As correctly pointed out by respondents, President Duterte must be dropped as respondent in this case. The Court's pronouncement in Professor David v. President Macapagal-Arroyo[20] on the non-suability of an incumbent President cannot be any clearer, viz.:
x x x Settled is the doctrine that the President, during his tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or law. It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the Head of State, if he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such. Furthermore, it is important that he be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully attend to the performance of his official duties and functions. Unlike the legislative and judicial branch, only one constitutes the executive branch and anything which impairs his usefulness in the discharge of the many great and important duties imposed upon him by the Constitution necessarily impairs the operation of the Government.[21]
XXXX
Police power, amongst the three fundamental and inherent powers of the state, is the most pervasive and comprehensive.[40] "It has been defined as the 'state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote general welfare."[41] "As defined, it consists of (1) imposition or restraint upon liberty or property, (2) in order to foster the common good. It is not capable of exact definition but has been purposely, veiled in general terms to underscore its all-comprehensive embrace."[42] The police power "finds no specific Constitutional grant for the plain reason that it does not owe its origin to the Charter"[43] since "it is inborn in the very fact of statehood and sovereignty."[44] It is said to be the "inherent and plenary power of the State which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of the society."[45] Thus, police power constitutes an implied limitation on the Bill of Rights.[46] After all, "the Bill of Rights itself does not purport to be an absolute guaranty of individual rights and liberties. 'Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's will.' It is subject to the far more overriding demands and requirements of the greater number."[47]
"Expansive and extensive as its reach may be, police power is not a force without limits."[48] "It has to be exercised within bounds – lawful ends through lawful means, i.e., that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from that of a particular class, require its exercise, and that the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose while not being unduly oppressive upon individuals."[49]
That the assailed governmental measure in this case is within the scope of police power cannot be disputed. Verily, the statutes[50] from which the said measure draws authority and the constitutional provisions[51] which serve as its framework are primarily concerned with the environment and health, safety, and well-being of the people, the promotion and securing of which are clearly legitimate objectives of governmental efforts and regulations. The motivating factor in the issuance of Proclamation No. 475 is without a doubt the interest of the public in general. The only question now is whether the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
The pressing need to implement urgent measures to rehabilitate Boracay is beyond cavil from the factual milieu that precipitated the President's issuance of Proclamation No. 475. This necessity is even made more critical and insistent by what the Court said in Oposa v. Hon. Factoran, Jr.[52] in regard the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health, which rights are likewise integral concerns in this case. Oposa warned that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are given continuing importance and the State assumes its solemn obligation to preserve and protect them, the time will come that nothing will be left not only for this generation but for the generations to come as well.[53] It further taught that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.[54]
No comments:
Post a Comment