Inherent Powers in Constitutional Law: Granting Without Explicit Constitutional Mention

I. Introduction: The Nature of Sovereignty and the Silence of the Constitution

A sovereign state does not derive its fundamental powers from a constitution. The constitution merely recognizes, limits, and regulates powers that already inhere in the state by virtue of its existence as an independent political community. This is the essence of the doctrine of inherent powers in Philippine constitutional law.

The 1987 Constitution does not “grant” police power, the power of eminent domain, or the power of taxation. It presupposes their existence and subjects them to express limitations (due process, equal protection, non-impairment of contracts, just compensation, uniformity, progressivity, public purpose, etc.). The Constitution’s silence on the source of these powers is deliberate: they are attributes of sovereignty that pre-exist the charter and survive even its abrogation.

This principle was squarely affirmed in Republic v. Meralco (2007), where the Supreme Court declared:

“The State has powers that are inherent in its sovereignty. These powers are not derived from the Constitution but are intrinsic to the existence of a sovereign state.”

II. The Classic Trilogy of Inherent Powers

Philippine jurisprudence has consistently recognized three great inherent powers of the state:

1. Police Power
2. Power of Eminent Domain
3. Power of Taxation

These powers are co-extensive with self-protection and survival of the state and are sometimes collectively referred to as the “trinity of sovereign powers.”

A. Police Power

Nature and Scope
Police power is the most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most demanding of the three inherent powers. It is the power of the State to promote public health, public morals, public safety, and the general welfare.

It is not expressly mentioned in the 1987 Constitution, yet it is the foundation of thousands of laws and ordinances.

Leading Definitions in Philippine Jurisprudence

• Rubi v. Provincial Board (1919): “the power of promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property.”
• Ichong v. Hernandez (1957): “the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety, and general welfare of the people.”
• Ermita-Malate Hotel & Motel Operators Assn. v. City Mayor (1967): “the power is elastic and capable of expansion to meet existing conditions.”
• Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. DSWD (2007): police power may even reach into the purely economic sphere when the general welfare so requires (upholding Senior Citizens discount as valid police power measure).
• White Light Corp. v. City of Manila (2009): the “general welfare” clause is not a roving commission to suppress whatever the legislature finds distasteful.

Limitations
Police power is subject to two constitutional tests:

1. Lawful Subject – the interest of the public generally, as distinguished from a particular class, requires the intervention.
2. Lawful Means – the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive.

Substantive due process and equal protection are the primary constitutional restraints.

Delegation
Police power may be delegated to local government units (R.A. 7160) and even to administrative agencies, provided there are sufficient standards.

B. Power of Eminent Domain

Nature and Scope
The power to take private property for public use upon payment of just compensation. Like police power, it is an attribute of sovereignty that exists independently of the Constitution.

Constitutional Provision
Article III, Section 9: “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.”

This provision is a limitation, not a grant.

Even without Section 9, the State could still expropriate; the provision merely imposes the requirement of just compensation.

Leading Cases

• City of Manila v. Chinese Community (1919): “The power of eminent domain is inherent in all governments… The provisions found in most of the American constitutions… are not grants of power but limitations upon the power already existing.”
• Republic v. Castellvi (1979): public use is now interpreted as “public advantage,” “public benefit,” or “public convenience.”
• Heirs of Moreno v. Mactan-Cebul International Airport Authority (2005): necessity of taking is a political question left to the legislature or its delegate.
• National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Sangkay (2011): the power may be delegated to government-owned and controlled corporations.

Requisites for Valid Exercise

1. Necessity (judicially non-reviewable when exercised by the legislature)
2. Private property
3. Taking in the constitutional sense
4. Public use
5. Just compensation
6. Due process

C. Power of Taxation

Nature and Scope
The power to impose burdens upon persons, property, or activities to raise revenue for public purposes.

Article VI, Section 28 of the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations (uniformity, equity, progressivity, public purpose, non-impairment, etc.), but does not create the power.

Inherent Character

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fortune Tobacco Corp. (2008): “Taxation is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It exists independent of constitutions and without being expressly conferred by the people.”

Scope and Limitations

• Inherent limitations: public purpose, non-delegation of legislative taxing power (except to LGUs under sufficient standards), international comity, territoriality.
• Constitutional limitations: due process, equal protection, uniformity, progressive system, exemption of religious/charitable entities, etc.

III. Inherent Powers Beyond the Classic Trilogy

Philippine jurisprudence has recognized other inherent powers that are not expressly mentioned in the Constitution but are deemed necessary attributes of sovereignty.

A. Residual/Unenumerated Powers of the President

Marcos v. Manglapus (1989) – the landmark case

The Supreme Court, in denying Ferdinand Marcos’s petition to return to the Philippines, declared:

“The President has residual powers — powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution but which are implicit in the general grant of executive power under Article VII, Section 1, and which are necessary for her to comply with her duties under the Constitution… These residual powers are implied from the grant of executive power and are necessary to implement the express powers or to protect the rights of the people.”

This decision explicitly recognized that executive power is not limited to those expressly conferred by the Constitution.

Subsequent applications:

• Pimentel v. Executive Secretary (2005): the President’s power to enter into executive agreements without Senate concurrence in certain cases.
• Oposa v. Factoran (1993): implied recognition of the President’s residual power to protect intergenerational rights.
• David v. Macapagal-Arroyo (2006) and Fortun v. Macapagal-Arroyo (2012): the President’s “calling-out power” as commander-in-chief is an inherent power that requires no legislative authorization.

B. Power to Deport Undesirable Aliens

Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board (1963): “The deportation of an undesirable alien is an inherent sovereign power. It is not dependent upon any statutory grant.”

C. Power to Protect National Security and Public Order

Laurel v. Misa (1947): the state has the inherent right to self-preservation.

Government of the Philippine Islands v. Springer (1927): the state may organize corporations for public purposes even without express constitutional authority.

IV. Theoretical Foundations

Philippine doctrine on inherent powers draws from three main sources:

1. American jurisprudence (Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), Missouri v. Holland (1920))
2. Spanish public law tradition (poder constitutivo vs. poder constituido)
3. Natural law and social contract theory (the state must possess all means necessary for its preservation)

The Philippine Supreme Court has repeatedly cited Cooley, Freund, and Willoughby on constitutional law for the proposition that certain powers are “inherent in sovereignty” and “exist without constitutional recognition.”

V. Conclusion: The Constitution as Restraint, Not Source

The doctrine of inherent powers is one of the most important yet least discussed principles in Philippine constitutional law. It reminds us that the Constitution is not a grant of power to the State but a limitation upon powers that already exist by virtue of sovereignty.

When the Constitution is silent, it does not mean the power is absent — it often means the power is so fundamental that it need not be stated. The judiciary’s role is not to deny such powers but to ensure they are exercised within constitutional bounds.

As Justice Perfecto eloquently stated in his separate opinion in Ichong v. Hernandez:

“Police power is inherent in every sovereignty. It is as old as the government itself… It is not conferred by the Constitution. The Constitution presupposes its existence.”

In an era of expanding state functions, the doctrine of inherent powers remains the ultimate justification for governmental action when the text of the Constitution offers no explicit warrant — provided always that such action respects the Bill of Rights and the rule of law.