SEC. 602. Functions of the Bureau.

- The general duties, powers and

jurisdiction of the bureau shall include:
a. The assessment and collection of the lawful revenues from imported
articles and all other dues, fees, charges, fines and penalties accruing under
the tariff and customs laws;
b. The prevention and suppression of smuggling and other frauds upon the
customs;
c. The supervision and control over the entrance and clearance of vessels
and aircraft engaged in foreign commerce;
d. The enforcement of the tariff and custom laws and all other laws, rules
and regulations relating to the tariff and customs administration;
e. The supervision and control over the handling of foreign mails arriving in
the Philippines, for the purpose of the collection of the lawful duty on the
dutiable articles thus imported and the prevention of smuggling through the
medium of such mails;
SEC. 3519.
"Bulk cargo" refers to products in a mass of one commodity not packaged,
bundled, bottled or otherwise packed.
"Smuggling" is an act of any person who shall fraudulently import or bring
into the Philippines, or assist in so doing, any article, contrary to law or shall
receive, conceal, buy, sell or in any manner facilitate the transportation,
concealment, or sale of such article after importation, knowing the same to
have been imported contrary to law. It includes the exportation of articles in
a manner contrary to law. Articles subject to this paragraph shall be known
as smuggled articles.
SEC. 2211. Right to Search Vehicles, Beasts and Persons. - It shall also be
lawful for exercising authority as aforesaid to open and examine any box,
trunk, envelope or other container, found when he has reasonable cause to
suspect the presence therein of dutiable or prohibited article introduced into
the Philippines contrary to law, and likewise to stop, search and examine any
vehicle person reasonably suspected of holding or conveying such article as
aforesaid.

SEC. 3602. Various Fraudulent Practices Against Customs Revenue. - Any

person who makes or attempts to make any entry of imported or exported
article by means of any false or fraudulent invoice, declaration, affidavit,
letter, paper or by any means of any false statement, written or verbal, or by
any means of any false or fraudulent practice whatsoever, or knowingly
effects any entry of goods, wares or merchandise, at less than true weight or
Measures thereof or upon. a false classification as to quality or value, or by
the payment of less than the amount legally due, or knowingly and willfully
files any false or fraudulent entry or claim for the payment of drawback or
refund of duties upon the exportation of merchandise, or makes or files any
affidavit abstract, record, certificate or other document, with a view to
securing the payment to himself or others of any drawback, allowance, or
refund of duties on the exportation of merchandise, greater than that legally
due thereon, or who shall be guilty of any willful act or omission shall, for
each offence, be punished in accordance with the penalties prescribed in the
preceding section.

Persons found to be in possession of smuggled items are presumed to be engaged in smuggling,

pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code. 29 The burden of proof
is thus shifted to them. To rebut this presumption, it is not enough for petitioner to claim good faith
and lack of knowledge of the unlawful source of the cigarettes. He should have presented evidence
to support his claim and to convince the court of his non-complicity.
Under the Tariff and Customs Code, a search, seizure and arrest may be made even without a
warrant for purposes of enforcing customs and tariff laws. Without mention of the need to priorly
obtain a judicial warrant, the Code specifically allows police authorities to enter, pass through or
search any land, enclosure, warehouse, store or building that is not a dwelling house; and also to
inspect, search and examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk, package, box or envelope or any
person on board; or to stop and search and examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of
holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the Philippines contrary to law.
FELICISIMO RIETA, petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE

The success of the law enforcement agencies in curbing smuggling depends to some extent upon
the cooperation of the other branches of the Government. Remove such cooperation and the
campaign against smuggling is doomed. PEDRO PACIS, in his capacity as Acting Collector of
Customs, Port of Manila, the Flag Officer-in-Command and the Base Commander of Cavite
Naval Base, Philippine Navy, petitioners,
vs.
HON. ALBERTO V. AVERIA

In order that a person may be deemed guilty of smuggling or illegal importation under
the foregoing statute three requisites must concur: (1) that the merchandise must have
been fraudulently or knowingly imported contrary to law; (2) that, the defendant, if he is
not the importer himself, must have received, concealed, bought, sold or in any manner
facilitated the transportation, concealment or sale of the merchandise; and (3) that the
defendant must be shown to have knowledge that the merchandise had been illegally
imported. If the defendant, however, is shown to have had possession of the illegally
imported merchandise, without satisfactory explanation, such possession shall be
deemed sufficient to authorize conviction." ARTURO G. RIMORIN, SR vs. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 206 June 30, 1987

