one of a number of bilateral treaties which the Philippines
International juridical double taxation is defined as the imposition of
comparable taxes in two or more states on the same taxpayer in respect of the
same subject matter and for identical periods.
of goods and services and the movement of capital, technology and persons between countries,
conditions deemed vital in creating robust and dynamic economies. Foreign investments will
only thrive in a fairly predictable and reasonable international investment climate and the
protection against double taxation is crucial in creating such a climate.
thank you for sharing this. :)
ReplyDelete