POLICE POWER CONSTI2

Stone v. Mississippi 101 U.S. 814 (, 25 L.Ed. 1079) It is now too late to contend that any contract which a State actually enters into when granting a charter to a private corporation is not within the protection of the clause in the Constitution of the United States that prohibits States from passing laws impairing the obligation of contracts. Art. 1, sect. 10. The doctrines of Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (4 Wheat. 518), announced by this court more than sixty years ago, have become so imbedded in the jurisprudence of the United States as to make them to all intents and purposes a part of the Constitution itself. In this connection, however, it is to be kept in mind that it is not the charter which is protected, but only any contract the charter may contain. If there is no contract, there is nothing in the grant on which the Constitution can act. Consequently, the first inquiry in this class of cases always is, whether a contract has in fact been entered into, and if so, what its obligations are. In the present case the question is whether the state of Mississippi, in its sovereign capacity, did by the charter now under consideration bind itself irrevocably by a contract to permit 'the Mississippi Agricultural, Educational, and Manufacturing Aid Society,' for twenty-five years, 'to receive subscriptions, and sell and dispose of certificates of subscription which shall entitle the holders thereof to' 'any lands, books, paintings, antiques, scientific instruments or apparatus, or any other property or thing that may be ornamental, valuable, or useful,' 'awarded to them' 'by the casting of lots, or by lot, chance, or otherwise.' There can be no dispute but that under this form of words the legislature of the State chartered a lottery company, having all the powers incident to such a corporation, for twenty-five years, and that in consideration thereof the company paid into the State treasury $5,000 for the use of a university, and agreed to pay, and until the commencement of this suit did pay, an annual tax of $1,000 and 'one-half of one per cent on the amount of receipts derived from the sale of certificates or tickets.' If the legislature that granted this charter had the power to bind the people of the State and all succeeding legislatures to allow the corporation to continue its corporate business during the whole term of its authorized existence, there is no doubt about the sufficiency of the language employed to effect that object, although there was an evident purpose to conceal the vice of the transaction by the phrases that were used. Whether the alleged contract exists, therefore, or not, depends on the authority of the legislature to bind the State and the people of the State in that way. All agree that the legislature cannot bargain away the police power of a State. 'Irrevocable grants of property and franchises may be made if they do not impair the supreme authority to make laws for the right government of the State; but no legislature can curtail the power of its successors to make such laws as they may deem

proper in matters of police.' Metropolitan Board of Excise v. Barrie, 34 N. Y. 657; Boyd v. Alabama, 94 U. S. 645. Many attempts have been made in this court and elsewhere to define the police power, but never with entire success. It is always easier to determine whether a particular case comes within the general scope of the power, than to give an abstract definition of the power itself which will be in all respects accurate. No one denies, however, that it extends to all matters affecting the public health or the public morals. Beer Company v. Massachusetts, 97 id. 25; Patterson v. Kentucky, id. 501. Neither can it be denied that lotteries are proper subjects for the exercise of this power. We are aware that formerly, when the sources of public revenue were fewer than now, they were used in some or all of the States, and even in the District of Columbia, to raise money for the erection of public buildings, making public improvements, and not unfrequently for educational and religious purposes; but this court said, more than thirty years ago, speaking through Mr. Justice Grier, in Phalen v. Virginia (8 How. 163, 168), that 'experience has shown that the common forms of gambling are comparatively innocuous when placed in contrast with the widespread pestilence of lotteries. The former are confined to a few persons and places, but the latter infests the whole community; it enters every dwelling; it reaches every class; it preys upon the hard earnings of the poor; and it plunders the ignorant and simple.' Happily, under the influence of restrictive legislation, the evils are not so apparent now; but we very much fear that with the same opportunities of indulgence the same results would be manifested. If lotteries are to be tolerated at all, it is no doubt better that they should be regulated by law, so that the people may be protected as far as possible against the inherent vices of the system; but that they are demoralizing in their effects, no matter how carefully regulated, cannot dmit of a doubt. When the government is untrammelled by any claim of vested rights or chartered privileges, no one has ever supposed that lotteries could not lawfully be suppressed, and those who manage them punished severely as violators of the rules of social morality. From 1822 to 1867, without any constitutional requirement, they were prohibited by law in Mississippi, and those who conducted them punished as a kind of gamblers. During the provisional government of that State, in 1867, at the close of the late civil war, the present act of incorporation, with more of like character, was passed. The next year, 1868, the people, in adopting a new constitution with a view to the resumption of their political rights as one of the United States, provided that 'the legislature shall never authorize any lottery, nor shall the sale of lottery-tickets be allowed, nor shall any lottery heretofore authorized be permitted to be drawn, or tickets therein to be sold.' Art. 12, sect. 15. There is now scarcely a State in the Union where lotteries are tolerated, and Congress has enacted a special statute, the object of which is to close the mails against them. Rev. Stat., sect. 3894; 19 Stat. 90, sect. 2. The question is therefore directly presented, whether, in view of these facts, the legislature of a State can, by the charter of a lottery company, defeat the will of the

