CHAPTER 3 The Concept of State

 CHAPTER 3: 

The Concept of State

What is a STATE?

Some see the STATE as 

1. an ancient institution 

and some see it as modern with

2. the development of rule of law, citizenship rights and broad economic and social responsibility.

But a STATE is more than a government;

 governments change but states endure.

• State is derived from the Italian term “lo stato” to describe the whole of the social hierarchy that governs and rules a country.

• Coined by Machiavelli in his book the Prince in the 1500s.

• The modern, formal, legal definition is, it is a community of persons, more or less numerous, living in a specific territory, having a government that commands obedience within the territory and is free from external control.

• Our country is a state same as the neighboring countries and countries around the world.

 

 If you noticed, the formal definition of the state describes the 4 elements needed in the formation of the STATE. We will emphasize these elements later as we move further in our discussion of the state. 

How does the State differ from a Nation?

 At first glance, the use of state and nation may be the same. They can be used

interchangeably, but distinct from each other.

Definition of NATION 

A nation can be defined as..

•  group of persons
•  belonging to one community,
•  having one culture and language,
•  and living the same experience.

Definition of STATE 

On the contrary,

a state can be defined as

•  a patch of land,

• with a sovereign government of the people and 

• free from external control.

 

 It does not necessarily mean that a nation would automatically have a territory and government. It exclusively refers to the people like the Filipinos, the Japanese, the Americans. 

• A nation may comprise several states like the Arab Nation comprised of Egypt,Iraq, Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan and Algeria.

• On the other hand, it is also possible for a single state to be made up of many nations like USA which was a melting pot of many nations, whose populations consist of Malaysia, Chinese and Africans.

How does the State differ from a Nation-State?

 Another concept confused with the state is the nation-state. 

But basically, we can say

that this is closer to the real concept of the state.

Nation-state also includes all the elements of the state.

The main difference of a nation-state to that of the state lies in the characteristics

of the populace.

In a nation-state, ...

1. the people are homogenous.
2. A nation-state is an ideal one because it is close to impossibility. 
3. This means that the population has one culture, one language, one experience, one ethnicity, 

thus a country can be called a nation-state only when the population living in the state has no or almost no difference. It requires a population with no variety.

Check your general knowledge here ...
 

       Can you name a state that is close to the characteristics of a nation-state?

         🤔🤔🤔🤔???

Think about and answer in comments section....☀️☀️☀️☀️ 

Four Elements of the State

1. PEOPLE

• It refers to the number of people living within a state.

• It must be small enough to be governed and large enough to be self-sufficing.

It is said to be the most essential and indispensable element of the state.

How many people does it need in order for the state to have the people as an element?

 There is no law requiring the number of people a state must have but it should ...

• neither be too small
•  nor too large.

 This involves all the citizens of a state, but at certain point, it even includes the foreigners staying in the state since they are also covered by the sovereignty and protection of the state.

 

2. TERRITORY

• This is where the people of a state live.

• It refers to the jurisdiction of the state and basically it has 3 domains: 

1. aerial,
2. terrestrial and
3.  fluvial.

• The determination of territory can be seen under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS).

•  Territory is one of the fundamental attributes of a State. 

• The exercise of sovereignty is predicated upon territory. With territory, the State could perform acts and be subject to duties and limitations.

3. GOVERNMENT

• It refers to the aggregates of persons or institutio ns which rule the society.

• It is the agency of the state wherein the will of the state is manifested.

• It refers to the organization in charge of the management, administration, and

governance of the people within the jurisdiction of the state and the resources within it.

• An institution over which the will of the state is formulated, expressed, and

carried out.

•  In democratic countries, the will of the state is the will of the people. In authoritarian

countries, the will of the state is the will of the few, elite aristocrats. 

4. SOVEREIGNTY

• It refers to the supreme power of the state.

• It is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any

interference from outside sources or bodies.

 Two Aspects/Dimensions of Sovereignty

a. Internal Sovereignty

The absolute power of the state to rule its people, supreme power of the state to

command obedience within its territory.

 

b. External Sovereignty

The freedom or independence of the state from foreign and external control.

