Study Guide for Police Power based from Duka

22 Feb, 2026

This study guide was prepared by Mychal Sajulga.

If it helped you on your studies,

you have the option to

click the text and buy me coffee

or send me Good Karma in the form of

GCash: 09162278309

so that I can buy ADHD meds.

You can contact me at

mychalsajulga@proton.me

POLICE POWER OF THE STATE

Standalone Primer | Constitutional Law 2

Based on Duka, Constitutional Law 2 (2025)

I. OVERVIEW: WHAT IS POLICE POWER?

Police power is one of the three inherent powers of the State — alongside eminent domain and taxation. All three exist by the very nature of statehood; they do not need an explicit constitutional grant because they are attributes of sovereignty itself.

Among the three, police power is the broadest, most pervasive, and most difficult to limit. If eminent domain touches property and taxation touches money, police power touches everything — liberty and property alike, affecting virtually every person in society at every stage of life.

The working definition: Police power is the inherent power of the State to regulate or restrain the use of liberty and property for public welfare. (Duka)

At its philosophical core, it rests on the Latin maxim: Salus populi est suprema lex — the welfare of the people is the supreme law. The individual's right yields to the demands of the many.

II. NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS

A. It is inherent and plenary.

Police power does not owe its origin to the Constitution. It is "inborn in the very fact of statehood and sovereignty." (Duka) Because it is inherent, no constitutional provision needs to expressly create it. It exists the moment a State exists.

The power is plenary — meaning it is complete and absolute within the scope of its exercise — and its scope is described as "vast and pervasive, reaching, and justifying measures for public health, public safety, public morals, and the general welfare." (MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association, G.R. No. 135962, March 27, 2000)

B. It is incapable of exact definition — intentionally.

Police power "has been purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide enough room for an efficient and flexible response as the conditions warrant." (White Light Corporation v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009) (Duka)

Courts have resisted giving it a precise, locked-in definition because doing so would limit its ability to respond to unforeseen social problems.

C. It is the "law of overruling necessity."

Police power has been described as "a power coextensive with self-protection" — it is the State's right and duty to protect itself and its people. It "enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society." (Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, G.R. No. L-14078, March 7, 1919) (Duka)

The judiciary has traditionally been reluctant to strike down police power measures, "provided the purposes of the law do not go beyond the great principles that mean security for the public welfare or do not arbitrarily interfere with the right of the individual." (Duka)

D. It operates without just compensation.

Unlike eminent domain, police power is exercised without provision for just compensation. The "compensation" the individual receives is entirely intangible — the altruistic feeling that he has contributed to the public good. This is because police power is regulatory, not acquisitory. (Duka)

E. It constitutes an implied limitation on the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights does not purport to give absolute guarantees. "Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's will. It is subject to the far more overriding demands and requirements of the greater number." (Duka) Police power, properly exercised, is exactly this overriding demand.

III. SCOPE OF POLICE POWER

The scope is breathtaking. 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." (Duka) The State has used police power to regulate dance halls, movie theaters, gas stations, cockpits, and countless other activities.

It covers:

• Public health — e.g., sanitation laws, food safety regulations
• Public safety — e.g., traffic rules, building codes
• Public order — e.g., curfew ordinances
• Public morals — e.g., regulation of sexually oriented businesses
• General welfare — a catch-all that extends to virtually any legitimate government concern

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. (Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100152, March 31, 2000) (Duka)

Note on scope vs. taxation: When a business permit fee is collected primarily to raise revenue, it partakes of the nature of a tax, not a police power exercise. The character of the fee determines which power is being exercised.

IV. ELEMENTS OF POLICE POWER

Police power consists of two essential elements:

1. An imposition of restraint upon liberty or property. There must be some interference with what a person can do or with what they own.

2. The power is exercised for the benefit of the common good. The interference must serve the public, not just a particular class or private interest.

Both elements must be present. A measure that restrains liberty but serves only private interests is not a valid exercise of police power. (JMM Promotions and Management, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120095, August 5, 1996) (Duka)

V. WHO MAY EXERCISE POLICE POWER?

A. Primary seat: The National Legislature (Congress)

Police power is "lodged primarily in the National Legislature." It cannot be exercised by any group or body of individuals not possessing legislative power. (MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association) (Duka)

This makes sense: police power is legislative in character because it involves the making of laws that restrict liberty and property.

B. Delegation — upon valid grant, others may exercise it.

The National Legislature may delegate police power to:

1. The President
2. Administrative bodies (e.g., regulatory agencies)
3. Lawmaking bodies of Local Government Units (LGUs)

Once delegated, agents can exercise only such legislative powers as are conferred on them by the national lawmaking body. They cannot exceed the scope of the delegation. (Duka)

C. LGUs and the General Welfare Clause

The statutory basis for LGU exercise of police power is Section 16 of the Local Government Code (LGC), known as the General Welfare Clause:

"Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare."