AMENDING SECTION 105 OF THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
WHEREAS, there is a need to adjust the maximum dutiable value of conditionally free
importations of personal and household effects belonging to residents of the Philippines
returning from abroad to a realistic level;
WHEREAS, to curb abuses in conditionally free importations under Section 105 (f) of
the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, the conditions for such importations
must be restricted;
WHEREAS, there is also a need to recognize the magnitude of the contribution of the
overseas contract workers whose lonely sacrifices in foreign lands bring in a
considerable amount of foreign exchange annually thereby contributing to the national
recovery effort;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of the Philippines, do hereby
order:
Sec. 1. Section 105 (f) of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines is hereby
amended and a new subsection (f-1) is hereby added thereto, to read as follows:
Conditionally-Free Importations. . . .

(f) Personal and household effects belonging to residents of the Philippines returning
from abroad including jewelry, precious stones and other articles of luxury which were
formally declared and listed before departure and identified under oath before the
Collector of Customs when exported from the Philippines by such returning residents
upon their departure therefrom or during their stay abroad; personal and household
effects including wearing apparel, articles of personal adornment (except luxury items),
toilet articles, instruments related to one's profession and analogous personal or
household effects, excluding vehicles, watercraft, aircraft and animals purchased in
foreign countries by residents of the Philippines which were necessary, appropriate and
normally used for their comfort and convenience during their stay abroad,
accompanying them on their return, or arriving within a reasonable time which, barring
unforeseen and fortuitous events, in no case shall exceed sixty (60) days after the
owner's return: Provided, That the personal and households effects shall neither be in
commercial quantities nor intended for barter, sale or hire and that the total dutiable
value of which shall not exceed Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00): Provided, further,
That the returning resident has not previously availed of the privilege under this section
within three hundred sixty five (365) days prior to his arrival: Provided, finally, That a fifty
percent (50%) ad valorem duty across the board shall be levied and collected on the
personal and household effects (except luxury items) in excess of Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00).
For the purposes of this section, the phrase "returning residents" shall refer to nationals
who have stayed in a foreign country for a period of at least six (6) months.
(f-1) In addition to be privilege granted under the immediately preceding paragraph,
returning overseas contract workers shall have the privilege to bring in, duty and tax
free, used home appliances, limited to one of every kind once in a given calendar year
accompanying them on their return, or arriving within a reasonable time which, barring
unforeseen and fortuitous events, in no case shall exceed sixty (60) days after the
owner's return upon presentation of their original passport at the Port of Entry: Provided,
That any excess of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for personal and household
effects and/or of the number of duty and tax-free appliances as provided for under this
section, shall be subject to the corresponding duties and taxes provided under this
Code.
For purposes of this section, the following words/phrases shall be understood to mean:
a. Overseas Contract Workers Holders of valid passports duly issued by the
Department of Foreign Affairs and certified by the Department of Labor and
Employment/Philippine Overseas Employment Agency for overseas employment
purposes. It covers all nationals working in a foreign country under employment
contracts, including Middle East Contract Workers, entertainers, domestic helpers,
regardless of their employment status in the foreign country.
b. Calendar Year shall cover the period from January 1 to December 31."

Sec. 2. All laws, orders, issuances, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent
with this Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
Sec. 3. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately.
Done in the City of Manila, this 30th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen
hundred and eighty-seven.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE:

The police power being the most active power of the government and the due process
clause being the broadest station on governmental power, the conflict between this
power of government and the due process clause of the Constitution is oftentimes
inevitable.
It will be seen from the foregoing authorities that police power is usually exercised in the
form of mere regulation or restriction in the use of liberty or property for the promotion of
the general welfare. It does not involve the taking or confiscation of property with the
exception of a few cases where there is a necessity to confiscate private property in
order to destroy it for the purpose of protecting the peace and order and of promoting
the general welfare as for instance, the confiscation of an illegally possessed article,
such as opium and firearms.
CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY and CITY COUNCIL OF QUEZON
CITY, petitioners,
vs.
HON. JUDGE VICENTE G. ERICTA as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
Quezon City, Branch XVIII; HIMLAYANG PILIPINO, INC., respondents.