people, authoritatively expressed, in relation to the further continuance of such business in their midst. We think it cannot. No legislature can bargain away the public health or the public morals. The people themselves cannot do it, much less their servants. The supervision of both these subjects of governmental power is continuing in its nature, and they are to be dealt with as the special exigencies of the moment may require. Government is organized with a view to their preservation, and cannot divest itself of the power to provide for them. For this purpose the largest legislative discretion is allowed, and the discretion cannot be parted with any more than the power itself. Beer Company v. Massachusetts, supra. In Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (4 Wheat. 518), it was argued that the contract clause of the Constitution, if given the effect contended for in respect to corporate franchises, 'would be an unprofitable and vexatious interference with the internal concerns of a State, would unnecessarily and unwisely embarrass its legislation, and render immutable those civil institutions which are established for the purpose of internal government, and which, to subserve those purposes, ought to vary with varying circumstances' (p. 628); but Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, when he announced the opinion of the court, was careful to say (p. 629), 'that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to restrain States in the regulation of their civil institutions, adopted for internal government, and that the instrument they have given us is not to be so construed.' The present case, we think, comes within this limitation. We have held, not, however, without strong opposition at times, that this clause protected a corporation in its charter exemptions from taxation. While taxation is in general necessary for the support of government, it is not part of the government itself. Government was not organized for the purposes of taxation, but taxation may be necessary for the purposes of government. As such, taxation becomes an incident to the exercise of the legitimate functions of government, but nothing more. No government dependent on taxation for support can bargain away its whole power of taxation, for that would be substantially abdication. All that has been determined thus far is, that for a consideration it may, in the exercise of a reasonable discretion, and for the public good, surrender a part of its powers in this particular. But the power of governing is a trust committed by the people to the government, no part of which can be granted away. The people, in their sovereign capacity, have establish d their agencies for the preservation of the public health and the public morals, and the protection of public and private rights. These several agencies can govern according to their discretion, if within the scope of their general authority, while in power; but they cannot give away nor sell the discretion of those that are to come after them, in respect to matters the government of which, from the very nature of things, must 'vary with varying circumstances.' They may create corporations, and give them, so to speak, a limited citizenship; but as citizens, limited in their privileges, or otherwise, these creatures of the government creation are subject to such rules and regulations as may from time to time be

ordained and established for the preservation of health and morality. The contracts which the Constitution protects are those that relate to property rights, not governmental. It is not always easy to tell on which side of the line which separates governmental from property rights a particular case is to be put; but in respect to lotteries there can be no difficulty. They are not, in the legal acceptation of the term, mala in se, but, as we have just seen, may properly be made mala prohibita. They are a species of gambling, and wrong in their influences. They disturb the checks and balances of a well-ordered community. Society built on such a foundation would almost of necessity bring forth a population of speculators and gamblers, living on the expectation of what, 'by the casting of lots, or by lot, chance, or otherwise,' might be 'awarded' to them from the accumulations of others. Certainly the right to suppress them is governmental, to be exercised at all times by those in power, at their discretion. Any one, therefore, who accepts a lottery charter does so with the implied understanding that the people, in their sovereign capacity, and through their properly constituted agencies, may resume it at any time when the public good shall require, whether it be paid for or not. All that one can get by such a charter is a suspension of certain governmental rights in his favor, subject to withdrawal at will. He has in legal effect nothing more than a license to enjoy the privilege on the terms named for the specified time, unless it be sooner abrogated by the sovereign power of the State. It is a permit, good as against existing laws, but subject to future legislative and constitutional control or withdrawal. On the whole, we find no error in the record. Judgment affirmed. ICHONG v. HERNANDEZ Constitutional Law Treaties May Be Superseded by Municipal Laws in the Exercise of Police Power Lao Ichong is a Chinese businessman who entered the country to take advantage of business opportunities herein abound (then) particularly in the retail business. For some time he and his fellow Chinese businessmen enjoyed a monopoly in the local market in Pasay. Until in June 1954 when Congress passed the RA 1180 or the Retail Trade Nationalization Act the purpose of which is to reserve to Filipinos the right to engage in the retail business. Ichong then petitioned for the nullification of the said Act on the ground that it contravened several treaties concluded by the RP which, according to him, violates the equal protection clause (pacta sund servanda). He said that as a Chinese businessman engaged in the business here in the country who helps in the income generation of the country he should be given equal opportunity. ISSUE: Whether or not a law may invalidate or supersede treaties or generally accepted principles.

