It has been one month of endless readings and grueling recitations for the first batch of College of Law students of Catanduanes State University. The first year subjects are comprised of Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Constitutional Law, Legal Ethics, Statutory Construction and Legal Philosophy.
Of these first year subjects, I consider Constitutional Law as my favorite subject. When I was still in law school and during bar review, my go to constitutional/political books are those of Justice Antonio Nachura and Justice Isagani Cruz & Professor Carlo L. Cruz. I can still vividly remember how amazed I was the first time I learned about the inherent powers of state.
With that, I also want my readers to know about said powers, thus, this week’s column will focus on the inherent powers of state, its scope and limitations.
To begin with, there are three inherent powers of state, namely: (1) Police Power; (2) Power of Eminent Domain; and (3) Power of Taxation. These inherent powers are indispensable and necessary to the existence of a state. Also, these powers are said to exist independently of the Constitution as necessary attributes of sovereignty, meaning, there is no need for these powers to be enshrined in a constitution before a state can exercise it.
Let’s begin with Police Power.
Police power is defined as the power of promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property. It is usually exerted in order to merely regulate the use and enjoyment of property of the owner. If he is deprived of his property outright, it is not taken for public use but rather to destroy it in order to promote the general welfare. In police power, the owner does not recover from the government for the injury sustained in consequence thereof.[1]
It has been said that police power is the most essential of government powers, at times, the most insistent, and always one of the least limitable powers of government. This power embraces the whole system of regulation. The Supreme Court has said that police power is so far reaching in scope that it has almost become impossible to limit its sweep. As it derives its existence from the very existence of the state itself, it does not need to be expressed or defined in its scope. Being co-extensive with self-preservation and survival itself, it is the most positive and active of all governmental processes, the most essential, insistent and illimitable.[2]
Power of the Eminent Domain, on the other hand, has been described as the highest and most exact idea of property remaining in the government that may be acquired for some public purpose through a method in the nature of a forced purchase by the State. It is a right to take or reassert dominion over property within the state for public use or to meet public exigency. It is said to be an essential part of governance even in its most primitive form and thus inseparable from sovereignty. The only direct constitutional qualification is that private property should not be taken for public use without just compensation. This proscription is intended to provide a safeguard against possible abuse and so to protect as well the individual against whose property the power is sought to be enforce.
In order to be valid, the taking of private property by the government under eminent domain has to be for public use or purpose and there must be just compensation.[3] Just compensation is the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the true measure of which is not the taker’s gain but the owner’s loss. Further, it does not only refer to the payment of the correct amount but also to the payment within a reasonable time from its taking because without prompt payment, the compensation cannot be considered just. In other words, just compensation in the context of eminent domain or expropriation proceedings pertains to the timely or prompt payment of an adequate value sufficient to recoup the loss suffered by the property owner.[4]
Finally, the Power of Taxation. The power of the State to make reasonable and natural classifications for the purpose of taxation has long been established. Whether it relates to the subject of taxation, the kind of property, the rates to be levied, or the amount to be raised, the methods of assessment, valuation and collection, the State’s power is entitled to presumption of validity. As taxes are the lifeblood of the government, the power of legislature is unlimited and plenary. As a rule, the judiciary will not interfere with such power absent a clear showing of unreasonableness, discrimination, or arbitrariness.[5]
The State’s power to tax is limited by the Constitution. Taxes must be uniform and equitable, and must not be confiscatory or arbitrary. It must be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Nonetheless, the exercise of the power to tax is presumed valid absent any proof of violation of these limitations.[6]
[1] Dissenting Opinion, Justice Antonio Carpio, G.R. No. 199669, April 25, 2017
[2] Idem
[3]Section 9, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
[4] Repulblic vs Gamir-Conseulo Diaz Heirs Association Inc, G.R. No. 218732, November 12, 2018
[5] Dissenting Opinion, Justice Antonio Carpio, G.R. No. 199669, April 25, 2017
[6] Idem