The police power is based on the maxim "salus populi est suprema lex" the welfare
of the people is the first law. The United States Supreme Court has said that it extends
"to the protection of the lives, health and property of the citizens, and to

the preservation of good order and the public morals." (Beer Co. vs. Massachusetts
[1878] , 97 U.S., 25; Barbiervs. Connolly [1885], 113 U.S., 27.) The Supreme Court of
these Islands has said that it extends "the police power of the state includes not only the
public health safety, but also the public welfare, protection against impositions,
andgenerally the public's best interest." (U.S. vs. Pompeya [1915], 31 Phil., 245.)
Recent judicial decisions incline to give a more extensive scope to the police power that
the older cases. The public welfare is rightfully made the basis of construction. THE
UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
PRUDENCIO SALAVERIA

Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Atienza, Jr.:28

As with the State, local governments may be considered as having properly exercised
their police power only if the following requisites are met: (1) the interests of the public
generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require its exercise and (2)
the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose
and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. In short, there must be a concurrence of a
lawful subject and lawful method.29
Lacking a concurrence of these two requisites, the police power measure shall be struck
down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights and a violation of the due process
clause. HON. MA. LOURDES C. FERNANDO, in her capacity as City Mayor of
Marikina City, JOSEPHINE C. EVANGELIST A, in her capacity as Chief, Permit
Division, Office of the City Engineer, and ALFONSO ESPIRITU, in his capacity as
City Engineer of Marikina City, Petitioners,
vs.
ST. SCHOLASTICA'S COLLEGE and ST. SCHOLASTICA'S ACADEMY-MARIKINA,
INC.

Police power is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace,
education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people. It is the most
essential, insistent, and illimitable of powers. In a sense it is the greatest and most
powerful attribute of the government. It is elastic and must be responsive to various
social conditions. (Sangalang, et al. vs. IAC, 176 SCRA 719). On it depends the security
of social order, the life and health of the citizen, the comfort of an existence in a thickly
populated community, the enjoyment of private and social life, and the beneficial use of
property, and it has been said to be the very foundation on which our social system
rests. (16 C.J.S., P. 896) However, it is not confined within narrow circumstances of

precedents resting on past conditions; it must follow the legal progress of a democratic
way of life. (Sangalang, et al. vs. IAC, supra).

Indeed, no right is absolute, and the proper regulation of a profession, calling, business
or trade has always been upheld as a legitimate subject of a valid exercise of the police
power of the State particularly when their conduct affects the execution of legitimate
governmental functions, the preservation of the State, public health and welfare and
public morals.20 In any case, where the liberty curtailed affects at most the rights of
property, the permissible scope of regulatory measures is certainly much wider.
REMMAN ENTERPRISES, INC. and CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND
BUILDERS'ASSOCIATION, Petitioners,
vs.
PROFESSIONAL REGULATORY BOARD OF REAL ESTATE SERVICE and
PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION, Respondents.

The latin maxim salus populi est surprema lex embodies the character of the entire
spectrum of public laws aimed at promoting the general welfare of the people under the
State's police power. As an inherent attribute of sovereignty which virtually "extends to
all public needs," 2 this "least limitable" 3 of governmental powers grants a wide panoply
of instruments through which the state, as parens patriae gives effect to a host of its
regulatory powers.
Describing the nature and scope of the police power, Justice Malcolm, in the early case
of Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro 4 wrote:
"The police power of the State," one court has said... is a power coextensive with
self-protection, and is not inaptly termed "the law of overruling necessity." 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." Carried
onward by the current of legislature, the judiciary rarely attempts to dam the
onrushing power of legislative discretion, provided the purposes of the law do not
go beyond the great principles that mean security for the public welfare or do not
arbitrarily interfere with the right of the individual. 5
Thus, police power concerns government enactments which precisely interfere with
personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare or the common
good. As the assailed Department Order enjoys a presumed validity, it follows that the
burden rests upon petitioners to demonstrate that the said order, particularly, its ARB
requirement, does not enhance the public welfare or was exercised arbitrarily or
unreasonably.