HELD: Yes, a law may supersede a treaty or a generally accepted principle. In this case, there is no conflict at all between the raised generally accepted principle and with RA 1180. The equal protection of the law clause does not demand absolute equality amongst residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced; and, that the equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to all persons within such class, and reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not. For the sake of argument, even if it would be assumed that a treaty would be in conflict with a statute then the statute must be upheld because it represented an exercise of the police power which, being inherent could not be bargained away or surrendered through the medium of a treaty. Hence, Ichong can no longer assert his right to operate his market stalls in the Pasay city market. Powell v. Pennsyllvania Two questions are thus distinctly presented: first, whether a state can lawfully prohibit the manufacture of a healthy and nutritious article of food designed to take the place of butter out of any oleaginous substance, or compound of the same, other than that produced from pure milk or cream, and its sale when manufactured, and second, whether a state can, without compensation to the owner, prohibit the sale of an article of food, in itself healthy and nutritious, which has been manufactured in accordance with its laws. These questions are not presented in the opinion of the Court as nakedly and broadly as here stated, but they nevertheless truly indicate the precise points involved, and nothing else. Upon first impressions, one would suppose that it would be a matter for congratulation on the part of the state that, in the progress of science, a means had been discovered by which a new article of food could be produced equally healthy and nutritious with and less expensive than one already existing, and for which it could be used as a substitute. Thanks and rewards would seem to be the natural return for such a discovery and the increase of the article by the use of the means thereby encouraged. But not so thought the legislature of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. By the enactment in question it declared that no article of food to take the place of butter shall be manufactured out of any other oleaginous matter than that which is produced from pure milk or cream, or be sold within its limits or kept for sale, under penalty of fine and imprisonment. Syllabus The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was not designed to interfere with the exercise of the police power by the state for the protection of health, the prevention of fraud, and the preservation of the public morals.

The prohibition of the manufacture out of oleaginous substances, or out of any compound thereof other than that produced from unadulterated milk or cream from unadulterated milk, of an article designed to take the place of butter or cheese produced from pure unadulterated milk or cream from unadulterated milk, or the prohibition upon the manufacture of any imitation or adulterated butter or cheese, or upon the selling or offering for sale, or having in possession with intent to sell, the same, as an article of food, is a lawful exercise by the power to protect, by police regulations, the public health. Whether the manufacture of oleomargarine or imitation butter of the kind described in the Act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania of May 21, 1885 (Laws of Penn. of 1885, p. 22, No. 25) is or may be conducted in such a way or with such skill and secrecy as to baffle ordinary inspection, or whether it involves such danger to the public health as to require, for the protection of the people, the entire suppression of the business, rather than its regulation in such manner as to permit the manufacture and sale of articles of that class that do not contain noxious ingredients, are questions of fact and of public policy which belong to the legislative department to determine . The statute of Pennsylvania of May 21, 1885, "for the protection of the public health, and to prevent adulteration of dairy products and fraud in the sale thereof" neither denies to persons within the jurisdiction of the state the equal protection of the laws nor deprives persons of their property without that compensation required by law, and is not repugnant in these respects to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court. This writ of error brings up for review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania sustaining the validity of a statute of that commonwealth relating to the manufacture and sale of what is commonly called "oleomargarine butter." That judgment, the plaintiff in error contends, denies to him certain rights and privileges specially claimed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. By Acts of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, one approved May 22, 1878, and entitled "An act to prevent deception in the sale of butter and cheese," and the other approved May 24, 1883, and entitled "An act for the protection of dairymen, and to prevent deception in sales of butter and cheese," provision was made for the stamping, branding, or marking in a prescribed mode manufactured articles or substances in semblance or imitation of butter or cheese, not the legitimate product of the dairy and not made exclusively of milk or cream, but into which oil, lard, or fat, not produced from milk or cream, entered as a component part, or into which melted butter, or any oil thereof, had been introduced to take the place of cream. Laws of Pennsylvania, 1878, p. 87; 1883, p. 43.

