A Philippine Constitutional Law Perspective

I. Introduction

In Philippine constitutional law, some of the most consequential powers of government exist even if the Constitution never spelled them out in so many words. The State can tax, expropriate private property, and regulate liberty and property in the name of the common good—whether or not a specific constitutional article says “the State shall have the power to…”.

These are the inherent powers of the State:

Police power
Power of eminent domain
Power of taxation

The central question of this article is:

How can these powers be validly exercised or granted to organs of government even when there is no explicit constitutional provision conferring them?

In the Philippine setting, the answer lies in a combination of doctrines: sovereignty, the nature of the Constitution as a charter of limitations (not a grant of all powers), legislative supremacy in domestic law, and the doctrine of necessary implication, all constrained by the Bill of Rights and other constitutional limitations.

II. Concept of Inherent Powers of the State

A. What “inherent” means

A power is inherent to the State if it belongs to it by virtue of being a State, not because a written constitution or statute says so. The classic formulation is:

The State would cease to be a State if it had no power
- to protect its people and maintain peace (police power),
- to appropriate private property for public use (eminent domain), or
- to raise revenue to finance itself (taxation).

These powers are rooted in:

Sovereignty – the supreme authority of the State over its territory and people.
Necessity – a State must perform certain basic functions to survive.
Social contract theory – individuals surrender some freedoms to a State that can enforce collective decisions.

Thus, the Constitution is not the source of these powers. It assumes their existence and regulates their exercise.

B. Distinction from constitutionally delegated powers

Not all government powers are inherent:

Many powers (e.g., the veto power of the President, the power of the Senate to try impeachment cases) exist strictly because the Constitution expressly provides them.
Inherent powers, by contrast, exist even without textual grant; the Constitution mainly limits or directs how they may be exercised.

The practical implication:

If the Constitution is silent about the existence of police power, taxation, or eminent domain, the State still has them.
But the Constitution may restrict or condition their exercise (e.g., “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”; “just compensation” for expropriation).

III. The Three Classical Inherent Powers

A. Police Power

Police power is often described as the most pervasive and least limitable of the three. It is:

The power of the State to enact laws and regulations to promote public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, even if those measures interfere with private rights.

Key features:

Purpose-based: It is justified by reference to public welfare or public interest.
Broad scope: Zoning laws, business regulations, public health measures, price control, licensing, closure of nuisance establishments, etc.
No need for explicit constitutional grant: Courts routinely treat police power as inherent. The Constitution provides standards and limits (due process, equal protection), but not the basic authority.

B. Power of Eminent Domain

Eminent domain is:

The power of the State to take private property for public use upon payment of just compensation.

Key points:

Inherent in the State, but its exercise is strictly conditioned:
- There must be a taking,
- For public use (liberally construed under modern jurisprudence),
- With just compensation paid to the owner.
The Constitution mentions the conditions (“nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation”), but does not itself “create” the power.

C. Power of Taxation

Taxation is:

The power of the State to impose and collect taxes to fund the costs of government and public services.

Characteristics:

Inherent, indispensable to government existence.
Subject to constitutional limits:
- Uniformity and equity,
- No impairment of fundamental rights,
- Prohibitions (e.g., no imprisonment for debt or nonpayment of poll tax; no taking of property without due process).
Again, the Constitution regulates, but does not “grant,” the basic authority to tax.

IV. Constitutional Framework in the Philippines

A. The 1987 Constitution: recognition, not grant

The Philippine Constitution:

Expressly mentions these powers, but usually in the context of limitations:
- Bill of Rights – due process, equal protection, just compensation, non-impairment of contracts, etc.
- Fiscal provisions – rules about taxation, public funds, revenues.
The underlying logic is that the State already has these powers; the Constitution directs, structures, or restrains their exercise.

This is a recurring doctrinal theme:

“The Constitution is not a grant of power, but a limitation upon the powers of government.”

