as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred by this act and

such as it shall deem necessary and proper to provide for the health and safety, promote, the
prosperity, improve the morals, peace, good order, comfort and convenience of the city and the
inhabitants thereof, and for the protection of property therein; and enforce obedience thereto with
such lawful fines or penalties as the City Council may prescribe under the provisions of subsection (jj)
of this section.
"We start the discussion with a restatement of certain basic principles. Occupying the forefront in the
bill of rights is the provision which states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law (Art. III, Section 1 subparagraph 1, Constitution).
"On the other hand, there are three inherent powers of government by which the state interferes with
the property rights, namely (1) police power, (2) eminent domain, (3) taxation. These are said to exist
independently of the Constitution as necessary attributes of sovereignty.
"Police power is defined by Freund as the power of promoting the public welfare by restraining and
regulating the use of liberty and property (Quoted in Political Law by Taada and Carreon, V-II, p. 50).
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 in order to promote
the general welfare. In police power, the owner does not recover from the government for injury
sustained in consequence thereof. (12 C.J. 623). 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 of
the powers of government (Ruby v. Provincial Board, 39 Phil. 660; Ichong v. Hernandez, L-7995, May
31, 1957). This power embraces the whole system of public regulation (U.S. v. Linsuya Fan, 10 Phil.
104). 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 coextensive with self-preservation
and survival itself, it is the most positive and active of all governmental processes, the most essential,
insistent and illimitable. Especially it is so under the modern democratic framework where the
demands of society and nations have multiplied to almost unimaginable proportions. The field and
scope of police power have become almost boundless, just as the fields of public interest and public
welfare have become almost all embracing and have transcended human foresight. Since the Courts
cannot foresee the needs and demands of public interest and welfare, they cannot delimit beforehand
the extent or scope of the police power by which and through which the state seeks to attain or
achieve public interest and welfare. (Ichong v. Hernandez, L-7995, May 31, 1957).
"The police power being the most active power of the government and the due process clause being
the broadest limitation on governmental power, the conflict between this power of government and the
due process clause of the Constitution is oftentimes inevitable.
"It will be seen from the foregoing authorities that police power is usually exercised in the form of mere
regulation or restriction in the use of liberty or property for the promotion of the general welfare. It
does not involve the taking or confiscation of property with the exception of a few cases where there is
a necessity to confiscate private property in order to destroy it for the purpose of protecting the peace
and order and of promoting the general welfare as for instance, the confiscation of an illegally
possessed article, such as opium and firearms.
"It seems to the court that Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, Series of 1964 of Quezon City is not a
mere police regulation but an outright confiscation. It deprives a person of his private property without
due process of law, nay, even without compensation."cralaw virtua1aw library
In sustaining the decision of the respondent court, we are not unmindful of the heavy burden
shouldered by whoever challenges the validity of duly enacted legislation, whether national or local. As

early as 1913, this Court ruled in Case v. Board of Health (24 Phil. 250) that the courts resolve every
presumption in favor of validity and, more 90, where the municipal corporation asserts that the
ordinance was enacted to promote the common good and general welfare.chanrobles law library : red
In the leading case of Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila
(20 SCRA 849) the Court speaking through the then Associate Justice and now Chief Justice Enrique M.
Fernando stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Primarily what calls for a reversal of such a decision is the absence of any evidence to offset the
presumption of validity that attaches to a challenged statute or ordinance. As was expressed
categorically by Justice Malcolm: The presumption is all in favor of validity. . . . The action of the
elected representatives of the people cannot be lightly set aside. The councilors must, in the very
nature of things, be familiar with the necessities of their particular municipality and with all the facts
and circumstances which surround the subject and necessitate action. The local legislative body, by
enacting the ordinance, has in effect given notice that the regulations are essential to the well-being of
the people. . . . The Judiciary should not lightly set aside legislative action when there is not a clear
invasion of personal or property rights under the guise of police regulation. (U.S. v. Salaveria [1918],
39 Phil. 102, at p. 111. There was an affirmation of the presumption of validity of municipal ordinance
as announced in the leading Salaveria decision in Eboa v. Daet, [1950] 85 Phil. 369.).
We have likewise considered the principles earlier stated in Case v. Board of Health
supra:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . Under the provisions of municipal charters which are known as the general welfare clauses, a city,
by virtue of its police power, may adopt ordinances to secure the peace, safety, health, morals and the
best and highest interests of the municipality. It is a well-settled principle, growing out of the nature of
well-ordered and civilized society, that every holder of property, however absolute and unqualified
may be his title, holds it under the implied liability that his use of it shall not be injurious to the equal
enjoyment of others having an equal right to the enjoyment of their property, nor injurious to the rights
of the community. All property in the state is held subject to its general regulations, which are
necessary to the common good and general welfare. Rights of property, like all other social and
conventional rights, are subject to such reasonable limitations in their enjoyment as shall prevent them
from being injurious, and to such reasonable restraints and regulations, established by law, as the
legislature, under the governing and controlling power vested in them by the constitution, may think
necessary and expedient. The state, under the police power, is possessed with plenary power to deal
with all matters relating to the general health, morals, and safety of the people, so long as it does not
contravene any positive inhibition of the organic law and providing that such power is not exercised in
such a manner as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent positive wrong and
oppression."cralaw virtua1aw library