This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2008-02-04 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| In Edu v. Ericta,[52] the Court defined police power as the authority of the state to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare. It is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety, and general welfare of the people. It is that inherent and plenary power of the State which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society.[53] It extends to all the great public needs and is described as the most pervasive, the least limitable and the most demanding of the three inherent powers of the State, far outpacing taxation and eminent domain.[54] It is a ubiquitous and often unwelcome intrusion. Even so, as long as the activity or the property has some relevance to the public welfare, its regulation under the police power is not only proper but necessary.[55] | |||||