But this legislation, we presume, failed to accomplish the objects intended by the legislature. For, by a subsequent act approved May 21, 1885, and which took effect July 1, 1885, entitled "An act for the protection of the public health, and to prevent adulteration of dairy products, and fraud in the sale thereof," it was provided, among other things, as follows: "SECTION 1. That no person, firm, or corporate body shall manufacture out of any oleaginous substance or any compound of the same other than that produced from unadulterated milk, or of cream from the same, any article designed to take the place of butter or cheese produced from pure unadulterated milk, or cream from the same, or of any imitation or adulterated butter or cheese, nor shall sell, or offer for sale, or have in his, her, or their possession, with intent to sell, the same as an article of food. " "SECTION 2. Every sale of such article or substance which is prohibited by the first section of this act, made after this act shall take effect, is hereby declared to be unlawful and void, and no action shall be maintained in any of the courts in this state to recover upon any contract for the sale of any such article or substance." "SECTION 3. Every person, company, firm, or corporate body who shall manufacture, sell, or offer or expose for sale, or have in his, her, or their possession with intent to sell, any substance the manufacture and sale of which is prohibited by the first section of this act, shall, for every such offense, forfeit and pay the sum of one hundred dollars, which shall be recoverable, with costs, by any person suing in the name of the commonwealth, as debts of like amount are by law recoverable, one-half of which sum, when so recovered, shall be paid to the proper county treasurer for the use of the county in which suit is brought, and the other half to the person or persons at whose instance such a suit shall or may be commenced and prosecuted to recovery." "SECTION 4. Every person who violates the provision of the first section of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than three hundred, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than ten nor more than thirty days, or both such fine and imprisonment, for the first offense, and imprisonment for one year for every subsequent offense." The plaintiff in error was indicted under the last statute in the Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. The charge in the first count of the indictment is that he unlawfully sold "as an article of food two cases, containing five pounds each, of an article designed to take the place of butter produced from pure unadulterated milk, or cream from milk, the said article so sold as aforesaid being an article manufactured out of certain oleaginous substances and compounds of the same other than that produced from unadulterated milk or cream from milk, and said article so sold as aforesaid being an imitation butter."

In the second count, the charge is that he unlawfully had in his possession, "with intent to sell the same as an article of food a quantity, viz., one hundred pounds, of imitation butter designed to take the place of butter produced from pure unadulterated milk or cream from the same, manufactured out of certain oleaginous substances or compounds of the same other than that produced from milk or cream from the same." It was agreed for the purposes of the trial that the defendant, on July 10, 1885, in the City of Harrisburg, sold to the prosecuting witness as an article of food two original packages of the kind described in the first count; that such packages were sold and bought as "butterine," and not as butter produced from pure unadulterated milk or cream from unadulterated milk, and that each of said packages was at the time of sale marked with the words "Oleomargarine Butter" upon the lid and side in a straight line, in Roman letters half an inch long. It was also agreed that the defendant had in his possession one hundred pounds of the same article with intent to sell it as an article of food. This was the case made by the commonwealth. The defendant then offered to prove by Prof. Hugo Blanck that he saw manufactured the article sold to the prosecuting witness; that it was made from pure animal fats; that the process of manufacture was clean and wholesome, the article containing the same elements as dairy butter, the only difference between them being that the manufactured article contained a smaller proportion of the fatty substance known as "butterine"; that this butterine existed in dairy butter in the proportion of from three to seven percent, and in the manufactured article in a smaller proportion, and was increased in the latter by the introduction of milk and cream; that, this having been done, the article contained all the elements of butter produced from pure unadulterated milk, or cream from the same, except that the percentage of butterine was slightly smaller; that the only effect of butterine was to give flavor to the butter, and that it had nothing to do with its wholesomeness; that the oleaginous substances in the manufactured article were substantially identical with those produced from milk or cream, and that the article sold to the prosecuting witness was a wholesome and nutritious article of food, in all respects as wholesome as butter produced from pure unadulterated milk or cream from unadulterated milk. The defendant also offered to prove that he was engaged in the grocery and provision business in the City of Harrisburg, and that the article sold by him was part of a large and valuable quantity manufactured prior to the 21st of May, 1885, in accordance with the laws of this commonwealth relating to the manufacture and sale of said article, and so sold by him; that for the purpose of prosecuting that business, large investments were made by him in the purchase of suitable real estate, in the erection of proper buildings and in the purchase of the necessary machinery and

