It has been said the police power is so far -
reaching in scope, that it has become almost impossible to limit its sweep. As
it derives its existence from the very existence of the State itself, it does
not need to be expressed or defined in its scope; it is said to be co-extensive
with self-protection and survival, and as such it is the most positive and
active of all governmental processes, the most essential, insistent and
illimitable. Especially is it so under a modern democratic framework where the
demands of society and of nations have multiplied to almost unimaginable
proportions; the field and scope of police power has become almost boundless,
just as the fields of public interest and public welfare have become almost
all-embracing and have transcended human foresight. Otherwise stated, as we
cannot foresee the needs and demands of public interest and welfare in this
constantly changing and progressive world, so we cannot delimit beforehand the
extent or scope of police power by which and through which the State seeks to
attain or achieve interest or welfare. So it is that Constitutions do not
define the scope or extent of the police power of the State; what they do is to
set forth the limitations thereof. The most important of these are the due
process clause and the equal protection clause.
Inchong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil 115
