Police Power

Though it has been held that a nuisance per se may be abated via an ordinance, without judicial
proceedings, We add that, in the case at bar, petitioners were required to justify their abatement via
such an ordinance because the power they claim to have exercised the police power under the general
welfare clause is a power exercised by the government mainly through its legislative, and not the
executive, branch. The prevailing jurisprudence is that local government units such as the provinces,
cities, municipalities and barangays exercise police power through their respective legislative bodies.
(Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Garin, 496 Phil. 82, 92 (2005); City of Manila v. Laguio,
supra note 38, at 319)

Police power is vested primarily with the national legislature, which may delegate the same to local
governments through the enactment of ordinances through their legislative bodies (the sanggunians).
(Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc., 385 Phil. 586, 603
(2000); Gallego v. People, supra note 43; Acebedo Optical Company Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 385 Phil.
956, 968-969 [2000])

Clearly, the complete destruction of the basketball ring by the petitioners is justified neither by law or
ordinance nor even by equity or necessity, which makes the act illegal and petitioners liable Their good
intentions do not justify the destruction of private property without a legal warrant, because the
promotion of the general welfare is not antithetical to the preservation of the rule of law. Unlike the
examples cited earlier of a mad dog on the loose, pornography on display or a filthy restaurant, which all
pose immediate danger to the public and, therefore, could be addressed by anyone on sight, a
basketball ring as a nuisance poses no such urgency that could have prevented petitioners from
exercising any form of deliberation or circumspection before acting on the same. (Cruz and De la Cruz v.
Pandacan Hikers Club, Inc., G.R. No. 188213, January 11, 2016)

The distribution of electricity is a basic necessity that is imbued with public interest. Its provider is
considered as a public utility subject to the strict regulation by the State in the exercise of its police
power. (Manila Electric Company v. Sps. Ramos, G.R. No. 195145, February 10, 2016)

The respondents challenge Section 5 of Ordinance No. 0309-07 for being unreasonable and oppressive
in that it sets the effectivity of the ban at three months after publication of the ordinance. They allege
that three months will be inadequate time to shift from aerial to truck-mounted boom spraying, and
effectively deprives them of efficient means to combat the Black Sigatoka disease We find for the
respondents. The impossibility of carrying out a shift to another mode of pesticide application within
three months can readily be appreciated given the vast area of the affected plantations and the
corresponding resources required therefor. To recall, even the RTC recognized the impracticality of
attaining a full-shift to other modes of spraying within three months in view of the costly financial and
civil works required for the conversion. (Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters
Association, Inc., G.R. No. 189185, August 16, 2016)