ingredients; that in his traffic in said article he made large profits, and if prevented from continuing it, the value of his property employed therein would be entirely lost and he be deprived of the means of livelihood. To each offer the commonwealth objected upon the ground that the evidence proposed to be introduced was immaterial and irrelevant. The purpose of these offers of proof was avowed to be (1) to show that the article sold was a new invention, not an adulteration of dairy products nor injurious to the public health, but wholesome and nutritious as an article of food, and that its manufacture and sale were in conformity to the Acts of May 22, 1878, and May 24, 1883; (2) to show that the statute upon which the prosecution was founded was unconstitutional as not a lawful exercise of police power and also because it deprived the defendant of the lawful use "of his property, liberty, and faculties, and destroys his property without making compensation." The court sustained the objection to each offer and excluded the evidence. An exception to that ruling was duly taken by the defendant. A verdict of guilty having been returned, and motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial having been overruled, the defendant was adjudged to pay a fine of $100 and costs of prosecution or give bail to pay the same in ten days and be in custody until the judgment was performed. That judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the state. 114 Penn.St. 265. This case, in its important aspects, is governed by the principles announced in Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623. It is immaterial to inquire whether the acts with which the defendant is charged were authorized by the statute of May 22, 1878, or by that of May 24, 1883. The present prosecution is founded upon the statute of May 21, 1885, and if that statute be not in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania must be affirmed. It is contended that the last statute is void in that it deprives all coming within its provisions of rights of liberty and property without due process of law and denies to them the equal protection of the laws, rights which are secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It is scarcely necessary to say that if this statute is a legitimate exercise of the police power of the state for the protection of the health of the people and for the prevention of fraud, it is not inconsistent with that amendment, for it is the settled doctrine of this Court that as government is organized for the purpose, among others, of preserving the public health and the public morals, it cannot divest itself of the power to provide for those objects, and that the Fourteenth Amendment was not designed to interfere with the exercise of that power by the states. Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 663; Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U. S. 746, 111 U. S. 751; Barbier v. Connolly, 113

U. S. 27; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356. The question, therefore, is whether the prohibition of the manufacture out of oleaginous substances or out of any compound thereof other than that produced from unadulterated milk or cream from unadulterated milk of an article designed to take the place of butter or cheese produced from pure unadulterated milk or cream from unadulterated milk, or the prohibition upon the manufacture of any imitation or adulterated butter or cheese or upon the selling or offering for sale or having in possession with intent to sell the same as an article of food is a lawful exercise by the state of the power to protect, by police regulations, the public health. The main proposition advanced by the defendant is that his enjoyment upon terms of equality with all others in similar circumstances of the privilege of pursuing an ordinary calling or trade and of acquiring, holding, and selling property is an essential part of his rights of liberty and property as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court assents to this general proposition as embodying a sound principle of constitutional law. But it cannot adjudge that the defendant's rights of liberty and property, as thus defined, have been infringed by the statute of Pennsylvania without holding that, although it may have been enacted in good faith for the objects expressed in its title, mainly to protect the public health and to prevent the adulteration of dairy products and fraud in the sale thereof, it has in fact no real or substantial relation to those objects. Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 123 U. S. 661. The Court is unable to affirm that this legislation has no real or substantial relation to such objects. It will be observed that the offer in the court below was to show by proof that the particular articles the defendant sold and those in his possession for sale in violation of the statute were in fact wholesome or nutritious articles of food. It is entirely consistent with that offer that many -- indeed that most -- kinds of oleomargarine butter in the market contain ingredients that are or may become injurious to health. The Court cannot say from anything of which it may take judicial cognizance that such is not the fact. Under the circumstances disclosed in the record, and in obedience to settled rules of constitutional construction, it must be assumed that such is the fact. "Every possible presumption," CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE said, speaking for the Court in Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700, 99 U. S. 718, "is in favor of the validity of a statute, and this continues until the contrary is shown beyond a rational doubt. One branch of the government cannot encroach on the domain of another without danger. The safety of our institutions depends in no small degree on a strict observance of this salutary rule." See also Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 128; Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 17 U. S. 625; Livingston v. Darlington, 101 U. S. 407. Whether the manufacture of oleomargarine or imitation butter of the kind described in the statute is or may be

conducted in such a way or with such skill and secrecy as to baffle ordinary inspection, or whether it involves such danger to the public health as to require, for the protection of the people, the entire suppression of the business, rather than its regulation in such manner as to permit the manufacture and sale of articles of that class that do not contain noxious ingredients, are questions of fact and of public policy which belong to the legislative department to determine. And as it does not appear upon the face of the statute or from any facts of which the court must take judicial cognizance that it infringes rights secured by the fundamental law, the legislative determination of those questions is conclusive upon the courts. It is not a part of their functions to conduct investigations of facts entering into questions of public policy merely, and to sustain or frustrate the legislative will, embodied in statutes, as they may happen to approve or disapprove its determination of such questions. The power which the legislature has to promote the general welfare is very great, and the discretion which that department of the government has in the employment of means to that end is very large. While both its power and its discretion must be so exercised as not to impair the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property, and while, according to the principles upon which our institutions rest, "the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life or the means of living or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life at the mere will of another seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself," yet "in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public Page 127 U. S. 686 judgment, exercised either in the pressure of public opinion or by means of the suffrage." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 370. The case before us belongs to the latter class. The Legislature of Pennsylvania, upon the fullest investigation, as we must conclusively presume, and upon reasonable grounds, as must be assumed from the record, has determined that the prohibition of the sale, or offering for sale, or having in possession to sell for purposes of food of any article manufactured out of oleaginous substances or compounds other than those produced from unadulterated milk or cream from unadulterated milk to take the place of butter produced from unadulterated milk or cream from unadulterated milk will promote the public health and prevent frauds in the sale of such articles. If all that can be said of this legislation is that it is unwise or unnecessarily oppressive to those manufacturing or selling wholesome oleomargarine as an article of food, their appeal must be to the legislature or to the ballot box, not to the judiciary. The latter cannot interfere without

