Toprint Test Of Police Power Laws

state and imposing upon the government limitations to safeguard constitutional rights did not intend thereby to Facts: enable individual citizens or group of citizens to obstruct unreasonably the enactment of such salutary measures to Petitioners in this case were charged by the RTC of ensure communal peace, safety, good order and welfare." Butuan City in violation of Ordinance No. 640, an ordinance penalizing any person, group of person, group of persons, BP 22 had been questioned as a violation of this entity or corporation engaged in the business of selling right. However, it's not the non-payment of an obligation admission tickets to any movie or other public exhibitions, which this law punishes. The law isn't designed to coerce a games, contests or other performances to require children debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, between 7 and 12 years of age to pay full payment for under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless tickets intended for adults but should charge only one-half checks and putting them in circulation. Checks have of the said ticket. become widely accepted as a medium of payment in trade and commerce, and if the confidence in checks is shaken, The petitioners questioned the validity and the usefulness of checks as currency substitutes would be constitutionality of the statute on the grounds that it is ultra greatly diminished. When the question was resolved in vires and an invalid exercise of police power. 1986, it had been reported that the approximate value of bouncing checks per day was close to 200 Million Pesos, Issue: thereafter averaging between P50 to P80 Million a day. BALACUIT v. CFI

WON Ordinance No. 640 is valid and constitutional. HELD:

Facts:

No, the Ordinance No. 640 is said to be unconstitutional because to invoke the exercise of police power, not only must it appear that the interest of the public generally requires an interference with private rights, but the means adopted must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. The legislature may not, under the guise of protecting the public interest, arbitrarily interfere with private business, or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations. In other words, the determination as to what is a proper exercise of its police power is not final or conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the courts. The exercise of police power by the local government is valid unless it contravenes the fundamental law of the land, or an act of the legislature, or unless it is against public policy or is unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discriminating or in derogation of a common right. Ordinance No. 640 clearly invades personal and property rights of a business man, where selling and purchasing admission ticket are under the discretion of theater owners and no person is under compulsion to purchase a ticket. It is a totally voluntary act on the part of the purchaser if he buys a ticket to such performances. LOZANO v. MARTINEZ Facts:

TABLARIN v. GUTIERREZ Teresita Tablarin, Ma. Luz Ciriaco, Ma. Nimfa B. Rovira, and Evangelina S. Labao sought admission into colleges or schools of medicine for the school year 19871988. However, they either did not take or did not successfully take the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) required by the Board of Medical Education and administered by the Center for Educational Measurement (CEM). On 5 March 1987, Tablarin, et. al., in behalf of applicants for admission into the Medical Colleges who have not taken up or successfully hurdled the NMAT, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), National Capital Judicial Region, a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Prohibition with a prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction, to enjoin the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports, the Board of Medical Education and the Center for Educational Measurement from enforcing Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act 2382, as amended, and MECS Order 52 (series of 1985), dated 23 August 1985 [which established a uniform admission test (NMAT) as an additional requirement for issuance of a certificate of eligibility for admission into medical schools of the Philippines, beginning with the school year 1986-1987] and from requiring the taking and passing of the NMAT as a condition for securing certificates of eligibility for admission, from proceeding with accepting applications for taking the NMAT and from administering the NMAT as scheduled on 26 April 1987 and in the future. After hearing on the petition for issuance of preliminary injunction, the trial court denied said petition on 20 April 1987. The NMAT was conducted and administered as previously scheduled. Tablarin, et. al. accordingly filed a Special Civil Action for Certiorari with the Supreme Court to set aside the Order of the RTC judge denying the petition for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

The issue raised by the defendants is the constitutionality of Batasang Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) popularly known as the Bouncing Check Law. The defendants moved to quash the informations on the grounds that the acts charged did not constitute an offense and that the statute is unconstitutional. The defendants contended that the statute run counter to the inhibition of Bill Issue: Whether NMAT requirement for admission to of Rights which states “No person shall be imprisoned for medical colleges contravenes the Constitutional guarantee for the accessibility of education to all, and whether such debt or non-payment of a poll tax.” regulation is invalid and/or unconstitutional. Issue: WON BP 22 is a valid law Held: Yes, the court did find the enactment of BP 22 a valid Held: exercise of the police power and is not repugnant to the No. Republic Act 2382, as amended by Republic constitutional inhibition against imprisonment of debt. Acts 4224 and 5946, known as the “Medical Act of 1959″ defines its basic objectives to govern (a) the standardization The police power of the state has been described and regulation of medical education; (b) the examination for as "the most essential, insistent and illimitable of powers" registration of physicians; and (c) the supervision, control which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, and regulation of the practice of medicine in the Philippines. safety and welfare of society. It is a power not emanating The Statute created a Board of Medical Education from or conferred by the constitution, but inherent in the and prescribed certain minimum requirements for applicants state, plenary, "suitably vague and far from precisely to medical schools. The State is not really enjoined to take defined, rooted in the conception that man in organizing the appropriate steps to make quality education “accessible to

all who might for any number of reasons wish to enroll in a professional school but rather merely to make such education accessible to all who qualify under “fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements.” The regulation of the practice of medicine in all its branches has long been recognized as a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public. The power to regulate and control the practice of medicine includes the power to regulate admission to the ranks of those authorized to practice medicine. Legislation and administrative regulations requiring those who wish to practice medicine first to take and pass medical board examinations have long ago been recognized as valid exercises of governmental power. Similarly, the establishment of minimum medical educational requirements for admission to the medical profession, has also been sustained as a legitimate exercise of the regulatory authority of the state.