6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The DOJ cannot issue DOJ Circular No. 41 under the guise of police power The DOJ's reliance on the police power of the state cannot also be countenanced. Police power pertains to the "state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare."[112] "It may be said to be that inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society."[113] Verily, the exercise of this power is primarily lodged with the legislature but may be wielded by the President and administrative boards, as well as the lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels, including the barangay, by virtue of a valid delegation of power.[114] It bears noting, however, that police power may only be validly exercised if (a) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the interference of the State, and (b) the means employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.[115] On its own, the DOJ cannot wield police power since the authority pertains to Congress. Even if it claims to be exercising the same as the alter ego of the President, it must first establish the presence of a definite legislative enactment evidencing the delegation of power from its principal. This, the DOJ failed to do. There is likewise no showing that the curtailment of the right to travel imposed by DOJ Circular No. 41 was reasonably necessary in order for it to perform its investigatory duties. In any case, the exercise of police power, to be valid, must be reasonable and not repugnant to the Constitution.[116] It must never be utilized to espouse actions that violate the Constitution. Any act, however noble its intentions, is void if it violates the Constitution.[117] In the clear language of the Constitution, it is only in the interest of national security, public safety and public health that the right to travel may be impaired. None one of the mentioned circumstances was invoked by the DOJ as its premise for the promulgation of DOJ Circular No. 41. DOJ Circular No. 41 transcends constitutional limitations Apart from lack of legal basis, DOJ Circular No. 41 also suffers from other serious infirmities that render it invalid. The apparent vagueness of the circular as to the distinction between a HDO and WLO is violative of the due process clause. An act that is vague "violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid and leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle."[118] Here, the distinction is significant as it will inform the respondents of the grounds, effects and the measures they may take to contest the issuance against them. Verily, there must be a standard by which a HDO or WLO may be issued, particularly against those whose cases are still under preliminary investigation, since at that stage there is yet no criminal information against them which could have warranted the restraint. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64165 24/70