usurping powers committed to another department of government. It is argued in behalf of the defendant that if the statute in question is sustained as a valid exercise of legislative power, then nothing stands in the way of the destruction by the legislative department of the constitutional guarantees of liberty and property. But the possibility of the abuse of legislative power does not disprove its existence. That possibility exists even in reference to powers that are conceded to exist. Besides, the judiciary department is bound not to give effect to statutory enactments that are plainly forbidden by the Constitution. This duty, the Court has said, is always one of extreme delicacy, for apart from the necessity of avoiding conflicts between coordinate branches of the government, whether state or national, it is often difficult to determine whether such enactments are within the powers granted to or possessed by the legislature. Nevertheless, if the incompatibility of the Constitution and the statute is clear or palpable, the courts must give effect to the former. And such would be the duty of the Court if the state legislature, under the pretense of guarding the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, should invade the rights of life, liberty, or property or other rights secured by the supreme law of the land. The objection that the statute is repugnant to the clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbidding the denial by the state to any person within its jurisdiction of the equal protection of the laws is untenable. The statute places under the same restrictions and subjects to like penalties and burdens all who manufacture or sell or offer for sale or keep in possession to sell the articles embraced by its prohibitions, thus recognizing and preserving the principle of equality among those engaged in the same business. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27; Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703; Railway Co. v. Humes, 115 U. S. 512, 115 U. S. 519. It is also contended that the Act of May 21, 1885, is in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment in that it deprives the defendant of his property without that compensation required by law. This contention is without merit, as was held in Mugler v. Kansas. Upon the whole case, we are of opinion that there is no error in the judgment, and it is therefore Affirmed. Lutz v. Araneta WALTER LUTZ, as Judicial Administrator of the Intestate Estate of the deceased Antonio Jayme Ledesma, plaintiff-appellant, vs. J. ANTONIO ARANETA, as the Collector of Internal Revenue, defendant-appellee In 1940 with a declaration of emergency, due to the threat to our industry by the imminent imposition of export taxes upon sugar as provided in the TydingsMcDuffe Act, and the "eventual loss of its preferential

position in the United States market"; a law was enacted "to obtain a readjustment of the benefits derived from the sugar industry by the component elements thereof" and "to stabilize the sugar industry so as to prepare it for the eventuality of the loss of its preferential position in the United States market and the imposition of the export taxes." ISSUE: WON the taxes imposed by Commonwealth Act No. 567, otherwise known as the Sugar Adjustment Act is a valid police power. Held That the tax to be levied should burden the sugar producers themselves can hardly be a ground of complaint; indeed, it appears rational that the tax be obtained precisely from those who are to be benefited from the expenditure of the funds derived from it. Here, the legislative discretion must be allowed fully play, subject only to the test of reasonableness; and it is not contended that the means provided in section 6 of the law (above quoted) bear no relation to the objective pursued or are oppressive in character. If objective and methods are alike constitutionally valid, no reason is seen why the state may not levy taxes to raise funds for their prosecution and attainment. Taxation may be made the implement of the state's police power (Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. vs. Grosjean, 301 U. S. 412, 81 L. Ed. 1193; U. S. vs. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477; M'Culloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. Ed. 579). From the point of view we have taken it appears of no moment that the funds raised under the Sugar Stabilization Act, now in question, should be exclusively spent in aid of the sugar industry, since it is that very enterprise that is being protected Even from the standpoint that the Act is a pure tax measure, it cannot be said that the devotion of tax money to experimental stations to seek increase of efficiency in sugar production, utilization of byproducts and solution of allied problems, as well as to the improvements of living and working conditions in sugar mills or plantations, without any part of such money being channeled directly to private persons, constitutes expenditure of tax money for private purposes, (compare Everson vs. Board of Education, 91 L. Ed. 472, 168 ALR 1392, 1400). The decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellant. So ordered. TIO v. Videogram Regulatory Board GR No. :75697 June 18,1987 Facts: The case is a petition filed by petitioner on behalf of videogram operators adversely affected by Presidential Decree No. 1987, An Act Creating the Videogram Regulatory Board" with broad powers to regulate and supervise the videogram industry.

