3 Inherent Powers of the State: property taken under this power shall likewise be intended

for a public use or purpose. It is used solely for the purpose

1. Police Power; of raising revenues, to protect the people and extend them
2. Power of Eminent Domain or Power of Expropriation; benefits in the form of public projects and services (I hope
and so). Hence, it cannot be allowed to be confiscatory, except
3. Power of Taxation if it is intended for destruction as an instrument of the
Purpose: police power.
It must conform to the requirements of due
1. for public good or welfare - Police Power process. Therefore, taxpayers are entitled to be notified of
2. for public use - Power of Eminent Domain the assessment proceedings and to be heard therein on the
3. for revenue - Power of Taxation correct valuation to be given the property. It is also subject
to the general requirements of the equal protection clause
1. POLICE POWER is the power of promoting the that the rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable.
public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of both
liberty and property of all the people. It is considered to be Regalian Doctrine
the most all-encompassing of the three powers. It may be
exercised only by the government. The property taken in All lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is
the exercise of this power is destroyed because it is noxious the source of any asserted right to ownership of land. All
or intended for a noxious purpose. lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private
It lies primarily in the discretion of the legislature. Hence, ownership are presumed to belong to the State.[1] All lands
the President, and administrative boards as well as the not otherwise clearly appearing to be privately-owned are
lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels, including the presumed to belong to the State.[2]
barangay may not exercise it without a valid delegation of
WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF JURE REGALIA?
legislative power. Municipal governments exercise this
power by virtue of the general welfare clause of the Local
(REGALIAN DOCTRINE)
Government Code of 1991. Even the courts cannot compel
> Generally, under this concept, private title to land must
the exercise of this power through mandamus or any
be traced to some grant, express or implied, from the
judicial process.
Spanish Crown or its successors, the American Colonial
Government, and thereafter, the Philippine Republic
Requisites of a valid police measure:
> In a broad sense, the term refers to royal rights, or those
(a.) Lawful Subject – the activity or property sought to be
rights to which the King has by virtue of his prerogatives
regulated affects the public welfare. It requires the primacy
> The theory of jure regalia was therefore nothing more
of the welfare of the many over the interests of the few.
than a natural fruit of conquest
(b.) Lawful Means – the means employed must be
CONNECTED TO THIS IS THE STATE’S POWER OF
reasonable and must conform to the safeguards guaranteed
DOMINUUM
by the Bill of Rights.
> Capacity of the state to own or acquire property—
2. POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN affects only
foundation for the early Spanish decree embracing the
property RIGHTS. It may be exercised by some private
feudal theory of jura regalia
entities. The property forcibly taken under this
> This concept was first introduced through the Laws of the
power, upon payment of just compensation, is needed for
Indies and the Royal Cedulas
conversion to public use or purpose.
> The Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of discovery
and conquest. Consequently, all lands became the exclusive
The taking of property in law may include:
patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown.
- trespass without actual eviction of the owner;
> The Law of the Indies was followed by the Ley
- material impairment of the value of the property; or
Hipotecaria or the Mortgage Law of 1893. This law provided
- prevention of the ordinary uses for which the property
for the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as
was intended.
possessory claims
> The Maura Law: was partly an amendment and was the
The property that may be subject for appropriation shall
last Spanish land law promulgated in the Philippines,
not be limited to private property. Public property may be
which required the adjustment or registration of all
expropriated provided there is a SPECIFIC grant of
agricultural lands, otherwise the lands shall revert to the
authority to the delegate. Money and a chose in action are
State
the only things exempt from expropriation.
TAKE NOTE THAT THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE IS
Although it is also lodged primarily in the national
ENSHRINED IN OUR PRESENT AND PAST
legislature, the courts have the power to inquire the legality
CONSTITUTIONS THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
of the right of eminent domain and to determine whether
PROVIDES UNDER NATIONAL ECONOMY AND
or not there is a genuine necessity therefore.
PATRIMONY THE FOLLOWING—
3. POWER OF TAXATION affects only property
rights and may be exercised only by the government. The
> “ Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, THE 1973 CONSTITUTION REITERATED THE
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces REGALIAN DOCTRINE
of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, AS FOLLOWS—
flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by > Section 8. All lands of public domain, waters, minerals,
the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of
natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other natural
development, and utilization of natural resources shall be resources of the Philippines belong to the State. With the
under the full control and supervision of the State. The exception of agricultural, industrial or commercial,
State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter residential, or resettlement lands of the public domain,
into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing natural resources shall not be alienated, and no license,
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or concession, or lease for the exploration, or utilization of
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period
owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a exceeding twentyfive years, except as to water rights for
period not exceeding irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other
twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five than development of water power, in which cases,
years, and under such terms and conditions as may be beneficial use may by the measure and the limit of the
provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, grant.
water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE DOESN'T NEGATE NATIVE
development of water power, beneficial use may be the TITLE. THIS IS IN PURSUANCE TO WHAT HAS BEEN
measure and limit of the grant.” HELD IN CRUZ V. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT
> The abovementioned provision provides that except for AND NATURAL RESOURCES
agricultural lands for public domain which alone may be > Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Indigenous
alienated, forest or timber, and mineral lands, as well as all Peoples Rights Act on the ground that it amounts to an
other natural resources must remain with the State, the unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of
exploration, development and utilization of which shall be the public domain and all other natural resources therein,
subject to its full by recognizing the right of ownership of ICC or IPs to their
control and supervision albeit allowing it to enter into ancestral domains and ancestral lands on the basis of native
coproduction, joint venture or production-sharing title.
agreements, or into agreements with foreign-owned > As the votes were equally divided, the necessary majority
corporations involving technical or financial assistance for wasn’t obtained and petition was dismissed and the law’s
large-scale exploration, development, and utilization validity was upheld
> Justice Kapunan: Regalian theory doesn’t negate the
THE 1987 PROVISION HAD ITS ROOTS IN THE 1935 native title to lands held in private ownership since time
CONSTITUTION immemorial, adverting to the landmark case of CARINO V.
WHICH PROVIDES— LOCAL GOVERNMENT, where the US SC through Holmes
> Section 1. All agricultural timber, and mineral lands of the held: “xxx the land has been held by individuals under a
public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to have
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy and other natural been held in the same way from before the Spanish
resources of the Philippines belong to the State, and their conquest, and never to have been public land.”
disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall > Existence of native titie to land, or ownership of land by
be limited to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations Filipinos by virtue of possession under a claim of ownership
or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of since time immemorial and independent of any grant from
which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing the Spanish crown as an exception to the theory of jure
right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the regalia
inauguration of the Government established under this > Justice Puno: Carino case firmly established a concept of
Constitution. Natural resources, with the exception of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant
public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no from the State and was based on the strong mandate
license, concession, or lease for the exploitation, extended to the Islands via the Philippine Bill of 1902. The
development, or utilization of any of the natural resources IPRA recognizes the existence of ICCs/IPs as a distinct
shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five years, sector in the society. It grants this people the ownership
renewable for another twenty-five years, except as to water and possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral
rights for irrigation, water lands and defines the extent of these lands and domains
supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the > Justice Vitug: Carino cannot override the collective will
development of water power, in which cases beneficial use of the people expressed in the Constitution.
may be the measure and limit of the grant. > Justice Panganiban: all Filipinos, whether indigenous or
not, are subject to the Constitution, and that no one is
exempt from its allencompassing provisions