JMM PROMOTION AND MANAGEMENT, INC., and KARY INTERNATIONAL,

INC., petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS,

The primary constitutional question that confronts us is one of due process, as

guaranteed under Section 1, Article III of the Constitution. Due process evades a
precise definition.48 The purpose of the guaranty is to prevent arbitrary governmental
encroachment against the life, liberty and property of individuals. The due process
guaranty serves as a protection against arbitrary regulation or seizure.
The due process guaranty has traditionally been interpreted as imposing two related but
distinct restrictions on government, "procedural due process" and "substantive due
process." Procedural due process refers to the procedures that the government must
follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property.49 Procedural due process
concerns itself with government action adhering to the established process when it
makes an intrusion into the private sphere. Examples range from the form of notice
given to the level of formality of a hearing.
If due process were confined solely to its procedural aspects, there would arise absurd
situation of arbitrary government action, provided the proper formalities are followed.
Substantive due process completes the protection envisioned by the due process
clause. It inquires whether the government has sufficient justification for depriving a
person of life, liberty, or property.50
The question of substantive due process, moreso than most other fields of law, has
reflected dynamism in progressive legal thought tied with the expanded acceptance of
fundamental freedoms. Police power, traditionally awesome as it may be, is now
confronted with a more rigorous level of analysis before it can be upheld. The vitality
though of constitutional due process has not been predicated on the frequency with
which it has been utilized to achieve a liberal result for, after all, the libertarian ends
should sometimes yield to the prerogatives of the State. Instead, the due process
clause has acquired potency because of the sophisticated methodology that has
emerged to determine the proper metes and bounds for its application.
We ourselves have often applied the rational basis test mainly in analysis of equal
protection challenges.57 Using the rational basis examination, laws or ordinances are
upheld if they rationally further a legitimate governmental interest. 58 Under intermediate
review, governmental interest is extensively examined and the availability of less
restrictive measures is considered.59 Applying strict scrutiny, the focus is on the
presence of compelling, rather than substantial, governmental interest and on the
absence of less restrictive means for achieving that interest.

In terms of judicial review of statutes or ordinances, strict scrutiny refers to the standard
for determining the quality and the amount of governmental interest brought to justify
the regulation of fundamental freedoms.60 Strict scrutiny is used today to test the validity
of laws dealing with the regulation of speech, gender, or race as well as other
fundamental rights as expansion from its earlier applications to equal protection. 61 The
United States Supreme Court has expanded the scope of strict scrutiny to protect
fundamental rights such as suffrage,62 judicial access63and interstate travel.64
WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION, TITANIUM CORPORATION and STA. MESA
TOURIST & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners,
vs.
CITY OF MANILA,

the Tariff and Customs Code clearly empowers the Bureau of Customs to prevent and
suppress smuggling and other frauds upon the Customs [Sec. 602 (b)] over all seas
within the jurisdiction of the Philippines and over all coasts, ports, airports, harbors,
bays, rivers and inland waters navigable from the sea and, in case of "hot pursuit", even
beyond the maritime zone (Sec. 603). For the due enforcement of this function, a
Collector, among others, is authorized to search and seize (Sec. 2203), at any place
within the jurisdiction of the said Bureau (Sec. 2204, sec. par.), any vessel, aircraft,
cargo, article, animal or other movable property when the same is subject to forfeiture or
liable for any fine imposed under customs and tariff laws (Sec. 2205). It is of no moment
where the introduction of the property subject to forfeiture took place. For, to our mind,
"(i)t is the right of an officer of the customs to seize goods which are suspected to have
been introduced into the country in violation of the revenue laws not only in his own
district, but also in any other district than his own". [Taylor vs. U.S., 44 U.S. (3 How.)
197, 11 L. ed. 559]. Any other construction of the Tariff and Customs Code, such as the
one proposed by petitioner, would virtually place the Collector of Customs in a
straitjacket and render inutile his police power of search and seizure, thereby frustrating
effective enforcement of the measures provided in the Code to prevent and suppress
smuggling and other frauds upon the Customs. This we can not sanction by subscribing
to petitioner's conclusion. The Code, as a revenue law, is to be construed to carry out
the intention of Congress in enacting it and as would most effectually accomplish its
objects (15 Am. Jur. 304) FELIClDAD VIERNEZA, petitioner,
vs.
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