A month after the promulgation of the said Presidential Decree, the amended the National Internal Revenue Code provided that: "SEC. 134. Video Tapes. There shall be collected on each processed video-tape cassette, ready for playback, regardless of length, an annual tax of five pesos; Provided, That locally manufactured or imported blank video tapes shall be subject to sales tax." "Section 10. Tax on Sale, Lease or Disposition of Videograms. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the province shall collect a tax of thirty percent (30%) of the purchase price or rental rate, as the case may be, for every sale, lease or disposition of a videogram containing a reproduction of any motion picture or audiovisual program. Fifty percent (50%) of the proceeds of the tax collected shall accrue to the province, and the other fifty percent (50%) shall accrue to the municipality where the tax is collected; PROVIDED, That in Metropolitan Manila, the tax shall be shared equally by the City/Municipality and the Metropolitan Manila Commission. The rationale behind the tax provision is to curb the proliferation and unregulated circulation of videograms including, among others, videotapes, discs, cassettes or any technical improvement or variation thereof, have greatly prejudiced the operations of movie houses and theaters. Such unregulated circulation have caused a sharp decline in theatrical attendance by at least forty percent (40%) and a tremendous drop in the collection of sales, contractor's specific, amusement and other taxes, thereby resulting in substantial losses estimated at P450 Million annually in government revenues. Videogram(s) establishments collectively earn around P600 Million per annum from rentals, sales and disposition of videograms, and these earnings have not been subjected to tax, thereby depriving the Government of approximately P180 Million in taxes each year. The unregulated activities of videogram establishments have also affected the viability of the movie industry. Issues: (1) Whether or not tax imposed by the DECREE is a valid exercise of police power. (2) Whether or nor the DECREE is constitutional. Held: Taxation has been made the implement of the state's police power. The levy of the 30% tax is for a public purpose. It was imposed primarily to answer the need for regulating the video industry, particularly because of the rampant film piracy, the flagrant violation of intellectual property rights, and the proliferation of pornographic video tapes. And while it was also an objective of the DECREE to protect the movie industry, the tax remains a valid imposition.

We find no clear violation of the Constitution which would justify us in pronouncing Presidential Decree No. 1987 as unconstitutional and void. While the underlying objective of the DECREE is to protect the moribund movie industry, there is no question that public welfare is at bottom of its enactment, considering "the unfair competition posed by rampant film piracy; the erosion of the moral fiber of the viewing public brought about by the availability of unclassified and unreviewed video tapes containing pornographic films and films with brutally violent sequences; and losses in government revenues due to the drop in theatrical attendance, not to mention the fact that the activities of video establishments are virtually untaxed since mere payment of Mayor's permit and municipal license fees are required to engage in business." WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby dismissed. No costs. Association of Small Land Owners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform (too long)

Jacobson v. Massachussetts Case Brief: Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) Facts: The Massachusetts legislature authorized the board of health of a city or town to require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants thereof, and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination if the board deems it necessary. In 1902, the board of health of Cambridge, Massachusetts ruled that it was necessary for the speedy extermination of the disease that all persons not protected by vaccination should be vaccinated. When Mr. Jacobson, a resident over the age of twentyone and not under guardianship, refused to comply, both the Municipal Court and the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled against him. He then appealed to the Supreme Court. Decision: 7 2 Massachusetts wins. Justice Harlan delivered the Opinion of the Court. Doctrine: A state legislature may reasonably restrict a persons right to life, liberty, or property without due process of law if such action is necessary to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state. Reasoning: According to the Court, since the spirit of the Constitution rests in the words of the text, the Court must decide the case based on the words within that document. While Jacobson argued that the Massachusetts law violated the spirit of the Constitution, the Court ruled that there is no need in this case to go beyond the plain, obvious meaning of the words in those provisions of the Constitution. Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, ruled the Court, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members. Although the

14thAmendment of the Constitution mandates that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, the Court ruled that a persons rights are not absolute. Rather, persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state, wrote the Court. According to the Court, the good and welfare of the commonwealth, of which the legislature is primarily the judge, is the basis on which the police power rests in Massachusetts. A persons rights are subject for the common good because without such limitations, organized society could not exist. A society that guaranteed its citizens rights regardless of the injury that may be done to others would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy, the Court wrote. Jacobson argued that compulsory vaccination is not a reasonable interference with his liberty because many scientists attach little or no value to vaccination as a means of preventing the spread of smallpox and many more think that vaccination causes other diseases of the body. In response, the Court wrote that the legislature of Massachusetts was not unaware of these opposing theories, and was compelled, of necessity, to choose between them. When the Massachusetts legislature referred the question to a board of health composed of persons residing in the locality affected, the body decided that the vaccination was necessary for the public health or the public safety. In other words, the Massachusetts state legislature subscribed to the theory that accorded with the common belief and was maintained by high medical authority. The authority to determine for all what ought to be done in such an emergency must have been lodged somewhere or in some body, and, according to the Court it belongs to the legislature. Since the legislature of Massachusetts decided, when considering the law, that mandatory vaccination for all persons not protected by vaccination was necessary for the safety of population, the judiciary did not have the power to review this action of the legislature