LGUs exercise police power through their respective legislative bodies — the Sangguniang Panlungsod (city council), Sangguniang Bayan (municipal council), etc. (Social Justice Society v. Atienza, G.R. No. 156052, February 13, 2008) (Duka)

⚠︎ Limitation: The police power granted to LGUs must always be exercised with observance of the rights to due process and equal protection. And critically: a Barangay Assembly cannot exercise police power — it can only recommend measures to the Sangguniang Barangay.

VI. REQUISITES FOR VALID EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER

The two-part test — applicable to both the national government and LGUs — is often called the "lawful subject + lawful means" test:

1. Lawful Subject

The interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, must require the exercise of police power. The emphasis must be on the public interest, even if it means interference with private rights.

2. Lawful Means

The means adopted must be:

• Reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose; and
• Not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

A reasonable relation must exist between the purpose of the measure and the means employed. It must be evident that no less intrusive alternative could work. (Social Justice Society v. Atienza; Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc. v. JAC Liner, Inc., February 23, 2005) (Duka)

Failure of either requisite = the measure is struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights — a violation of the due process clause. (Duka)

Practical illustration: An ordinance banning short-time rentals in hotels to address prostitution (White Light Corporation v. City of Manila) was tested against these requisites. The Court examined whether the means were reasonably necessary or whether they were over-inclusive, sweeping up legitimate conduct along with the targeted vice.

VII. LIMITS OF POLICE POWER

Although police power is the broadest of the State's powers, it is not unlimited. "Expansive and extensive as its reach may be, police [power operates] within bounds — lawful ends through lawful means." (Duka)

Key limitations:

1. Due process — the measure must not be arbitrary or unreasonable; there must be a rational connection between the law and the public objective it seeks to achieve.

2. Equal protection — the classification must be reasonable, not discriminatory.

3. Bill of Rights — police power is an implied limitation on the Bill of Rights, but the Bill of Rights simultaneously limits police power. They operate in tension. Neither automatically prevails; the courts balance them.

4. No unjust taking — police power is regulatory, not expropriatory. If the State regulation goes so far as to amount to a taking of private property, the State must pay just compensation (this is the regulatory taking / eminent domain intersection).

VIII. POLICE POWER vs. EMINENT DOMAIN vs. TAXATION

(Three Inherent Powers — Compared)

(Duka)

The Police Power / Eminent Domain Line

The most frequently litigated distinction is between police power regulation (no compensation) and eminent domain taking (compensation required).

The general rule: when the State regulates property to prevent its use from harming the public, that is police power — no compensation. When the State takes property for public use (even beneficially), that is eminent domain — compensation is required. (Bernas)

Examples:

• The State orders demolition of a building on the verge of collapse → police power; no compensation required.
• The State requires a cemetery to reserve 6% of its area for paupers → eminent domain; compensation required because the property is wholesome and devoted to public use, not destroyed because it is noxious. (City Government of Quezon City v. Ericta)

Key conceptual marker: In police power, the property involved is noxious or intended for a noxious purpose and may be taken and destroyed. In eminent domain, the property is wholesome and is devoted to public use.

The Police Power / Taxation Line

Police power and taxation both regulate behavior and both are exercised only by government. The distinction is in purpose:

• Police power = regulation of behavior/conduct; the main purpose is control, not revenue.
• Taxation = revenue generation for public purposes.

The test of a license fee vs. a tax: if it is limited to the cost of issuing the license and the necessary inspection/surveillance, it is a license fee (police power). If the amount collected exceeds regulatory costs and goes into general revenue, it is a tax. (Acebedo Optical) (Duka)

IX. POLICE POWER AND THE NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE

Police power is one of the major implied limitations on the non-impairment clause (Article III, Section 10). Contracts, however solemn, cannot prevent the State from exercising police power for public welfare.

The constitutional guarantee of non-impairment of obligations is "limited by and subject to the exercise of the police power of the State in the interest of public health, safety, morals and general welfare." (Hospicio De San Jose v. DAR, G.R. No. 140847, September 23, 2005) (Duka)

Even the invocation of Oposa v. Factoran confirms: where the police power and the non-impairment clause conflict, the non-impairment clause must yield. Property rights and contractual rights are not absolute. (Duka)

Practical example: A law imposing minimum wages alters the terms of employment contracts. The employer cannot invoke non-impairment. The State's police power to protect workers overrides.

X. JURISPRUDENCE CHEAT SHEET

XI. SUMMARY TABLE

Compiled for personal study use — ConLaw 2, JD 302 | Atty. Llorico Primary source: Duka, Constitutional Law 2 (2025)