LAWFUL SUBJECT The law also says that the riding public explicitly, is for them to ...

It is within the interest of the state to make sure that the public are not being
What if a law was passed in the exercise of police power and such law was for the transported by failed taxicabs.
benefit of particular corporation? Is that possible?
Student: No. For police power to be valid, it should not only favor a certain person. Taxicab: lawful subject

A law was passed by Cebu City among all the constituents of the local government Velasco v. Villegas
unit, so everyone’s affected, to regulate a financial stability of a bank. Is that Massage business is prohibited within the building of the barbershop. Why? To
possible? impose payment for engaging in the business, possible immorality in the area

No. Even if the said law affects the LGU, the beneficiary of the law is only a single Manila imposes different regulatory fees for different businesses but some shops
corporation. register as barbershops but do massages so they’re only paying one business. They
evade fees. That’s a clear lawful subject because regulation is. On the topic of
So if we say that a lawful subject affects the public, what exactly do you do? immorality, morality legislations as a rule are lawful subjects so citizens are morally
For example, the case of Taxicab. A corporation issued a memorandum phasing upright.
out taxis. This affects the public because it’s the safety of the general population.
Even if it affects only car operators, it affects the public due to the safety. Bautista v. Junio
There are certain prohibitions on certain plates, or those carrying certain plates,
A subject that is lawful, within the purview of police power, while we say coding, for energy conservation because there was oil crisis. Energy conservation
that it must affect the public, the way that it affects the public must not is within the responsibility of the state. Does it affect everyone? Yes. So it’s lawful
be in such a way that it burdens them but how it benefits them. subject.

Therefore, the way by which if it’s a lawful subject, is simple. Suppose there’s a If the objective, purpose, goals, is to collect from certain corporations funds, the
proposed policy, is it the interest of the state, public in general or for a group in stabilization industries is always a lawful subject. For example, the stabilization of
the society? That’s one way to look at lawful subject. The second, is the purported the oil industry by creating OSF is considered by the SC as a lawful subject.
idea which is pursued by the state within the interest of the state? For example,
when we talk about safety, is it within the interest of the state to pursue safety for Another group of objectives that are lawful subjects are those programs which
its citizens? Yes. Is it within the interest of the state to pursue education for all? Is intend to provide assistance to marginalized people.
it within the interest of the state to pursue healthy citizen? Is it within the interest Ex: 1. Carlos superdrug v dswd 2. Imposition of minimum wage
of the state to make sure a particular organization is protected from the attacks?
No. If the policy only affects a particular organization, then it’s not a valid exercise To recap, if the question asked in your exam is whether or not there is a lawful
of police power. subject, ask: for whose benefit is the policy carried out? Is the goal/objective within
the interest/responsibility of the state? If yes to both questions, lawful subject.
It is lawful subject if:
1. It benefits the public in general What is lawful means?
2. The goal that they are pursuing is the goal within the responsibility of the The exercise of police power should not be unnecessarily oppressive in
state to pursue order to attain the objective and there should be a connection between
For example: the protection of the particular organization is not within the the means employed and police power.
responsibility of the state to pursue.
This stems into 2 things:
Taxicab case: memorandum was for the phasing out of 6-year-old taxicabs 1. on the question of reasonableness, it pertains to won there is logic to the
The law is very specific with the objectives: safety and public convenience. These means employed and the accomplishment of the police power.
objectives are within the responsibility of the public to pursue and it affects the 2. The question of necessity is the question of won there are less intrusive
public in general. means in accomplishing the objective/goals. Less intrusive means the lesser
 sacrifices. So it simply means, are there any alternatives that won’t unduly Respondent: if this is taking by police power, this is not valid because properties
oppressed anyone? taken by police power, the property should be destroyed because they’re noxious
by nature. So, you’re not talking this by police power because you’re not destroying
Ynot v. IAC it.
PD 626 and 626-A SC: No, not lawful means because it’s unduly oppressive to private right to
property. They’re not destroying the land which should constitute police power.
Prohibition of the inter-provincial transportation of carabao to prevent the
indiscriminate slaughtering and consuming of carabaos. The means was stated What should LGU show to hurdle the requisites of valid exercise of police power?
above. It is not lawful means because transportation of carabaos does not mean There are additional requisites:
that it would be slaughtered. People will kill carabaos anytime. Will it accomplish 1. It should not contravene the Constitution
the goal? No. In this case, the SC said it’s not lawful means. On the question if won 2. It should not be against national legislation
the means employed are necessary, the SC said no because it takes the carabao 3. Not unfair and oppressive
away from its owner without proper trial because police officers are ordered to 4. Not be partial and discriminatory
confiscate carabaos from its owners without reason. This violates the right of the 5. Not prohibit but may regulate trade
people. 6. Consistent with public policy

Philippine Press v. COMELEC Magtajas v. Pryce Properties

SEC. 2 of COMELEC Res. PD 1869

In this case, the Sangguniang Panglungsod passed 2 ordinances that prohibited
COMELEC mandates newspaper to be obligated to provide space for COMELEC to gambling. PAGCOR says this is not a valid exercise of police power.
put candidates or election discussions, about half page. The COMELEC space which SC: They employed 2 tests: the ordinance should not contravene with a statute.
is free in the sense that state will not pay. Gambling is not prohibited in the national legislation.
OSG: This is a proper exercise of police power because it enables the people to be Petitioners: we are allowed by the LGC to prohibit gambling thru ordinances. What
informed about election. did the SC say? the sitor asosis. Words in the statute should be interpreted in
accordance with the words and phrases accompanying such words. Sec. 158 of the
SC: You did not even show that COMELEC is an organ of the state that can exercise LGC allowed ordinances prohibiting gambling but the word gambling does not refer
police power. Suppose this is police power by taking, COMELEC did not even to all types of gambling. Casino is not prohibited gambling because casinos are
present requirements constituting lawful taking thru police power. On the issue of encouraged for charity purposes.
reasonableness, there is an allegation during the election that candidates can do
anything just to win. If the goal is for the candidates to be known to the people, City of Manila v Judge Lapid
do you really need the COMELEC space when in fact, candidates will really do
anything in order to be known to people? It is not reasonably necessary. The only Ord. 7783 prohibited hotels, inns used for immorality to make sure that the citizens
possible justification for this is national emergency but there is no national are morally upright. Ermita is a red light district, high rates of HIV.
emergency. And because there’s no emergency, the context at hand is not NOT LAWFUL MEANS.
applicable. So, it’s not lawful means. SC: 4 reasons why it is not valid:
1. Immorality - these hotels, it’s true that sexual events happen there but not
City Government of Quezon City v. Ericta everything that happens there are illegal sexual activities. So the prohibition
on hotels to stop immorality is not the answer, maybe education is the
Ordinance 6118 - Manila Memorial Park are private individuals. 6 percent of these answer.
land areas shall be alloted for the burial of the paupers in Quezon. 2. Taking of property rights not in the exercise of police power but eminent
Quezon City: This is valid exercise of police power since it benefits the public as it domain because you’re not destroying the property but using the property
is for the burial of the paupers for other purpose they don’t like
3. Violation of equal protection