IV. Inherent Powers of the State Sec.

4(a) of the Act states that The senior citizens

Police Power and Its Limitations shall be entitled to the following: (a) the grant of
twenty percent (20%) discount from all
establishments relative to the utilization of services
MMDA vs. Garin, G.R. No. 130230, April 15, in hotels and similar lodging establishments,
2005 restaurants and recreation centers, and purchase of
medicines in all establishments for the exclusive use
or enjoyment of senior citizens, including funeral and
burial services for the death of senior citizens;
Petitioners assert that Section 4(a) of the law is
unconstitutional because it constitutes deprivation
of private property. Compelling drugstore owners
and establishments to grant the discount will result
in a loss of profit and capital because according to
them drugstores impose a mark-up of only 5% to
10% on branded medicines, and the law failed to
provide a scheme whereby drugstores will be justly
compensated for the discount.
ISSUE:
WON RA 9257 is constitutional.
HELD:
YES. The law is a legitimate exercise of police power
which, similar to the power of eminent domain, has
general welfare for its object. Police power is not
capable of an exact definition, but 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 to conditions and circumstances, thus
assuring the greatest benefits. Accordingly, it has
been described as the most essential, insistent and
the least limitable of powers, extending as it does to
all the great public needs. It is [t]he power vested in
the legislature by the constitution to make, ordain,
and establish all manner of wholesome and
Carlos Superdrug Corporation vs. DSWD, reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either
et.al., G.R. Ni. 166494, June 29, 2007 with penalties or without, not repugnant to the
constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good
and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the
FACTS:
subjects of the same.
Petitioners are domestic corporations and
For this reason, when the conditions so demand as
proprietors operating drugstores in the Philippines.
determined by the legislature, property rights must
Public respondents, on the other hand, include the
bow to the primacy of police power because
DSWD, DOH, DOF, DOJ, and the DILG, specifically
property rights, though sheltered by due process,
tasked to monitor the drugstores’ compliance with
must yield to general welfare.
the law; promulgate the implementing rules and
regulations for the effective implementation of the
law; and prosecute and revoke the licenses of erring
drugstore establishments. Francisco vs. Fernando, G.R. No. 166501,
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law November 16, 2006
R.A. No. 9257 otherwise known as the “Expanded
Senior Citizens Act of 2003.”
FACTS: challenged action; and 

Petitioner Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr. (3) a favorable action will likely redress the
(petitioner), as member of the Integrated Bar injury. On the other hand, a party suing as a
of the Philippines and taxpayer, filed this taxpayer must specifically show that he has
original action for the issuance of the writs a sufficient interest in preventing the illegal
of Prohibition and Mandamus.  Petitioner expenditure of money raised by taxation and
prays for the Prohibition writ to enjoin that he will sustain a direct injury as a result
respondents Bayani F. Fernando, Chairman of the enforcement of the questioned statute.
of the Metropolitan Manila Development Petitioner meets none of the requirements
Authority (MMDA) and the MMDA under either category.
(respondents) from further implementing its
“wet flag scheme” (“Flag Scheme”). Nor is there merit to petitioner’s claim that
the Court should relax the standing
Petitioner contends that the Flag Scheme: requirement because of the “transcendental
importance” of the issues the petition raises.
(1) has no legal basis because the MMDA’s As an exception to the standing requirement,
governing body, the Metro Manila Council, the transcendental importance of the issues
did not authorize it; raised relates to the merits of the petition.
Thus, the party invoking it must show,
(2) violates the Due Process Clause because among others, the presence of a clear
it is a summary punishment for jaywalking; disregard of a constitutional or statutory
prohibition. Petitioner has not shown such
(3) disregards the Constitutional protection clear constitutional or statutory violation.
against cruel, degrading, and inhuman
punishment; and  On the Flag Scheme’s alleged lack of legal
basis, we note that all the cities and
(4) violates “pedestrian rights” as it exposes municipalities within the MMDA’s
pedestrians to various potential hazards. jurisdiction, except Valenzuela City, have
each enacted anti-jaywalking ordinances or
ISSUE: traffic management  codes with provisions
for pedestrian regulation. Such fact serves as
Whether or not the petition was valid. sufficient basis for respondents’
implementation of schemes, or ways and
HELD: means, to enforce the anti-jaywalking
ordinances and similar regulations. 
The Court dismissed the petition.  A citizen
can raise a constitutional question only After all, the MMDA is an administrative
when: agency tasked with the implementation of
rules and regulations enacted by proper
(1) he can show that he has personally authorities. The absence of an anti-
suffered some actual or threatened injury jaywalking ordinance in Valenzuela City
because of the allegedly illegal conduct of does not detract from this conclusion absent
the government; any proof that respondents implemented the
Flag Scheme in that city. 
(2) the injury is fairly traceable to the
 Lucena Grand Terminal, Inc., vs. JAC Liner,
Velasco vs. Villegas, 120 SCRA 568 Inc., February 23, 2005

Social Justice Society vs. Atienza, G.R. No.

156052, February 13, 2008

Taxicab Operators vs. Board of

Transportation, 119 SCRA 597
Power of Eminent Domain: Its Scope
Bautista vs. Junio, 127 SCRA 329 and Limitation
Republic vs. Gingoyon, G.R.
Lim vs. Pacquing, 240 SCRA 649 No. 166429, December 19, 2005
CANORECO vs. Court of
Philippine Press Institute vs. COMELEC, 244 Appeals, G.R. No. 109338,
SCRA 272 City Government of Quezon City November 20, 2000
vs. Ericta, 122 SCRA 759 Agata Mining Ventures, Inc.,
vs. Heirs of Teresita Alaan,
City of Manila vs. Judge Laguio, G.R. No. G.R. No. 229413, June 15,
118127, April 12, 2005 2020
NAPOCOR vs. Pobre, G.R. No.
Zabal, et.al., vs. Duterte, G.R. No. 238467, 106804, August 12, 2004
February 12, 2019
 Municipality of Meycauayan
Bulacan vs. IAC, 157 SCRA
640
Beluso vs. Municipality of
Panay, Capiz, G.R. No.
153974, August 7, 2006
City of Manila vs. Chinese
Community, 40 Phil 349
Philippine Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals vs. COA, G.R. No.
169752, September 25, 2007
Republic vs. PLDT, 26 SCRA
620
NAPOCOR vs. Chiong, G.R.
No. 152436, June 20, 2003
Reyes vs. NHA, G.R. No.
147511, January 20, 2003
Moday vs. Court of Appeals,
268 SCRA 568
Eslaban vs. De Onorio, G.R.
No. 146062 June 28, 2001
City of Cebu vs. Spouses
Dedamo, G.R. No. 142971,
May 7, 2002
Nepomuceno vs. Surigao,
G.R. No. 146091, July 28,
2008
Reyes vs. NHA, G.R. No.
147511, January 20, 2003
Republic of the Philippines
vs. Vicente Lim, G.R. No.
161656, June 29, 2005

Power of Taxation: Its Scope and

Limitation
Tan vs. del Rosario, 237 SCRA
324
Gerochi vs. DOE, G.R. No.
159796, July 17, 2007
MIAA vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 155650, July 20, 2006