Section 3602 of the Code enumerates the various fraudulent practices against customs
revenue such as the entry of imported or exported articles by means of any false or
fraudulent invoice, statement or practice; the entry of goods at less than the true weight

or measure; or the filing of any false or fraudulent entry for the payment of drawback or
refund of duties. ANGEL O. RODRIGUEZ, EULOGIO O. RODRIGUEZ, JOSE O.
RODRIGUEZ, and TOMAS NGO, petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS

It is the settled rule, therefore, that the Bureau of Customs acquires exclusive
jurisdiction over imported goods, for the purposes of enforcement of the customs laws,
from the moment the goods are actually in its possession or control, even if no warrant
of seizure or detention had previously been issued by the Collector of Customs in
connection with seizure and forfeiture proceedings.
He could lawfully open and examine any box, trunk, envelope or other container
wherever found when he had reasonable cause to suspect the presence therein of
dutiable articles introduced into the Philippines contrary to law; and likewise to stop,
search and examine any vehicle, beast or person reasonably suspected of holding or
conveying such article as aforesaid. HON. RICARDO G. PAPA, as Chief of Police of
Manila; HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, as Commissioner of Customs; PEDRO
PACIS, as Collector of Customs of the Port of Manila; and MARTIN ALAGAO, as
Patrolman of the Manila Police Department, petitioners,
vs.
REMEDIOS MAGO

In Papa vs. Mago12 involving a customs search, we held that law enforcers who are
tasked to effect the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws are authorized to search
and seize, without a search warrant, any article, cargo or other movable property when
there is reasonable cause to suspect that the said items have been introduced into the
Philippines in violation of the tariff and customs law. They may likewise conduct a
warrantless search of any vehicle or person suspected of holding or conveying the said
articles, as in the case at bar.
In short, Mago clearly recognizes the power of the State to foil any fraudulent schemes
resorted to by importers who evade payment of customs duties. The Governments
policy to combat the serious malady of smuggling cannot be reduced to futility and
impotence on the ground that dutiable articles on which the duty has not been paid are
entitled to the same Constitutional protection as an individuals private papers and
effects. Here, we see no reason not to apply this State policy which we have continued
to affirm.

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 206

AMENDING SECTION 105 OF THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
WHEREAS, there is a need to adjust the maximum dutiable value of conditionally free
importations of personal and household effects belonging to residents of the Philippines
returning from abroad to a realistic level;
WHEREAS, to curb abuses in conditionally free importations under Section 105 (f) of
the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, the conditions for such importations
must be restricted;
WHEREAS, there is also a need to recognize the magnitude of the contribution of the
overseas contract workers whose lonely sacrifices in foreign lands bring in a
considerable amount of foreign exchange annually thereby contributing to the national
recovery effort;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of the Philippines, do hereby
order:
SECTION 1. Section 105 (f) of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines is hereby
amended, and a new sub-section (f-1) is hereby added thereto, to read as follows:
SECTION. 105. Conditionally-Free Importations. x x
xxx
(f) Personal and household effects belonging to residents of the Philippines: returning
from abroad including jewelry, precious stones and other articles of luxury which were
formally declared and listed before departure and identified under oath before the
Collector of Customs when exported from the Philippines by such returning residents
upon their departure therefrom or during their stay abroad; personal and household
effects including wearing apparel, articles of personal adornment (except luxury items),
toilet articles, instruments related to ones profession and analogous personal or
household effects, excluding vehicles, watercraft, aircraft and animals purchased in
foreign countries by residents of the Philippines which were necessary, appropriate and
normally used for their comfort and convenience during their stay abroad,
accompanying them on their return, or arriving within a reasonable time which barring
unforeseen and fortuitous events, in no case shall exceed sixty (60) days after the
owners return: Provided, That the personal and household effects shall neither be in
commercial quantities nor intended for barter, sale or hire and that the total dutiable