U.S. v. Toribio Facts: Respondent Toribio is an owner of carabao, residing in the town of Carmen in the province of Bohol. The trial court of Bohol found that the respondent slaughtered or caused to be slaughtered a carabao without a permit from the municipal treasurer of the municipality wherein it was slaughtered, in violation of Sections 30 and 33 of Act No. 1147, an Act regulating the registration, branding, and slaughter of Large Cattle. The act prohibits the slaughter of large cattle fit for agricultural work or other draft purposes for human consumption. The respondent counters by stating that what the Act is (1) prohibiting is the slaughter of large cattle in the municipal slaughter house without a permit given by the municipal treasurer. Furthermore, he contends that the municipality of Carmen has no slaughter house and that he slaughtered his carabao in his dwelling, (2) the

act constitutes a taking of property for public use in the exercise of the right of eminent domain without providing for the compensation of owners, and it is an undue and unauthorized exercise of police power of the state for it deprives them of the enjoyment of their private property. Issue: Whether or not Act. No. 1147, regulating the registration, branding and slaughter of large cattle, is an undue and unauthorized exercise of police power. Held: It is a valid exercise of police power of the state. Police power is the inherent power of the state to legislate laws which may interfere with personal liberties. To justify the state in the exercise of its sovereign police power it must appear (1) that the interest of the general public requires it and (2) that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. The court is of the opinion that the act applies generally to the slaughter of large cattle for human consumption, ANYWHERE, without a permit duly secured from the municipal treasurer, For to do otherwise is to defeat the purpose of the law and the intent of the law makers. The act primarily seeks to protect large cattle against theft to make it easy for the recovery and return to owners, which encouraged them to regulate the registration and slaughter of large cattle. Several years prior to the enactment of the said law, an epidemic struck the Philippine islands which threatened the survival of carabaos in the country. In some provinces seventy, eighty and even one hundred percent of their local carabaos perished due to the said epidemic. This drove the prices of carabaos up to four or five-fold, as a consequence carabao theft became rampant due to the luxurious prices of these work animals. Moreover, this greatly affected the food production of the country which prompted the government to import rice from its neighboring countries. As these work animals are vested with public interest for they are of fundamental use for the production of crops, the government was prompted to pass a law that would protect these work animals. The purpose of the law is to stabilize the number of carabaos in the country as well as to redistribute them throughout the entire archipelago. It was also the same reason why large cattles fit for farm work was prohibited to be slaughtered for human consumption. Most importantly, the respondents carabao was found to be fit for farm work. These reasons satisfy the requisites for the valid exercise of police power. Act No. 1147 is not an exercise of the inherent power of eminent domain. The said law does not constitute the taking of carabaos for public purpose; it just serves as a mere regulation for the consumption of these private properties for the protection of general welfare

and public interest. Thus, the compensation of the owner must fail.

demand

for

Churchill & Tait v. Rafferty Facts: The case arises from the fact that defendant, Collector of Internal Revenue, would like to destroy or remove any sign, signboard, or billboard, the property of the plaintiffs, for the sole reason that such sign, signboard, or billboard is, or may be offensive to the sight. The plaintiffs allege otherwise. Was there valid exercise of police power in this case? Held: Yes. There can be no doubt that the exercise of the police power of the Philippine Government belongs to the Legislature and that this power is limited only by the Acts of Congress and those fundamentals principles which lie at the foundation of all republican forms of government. An Act of the Legislature which is obviously and undoubtedly foreign to any of the purposes of the police power and interferes with the ordinary enjoyment of property would, without doubt, be held to be invalid. But where the Act is reasonably within a proper consideration of and care for the public health, safety, or comfort, it should not be disturbed by the courts. "The power vested in the legislature by the constitution to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the subjects of the same." "The police power of the State, so far, has not received a full and complete definition. It may be said, however, to be the right of the State, or state functionary, to prescribe regulations for the good order, peace, health, protection, comfort, convenience and morals of the community, which do not ... violate any of the provisions of the organic law." "It [the police power] has for its object the improvement of social and economic conditioned affecting the community at large and collectively with a view to bring about "he greatest good of the greatest number."Courts have consistently and wisely declined to set any fixed limitations upon subjects calling for the exercise of this

power. It is elastic and is exercised from time to time as varying social conditions demand correction." "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." "It is much easier to perceive and realize the existence and sources of this police power than to mark its boundaries, or to prescribe limits to its exercise."