 

Inherent Powers of the State

 Being a STATE, it automatically grants certain inherent powers that come from a

state’s sovereignty. These are outright, absolute and complete. It is said that these powers are

inherent because they need not be expressly conferred by constitutional provision as they are

supposed to co-exist with the State.

Are the Inherent Powers of the State subject to limitation?

 

 Despite being inherent and indispensable, these powers have restrictions. These powers

may not be exercised to trample or step upon the rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

These fundamental powers are subject at all times to the limitations and requirements of the

Constitution.

 1. POWER of EMINENT DOMAIN

• It refers to the ability of the state to acquire private property that will be used for

public purposes through just compensation.

• Also known as the power of expropriation.

 It means that when a property is owned by a private person or corporation but the state

is interested in it, the state can acquire it by paying the right amount of money based upon the

fair market value. The value will be determined by the assessor so that the compensation is

just.

 

If the State really needs the property for public use, can it force the owner to sell his property

even if he does not want to sell it?

NO! If the owner did not agree and there is no agreement, the property will

remain in the ownership of the private owner, hence it will remain private property.

• The state cannot force its sale because it will violate the right to private property,

this means that even if this inherent power is powerful, it still has limitations.

• If the owner agrees, then, the property will be acquired by the state and become a

public property.

• If the property is already a public property, it must be used for public purposes;

the property should be used for the good of the people.

Who may EXERCISE the Power of Eminent Domain?

 The power of eminent domain is primarily lodged in the law-making body. But it may

validly delegated to other government entities and to private corporations (quasi-public

corporations) serving essential public needs or operating public utilities.

Under the law, the following may also exercise the power of eminent domain:

• The President

• The Local Legislative Bodies

• Certain public corporations (LRA and MWSS)

• Quasi-public corporations (PNR, PLDT, MERALCO)

Requisites of Taking the Property

a. Necessity 

b. Private Property

 c. Just Compensation

a. Necessity 

There is a need to acquire a private property for public use given that it is being

taken with just compensation.

b. Private Property

The property to be taken must be private subject to expropriation

c. Just Compensation

There is full and fair equivalent property taken from the private owner.

2. POLICE POWER 

 The police power is based on the Latin maxim: the welfare of the people is the first law.

It is the power ...

• vested in the Legislature
•  to pass reasonable laws
•  to promote the health, peace,morals, education and good order of the people, 
• and to increase the industries of the state,
• develops its resources, and add to its wealth and prosperity.

 

1. It is the ability of the state to use its police force to enforce peace and order.

1. It aims, basically, to promote the common good.

 The state can use the police force to control any kind of disorder in its territory. Police

power is the right to protect the country and its population from threats to the public health

and safety.

Police power describes the basic right of governments to make laws and regulations for

the benefit of their communities. Police power describes the basic right of governments

to make laws and regulations for the benefit of their communities.

3. POWER of TAXATION

 The right of taxation is inherent in the state. The state is established for the

advancement of the people and hence it must have means with which to carry out it

works. The state was established because only through its existence can human beings attain

their greatest well-being, and for that reason the people must give up part of their income to

the state.

• It is the ability of the state to levy required contributions from its constituents.

• it is the lifeblood of the state.

• The mandatory contributions must be used for the good of the society

 The power of taxation is described by the Supreme Court as a symbiotic relationship

whereby in exchange for the protection that the citizens get from the government, taxes are

paid. Taxes are collected to deliver social services to the people.

Purpose and Importance of Taxation

1. The purpose of taxation is undoubtedly to raise revenues of funds to support the government and its services. 
2. The importance of taxation derives from the unavoidable obligation of the government to protect the people and extend them benefits in the form of public projects and services.

 Although not specified in the Constitution, the inherent powers of the State are

reasonable powers that are a logical part of the powers delegated to Congress and the

president.

 Are the inherent powers of the State being exercised by the government for the

common good? What do you think?

 

Now that we already learned the concept and elements of the State and its inherent powers,

we are now ready to know the theories on state formation.

 WHY ARE STATES FORMED? 

States were first created many thousands of years ago,

mainly to fight wars and defend territory. Today, states do more than this. They provide a

form of central control for public services, and look after the welfare of their citizens.

Different theories on how states are formed:

There are different theories on how states are formed; essentially, these theories will

explain the origins of the state......

