1.

Police power rests upon public necessity and upon the right of the State and of the public to
self-protection. For this reason, its scope expands and contracts with changing needs.
Police power is the sovereign power to promote and protect the general welfare. It is the most
pervasive and the least limitable of the three powers of the state, the most essential, consistent
and illimitable which enables the State to prohibit all hurtful things to the comfort, safety and
welfare of the society.

It also refers to the power vested in the legislature by the Constitution to make, ordain,
establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, or ordinances, either with
penalties, or without, nor repugnant to the constitution, as they shall be judge to be for the good
and welfare of the state and the subjects.

Police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It can exist even without reservation
in the constitution. It is based on necessity as without it, there can be no effective government. It
is also referred to as the law of overwhelming necessity.
Police power rests upon public necessity and upon the right of the State and of the public
to self-protection. For this reason, it is co-extensive with the necessities of the case and the
safeguards of public interest.
In Section 11 of R.A. No. 6646, the legislature aims to uphold the State's policy of
guaranteeing equal access to opportunities for public service. 3 Opportunity to hold a public office
for public service, particularly elective public offices must be equally accessible to qualified and
deserving citizens. Corollary to this, the legislature also recognizes the power of the Commission
on Elections (COMELEC) to supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all franchises or
permits for the operation of media of communication or information granted by the government
or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof. "Such supervision or regulation shall aim to
ensure equal opportunity, time, and space, and the right to reply, including reasonable, equal rates
therefore, for public information campaigns and forums among candidates in connection with the
objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections."
"It may be said in a general way that the police power extends to all the great public needs.
It may be put forth in aid of what is sanctioned by usage, or held by the prevailing morality or
strong and preponderant opinion to be greatly and immediately necessary to the public welfare.

2. Emotional immaturity and irresponsibility cannot be equated with psychological incapacity.

According to Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines, A marriage contracted by any
party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with his
obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after
its solemnization.
The Psychological Incapacity under Article 36 contemplates an incapacity or inability to take
cognizance of and to assume basic marital obligations, and is not merely the difficulty, refusal or
neglect in the performance of marital obligations or ill will. It consists of:
(a) A true inability to commit oneself to the essentials of marriage;
(b) The inability must refer to the essential obligations of marriage, that is, the conjugal act, the
community of life and love, the rendering of mutual help, and the procreation and education of
offspring; and
(c) The inability must be tantamount to a psychological abnormality.
It means that if one of the parties is psychologically incapacitated to comply with his obligation
as a spouse, then the marriage is void from the very beginning. That is why the legal remedy is to
petition the court for nullity of the marriage.
The Supreme Court had laid down the guidelines for the interpretation and application of Article
36:
a) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its
dissolution and nullity.
b) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified,
(b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the
decision.
c) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the
marriage.
d) Such incapacity must be also shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
e) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume
essential obligations of marriage.
f) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the
Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221, and 225 of the same
Code in regard to parents and their children.
g) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church
in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.
h) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to
appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General
issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for
his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition.
Psychological incapacity is now the most popular ground invoked by couples who would want to
dissolve their marital bond for just about any reason rendering cohabitation unbearable. Most of
the time a man and a woman plunge into marital waters completely oblivious of the many hazards
waiting for them because they are so tantalized by the romantic moments of courtship. They just
gloss over each other’s weaknesses until it is too late.
"Psychological incapacity" should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that
causes a party to be truly in-cognitive of the basic marital covenants including the mutual
obligation to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity, and render help and support (Art. 88
Family Code). Its meaning is confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.
This psychological condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated. Emotional
immaturity and irresponsibility invoked by Lydia cannot be equated with psychological incapacity.

3. Unlawful aggression does not exist where the peril to ones life, limb or right is neither actual
nor imminent.

By definition, unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real and
imminent injury upon a person. In the case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively
showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. It presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or
imminent danger not merely threatening and intimidating action. It is present only when the one
attacked faces real and immediate threat to ones life.

Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial element of the justifying
circumstance of self-defense. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no justified killing in
defense of oneself. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is
whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person
defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused
must establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must
be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least,
imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful.
A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient. There must be a real danger to life or
personal safety.
The aggression must constitute a violation of the law. When the aggression ceased to exist, there
is no longer a necessity to defend ones self. EXCEPT: when the aggressor retreats to obtain a more
advantageous position to ensure the success of the initial attack, unlawful aggression is deemed
to continue.