value of which shall not exceed Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00): Provided, further,
That the returning resident has not previously availed of the privilege under this section
within three hundred sixty five (365) days prior to his arrival: Provided, finally, That a fifty
percent (50%) ad valorem duty across the board shall be levied and collected on the
personal and household effects (except luxury items) in excess of Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00).
For the purposes of this Section, the phrase returning residents shall refer to nationals
who have stayed in a foreign country for a period of at least six (6) months.
(f-1) In addition to be privilege granted under the immediately preceding paragraph,
returning overseas contract workers shall have the privilege to bring in, duty and tax
free, used home appliances, limited to one of every kind once in a given calendar year
accompanying them on their return, or arriving within a reasonable time which, barring
unforeseen and fortuitous events, in no case shall exceed sixty (60) days after the
owners return upon presentation of their original passport at the Port of Entry: Provided,
That any excess of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for personal and household
effects and/or of the number of duty and tax-free appliances as provided for under this
section, shall be subject to the corresponding duties and taxes provided under this
Code.
For purposes of this section, the following words/phrases shall be understood to mean:
a. Overseas Contract Workers Holders of valid passports duly issued by the
Department of Foreign Affairs and certified by the Department of Labor and
Employment/Philippine Overseas Employment Agency for overseas employment
purposes. It covers all nationals working in a foreign country under employment
contracts, including Middle East Contract Workers, entertainers, domestic helpers,
regardless of their employment status in the foreign country.
b. Calendar Year shall cover the period from January 1 to December 31.
SECTION 2. All laws, orders, issuances, rules and regulations or parts thereof
inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
SECTION 3. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately.
Done in the City of Manila, this 30th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen
hundred and eighty-seven.
(Sgd.) CORAZON C. AQUINO
President of the Philippines

POLICE POWER The power of promoting public welfare by restraining andregulating the use of liberty
and property.
TEST FOR THE VALID EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER:
Lawful subject: The interests of the public in general. As distinguished from those of a
particular class, require the exercise of the power. This means that the activity or
property sought to be regulated affects the general welfare; if it does, then the
enjoyment of the rights flowing therefrom may have to yield to the interests of the
greater number.
Lawful Means: The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment
of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive on individuals.
Police power concerns government enactments, which precisely interfere with personal liberty or
property to promote the general welfare or the common good.
Property is anything that can come under the right of ownership andbe the subject of
contract. It represents more than the things a person owns; it includes the right to
secure, use and dispose of them [Torraco v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197].
Aspects of due process:
a)Substantive. This serves as a restriction on government's law- and rule-making
powers. The requisites are:
i)The interests of the public, in general, as distinguished fromthose of a particular class,
require the intervention of the State. [See discussion on Police Power, Chapter IV.]
ii)The means employed are reasonably necessary for theaccomplishment of the
purpose, and not unduly oppressive on individuals.

Smuggling and other acts contrary to customs law committed on a large scale or by criminal
syndicates pose a serious and direct threat to the national economy by depriving the government
of much-needed revenues and unfairly competing with legitimate businesses and to the national
security through the introduction into the country of dangerous drugs or prohibited articles.

WHY IS INSPECTING BALIKBAYAN BOXES BENEFICIAL?

A. STATE
1. EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER
2. STATE INTEREST
3. ECONOMIC SABOTAGE VIS A VIS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
4. TAXATION? FOR UNDECLARED GOODS OR UNDERVALUED
GOODS (NOT SURE)
5. FORFEITURE OF CONTRABANDS IN FAVOR OF GOVERNMENT
B. COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE
1. STATE INTEREST V INDIVIDUAL INTEREST (CURTAILMENT OF
INDIVIDUAL INTEREST OVER THE BENEFITS DERIVED BY THE
STATE)
2. DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY (REQUISITES, MEANS, AIMS)
3. SEARCH AND SEIZURE (POWER OF THE STATE, CUSTOMS
SEARCHES)
C. SMUGGLERS
1. MITIGATION RESULTING TO ERADICATION (SOMEHOW)
D. INTERNATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
1. INTERNATIONAL TRADE (SMOOTH TRANSACTIONS? NOT SURE)
2. MIRRORING SCHEME (TIGHTER SMUGGLING CAMPAIGNS OR
IMPLEMENTATIONS = GREATER CHANCE OF INFLUX OF TRADE?)