1. Divine Right Theory

• Assumed that the state is created by God, thus, the leader is also chosen by God.

• This theory can explain the situation during the Medieval era in Europe.

• These monarchs justify their leadership and absolute power by the rights given to

them by God, and that disobeying them means disobeying the will of God, and the

punishment is hell.

Make a study on the life of King Louis XIV and his infamous “L’etat c’est moi” and

relate it to the theory of Divine Right.

2. Force Theory

• Force theory is the process of establishing a new government or country through

the use of force.

• This process involves one group of people entering into an area and making

everyone else within that territory submit to the new government and social system.

• It maintains that the State is founded because the weak seeks protection and the

strong ones protect and rule them in return.

 For the force theorists, they believe that the world changes from time to time, the world

will always have conflicts and wars, and because of these conflicts, states are created. For

example, the Philippine state was created after the Revolution of 1896.

 

3. Instinctive Theory

• This theory is associated to Aristotle.

• States are created because of human instincts and rationality.

• Man must have to associate himself to others to achieve his telos.

As they become big enough, it will reach to the point of becoming a state.

 Man cannot achieve his happiness alone. He realizes and considers the importance of

other people and would start to interact with other people to work towards telos. With this

interaction, they would start forming groups until these groups would become big enough and

complex enough, it would become a state.

The state, to Aristotle, is the most complex of all social organizations, and it will be the

one that can help man achieve its telos.

 
4. Patriarchal Theory

• It believes that the State is a mere expansion of family.

• Family grew into clan, clan into tribe, tribe into nation and nation into State.

 It believes in a system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of

political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. 

Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by

the male lineage.

 

5. Social Contract Theory

• It believes that the State was founded by man’s covenant or contract.

• States are formed through agreements among human beings,

 The general idea in this theory is that there was a time wherein there is no government.

There is no government – 

the state of nature. In this state of nature, the rights of man are absolute. Therefore, they

can do anything they want without any authority regulating or limiting them, disorder

and violence are rampant.

 People come together to create a social contract wherein they will give up some of

their rights to form the state, and in return, security and protection are given to them. Thus,

this is how the state is created through an agreement among people.

 

There are three variations of this this theory. Three political philosophy thinkers discussed
this theory but with differences.

A. Thomas Hobbes and the Leviathan

He started with the idea of a very violent state of nature.

He even described that the life of man is short, brutal and nasty.

And because of too much chaos, people who are rational will think of coming up

with a compromise and have an agreement.

They would create a social contract to create the Leviathan.

 

 The LEVIATHAN is basically a mythical sea monsters who is considered to be the most

powerful in his domain. To Hobbes, the Leviathan refers to someone who has supreme power

over everyone. He is referring to the MONARCH.

 

 

 It does not matter what the monarch does, good or evil, people cannot overthrow him

because they are the ones who created him; rebelling against the Leviathan would mean

rebelling against themselves. The purpose of the state is for the maintenance of peace and

order.

 

B. John Locke and the Two Treatises on Government

He views the state not as chaotic but as a moderate nature.

The state of nature has a potential for chaos rather than real chaos.

In that situation, men, because of their rationality, would make a social contract.

 Unlike Thomas Hobbes who argued that the Leviathan, whatever he does, cannot be

overthrown, John Locke argued that the STATE is purported to protect the natural rights of

the people and the right to rebel against unjust laws.

 He said that the people can rebel against a government that is not doing its duty and

abuses its power, because it is part of their rights. This type of state that Locke constructs is

related to democracy

C. Jean Jacques Rousseau and The Social Contract 

He argues that the introduction of a society is the reason why people become evil

and insecure.

He said, “man is born free and yet everywhere he is chained”.

For him, the construction of a social contract is not exactly good.

 The arguments of Rousseau are a little different compared to the previous two. For

Rousseau, the STATE OF NATURE is NOT ACTUALLY BAD, and that man is basically free

and good prior to the groupings of people.

But since the contract is already there, the purpose of the state is to protect the common

good and that if the state, through a government, will not do its responsibilities, the

people may overthrow the govt, and this cycle will go on.

To Rousseau, overthrowing the government can be avoided until such time that there

will be a government that will adhere to the protection of the common good.

thank you