Especially in relation to inherent powers, this means:

The State does not need a specific article saying “the State shall have police power.”
What it needs is no constitutional prohibition against exercising police power as done in a specific statute or act.

B. Implications of constitutional silence

If the Constitution is silent about a particular manner of exercising an inherent power (e.g., giving expropriation authority to a certain agency), two basic ideas govern:

Residual powers of the legislature – Congress, as the representative lawmaking body, may allocate or structure the exercise of inherent powers so long as:
- It does not violate any constitutional right or prohibition; and
- It acts within the bounds of its own constitutional competencies.
Doctrine of necessary implication – If a power is expressly granted (e.g., Congress’s power to create government corporations, or regulate commerce), then all powers necessary or reasonably incidental to its exercise are deemed granted as well, unless expressly withheld.

Thus, even without a constitutional clause explicitly saying “Congress may authorize government corporations to expropriate,” that power may be:

Inherent in the State; and
Allocated or delegated by Congress to a specific entity as a necessary or reasonable incident of its statutory creation.

C. Historical development

Across the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions:

The three inherent powers are consistently assumed to exist.
What changed is primarily the strength of constitutional constraints:
- The Bill of Rights evolved but always restricted arbitrary exercise of those powers.
- Local autonomy provisions strengthened the delegation of certain aspects (especially taxation and police power) to LGUs.
At no point did the Constitution attempt to “invent” police power, eminent domain, or taxation; they were part of the State from the start.

V. Granting and Allocation of Inherent Powers Among Government Organs

“Inherent” describes powers of the State as a whole, not of each particular agency. Specific organs—Congress, the President, LGUs, government corporations—do not themselves possess inherent sovereignty. They can exercise inherent powers only because the law or Constitution authorizes them.

A. Congress as primary allocator

Congress, vested with plenary legislative power (subject to constitutional limits), serves as the primary vehicle through which inherent state powers are:

Implemented (by passing enabling laws)
Distributed (to agencies, LGUs, GOCCs)
Regulated (with standards, procedures, remedies)

Examples:

Tax laws imposing income, value-added, excise, and other taxes.
Expropriation statutes setting procedures and authorizing specific agencies to expropriate.
Regulatory statutes imposing licensing, zoning, environmental requirements, etc., as exercises of police power.

In the absence of a constitutional prohibition, Congress’s enactment is generally presumed to be a valid exercise of inherent powers.

B. Delegation to the Executive and administrative agencies

The President and administrative bodies generally do not have inherent police power, eminent domain, or taxation power in their own right. They:

Exercise powers granted by statute (and, for some presidential powers, by the Constitution).
Implement inherent powers on behalf of the State, following legislative policy.

For example:

Regulatory agencies issue rules and regulations under enabling laws—a form of delegated rule-making arising from police power.
Certain departments or agencies are authorized to expropriate property for infrastructure projects.
Revenue agencies are authorized to assess and collect taxes enacted by Congress.

The Supreme Court accepts delegation of aspects of these powers when:

Congress provides sufficient standards or policies; and
The delegated authority is administrative in nature, not a wholesale transfer of legislative power.

C. Delegation to Local Government Units (LGUs)

Unlike the national government, LGUs do not possess inherent powers of sovereignty. Their powers are:

Derived from the Constitution and statutes, particularly the constitutional mandate on local autonomy and the Local Government Code (LGC).

In the Philippine system:

Police Power of LGUs
- Derived from the “general welfare clause” in the LGC, not from inherent sovereignty.
- LGUs may enact ordinances to promote public welfare within their jurisdiction.
- Courts view this as a form of delegated police power.
Power of Eminent Domain of LGUs
- Expressly granted and limited by statute (e.g., LGC provisions on expropriation).
- LGUs must comply with statutory requirements on purpose, procedure, and just compensation.
- The power is not inherent in LGUs; it exists because Congress says so.
Power of Taxation of LGUs
- Also a result of legislative grant, as allowed by the Constitution’s provisions on local taxation.
- LGUs can impose local taxes and fees only within the limits and guidelines set by the LGC and constitutional constraints (e.g., no tax contrary to national policy, no tax on certain instrumentalities).

The key doctrinal point:

The Philippine State has inherent powers. Local government units do not. LGUs can exercise facets of those powers only by virtue of constitutional and statutory delegation.

D. Delegation to GOCCs and other entities

Government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs), public utilities, and other agencies may be authorized to exercise aspects of inherent powers:

Eminent domain – some GOCCs or public corporations are empowered by their charters to expropriate property for their projects.
Regulatory authority – transport or energy regulators can impose conditions and sanctions on public utilities as an exercise of delegated police power.
Fee imposition – agencies may charge regulatory fees; these are distinguished from taxes (which must be rooted in legislative grant and constitutional mechanisms).

Again, absent an explicit constitutional clause, the validity of these arrangements hinges on:

Whether Congress had the authority to confer such powers; and
Whether the exercise of such powers respects the Constitution’s limitations.

VI. Limits on the Exercise of Inherent Powers

Even though inherent powers do not require a constitutional grant, they always operate under constitutional limits.

A. Substantive limits

Due Process Clause
- Both substantive (reasonableness of the measure) and procedural (fairness of the process).
- A police-power measure must have:
  - Lawful subject (public interest, general welfare), and
  - Lawful means (reasonable, not unduly oppressive).
Equal Protection Clause
- Laws grounded on inherent powers must not arbitrarily discriminate between similarly situated persons.
Non-impairment of Contracts
- Inherent powers, especially police power and taxation, may override private contracts when reasonable and necessary for the public welfare, but they cannot be used to destroy the essence of constitutional guarantees.
Just Compensation (Eminent Domain)
- Taking private property without adequate payment violates both the Bill of Rights and the very doctrine of eminent domain as understood in Philippine jurisprudence.
Other specific guarantees
- Freedom of speech, religion, privacy, etc., limit how far police power may go.
- Safeguards against cruel punishment, ex post facto laws, and bills of attainder further restrict punitive uses of inherent powers.

B. Procedural limits

Inherent powers must typically be exercised through laws and formal processes:

Taxation – must be imposed through legislation (or properly authorized local ordinances), with clear rates, bases, and procedures.
Expropriation – requires:
- Filing of a case in court (unless special procedures are authorized),
- A judicial determination of just compensation.
Police power measures – generally through statutes or ordinances, with proper hearings and compliance with administrative due process when rights are directly affected (e.g., closure of businesses).

Even when Congress or an agency is acting under an inherent power, failure to follow required procedures can render the act unconstitutional or void.

VII. Constitutional Silence, Necessary Implication, and Judicial Review

A. Doctrine of Necessary Implication

When the Constitution or statute confers a power, it also confers, by necessary implication, all powers indispensable to its effective exercise.

Applied to inherent powers:

The State has inherent authority to tax, expropriate, and regulate.
When the Constitution vests Congress with legislative power, that includes the authority to structure, regulate, and delegate the exercise of inherent powers—unless specifically constrained.

Thus, in the absence of a constitutional provision specifically authorizing delegation, the Court may still uphold delegation as a necessary implication of Congress’s legislative power to implement inherent powers of the State.

B. Presumption of constitutionality

Every statute or governmental action is presumed:

Valid and constitutional;
Enacted or performed in good faith;
Within the scope of government powers (including inherent powers).

A challenger must demonstrate:

A clear constitutional violation,
Or an absence of any reasonable connection between the measure and a legitimate exercise of inherent power.

Hence, when the Constitution is silent, the Court often leans toward upholding the governmental act, provided:

It is reasonably related to public welfare (for police power),
It complies with requirements of just compensation (for eminent domain), or
It is consistent with constitutional tax rules (for taxation).

C. Role of the judiciary

The Supreme Court does not grant or create inherent powers. Instead, it:

Recognizes them as existing by nature of the State;
Defines their scope and limitations through interpretation;
Polices the boundaries between legitimate power and unconstitutional abuse.

Judicial review is thus crucial where:

Congress or agencies claim to act under inherent powers without clear textual support;
Individual rights appear threatened or abridged;
Constitutional silence must be interpreted either as permission or restriction.

VIII. Specific Themes and Controversies

A. “Inherent powers cannot be bargained away”

A standard doctrine is that the State cannot barter away essential attributes of its sovereignty, including police power, taxation, and eminent domain.

Implications:

The government generally cannot permanently surrender its right to regulate in the public interest, even through contracts.
Franchise grants or regulatory agreements often contain clauses stating that they are subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal when public interest requires.

This means that even if a contract is silent or attempts to restrict future regulation:

The State may still enact laws under police power or taxation, subject to constitutional limits.
Contractual expectations do not freeze inherent powers.

B. Non-delegability of legislative power vs. delegation of implementation

The principle: “Delegatus non potest delegare” (a delegate cannot further delegate) is not absolute.

Congress cannot delegate its essential policy-making power.
But it may delegate:
- The implementation and enforcement of laws,
- The filling in of details, and
- Certain fact-finding or rule-making functions, provided sufficient standards and guidelines are given.

With respect to inherent powers:

Tax rates, subjects, and bases must generally be set by law, but administrative agencies may handle assessment, collection, and enforcement.
Public purpose and basic framework for expropriation must come from law, but agencies may decide whether and when to exercise that authority.
General policy for regulation is set by statute; agencies make implementing rules and regulations.

Even without an explicit constitutional clause authorizing such delegation, it is upheld under:

The practical necessity of modern governance, and
The doctrine of necessary implication from legislative power.

C. Interplay with international law and human rights

The Constitution adopts generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. This affects how inherent powers are exercised:

Police power must be harmonized with international human rights obligations (e.g., fair trial, humane treatment).
Eminent domain and compensation rules should be consistent with broader norms on property rights where applicable.
Taxation should respect international commitments (e.g., tax treaties, non-discrimination principles for foreign nationals in some contexts).

Still, in domestic constitutional theory:

Inherent powers remain domestically justified by sovereignty and necessity, but their method of exercise must reflect both constitutional and international constraints.

IX. Synthesis and Conclusion

In Philippine constitutional law, the granting of inherent powers without constitutional provision rests on several interconnected ideas:

Inherent powers pre-exist the Constitution.
- Police power, eminent domain, and taxation are essential attributes of any State.
- The Constitution assumes them; it does not create them.
The Constitution is largely a charter of limitations.
- It sets boundaries through the Bill of Rights and structural provisions.
- If the Constitution is silent, the presumption is that inherent powers exist, subject to general constitutional constraints.
Congress allocates and structures these powers.
- Through statutes, Congress determines who may exercise what aspect of an inherent power and how.
- The validity of these allocations does not depend on a specific constitutional phrase but on their consistency with the Constitution as a whole.
Subordinate entities do not possess inherent sovereignty.
- LGUs, GOCCs, and agencies exercise only delegated powers.
- Their authority to tax, expropriate, or regulate must be traceable to the Constitution (in a general sense) or to statutory grant.
Silence is not prohibition.
- The absence of an express constitutional authorization is generally not fatal to a statute that implements inherent powers.
- What is fatal is conflict with an express constitutional right or limitation.
Judicial review is the ultimate safeguard.
- Courts acknowledge the existence of inherent powers but scrutinize whether their exercise complies with due process, equal protection, just compensation, and other constitutional guarantees.

In short, in the Philippine context:

The State may validly exercise and allocate its inherent powers even without an express constitutional grant, so long as it acts within constitutional bounds. The Constitution’s primary role is not to bestow these powers, but to civilize and constrain them.

This framework explains why so many powerful state actions—taxation schemes, regulatory regimes, expropriation statutes—are upheld by the courts despite the absence of any specific constitutional article that said in advance, “You may do exactly this.” The logic of inherent powers, organized through legislation and disciplined by the Constitution, supplies their legal foundation.