Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5


127 US 678


Plaintiff is alleged to have unlawfully sold as an article of food two cases,

containing 5 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 (oily)
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.

Under an 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, no person/firm/corporate body shall
manufacture of any oleaginous (oily)substance or any compound of the same other
than that produced from unadulterated milk.

Under Sec. 3 of the same act, it is provided that for every such offense, forfeit and
pay the sumof $100, 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 commence


WON the State can use the taxing power as an implement for the attainment of a
legitimate police objective.


Yes. Regulations of the said articles sale and restraints against its improper use
undoubtedly could be made, as they may be made with respect to all kinds of
property, but the prohibition of its use and sale is nothing less than confiscation.
The right of property in an article involves the right to sell and dispose of such
article, as well as to use and enjoy it. Any act which declares that the owner shall
neither sell it nor dispose of it nor use and enjoy it, confiscates it, depriving him of
his property without due process of law. Against such arbitrary legislation by the
State, the fourteenth Amendment affords protection. But the prohibition of the State
in any way or for any use is quite a different thing from a regulation of the sale or
use so as to protect the health and morals of the community

158 SCRA 621


Petitioners, who are sugar producers, planters and millers filed a mandamus to
implement the privatization of Republic Planters Bank and for the transfer of the
shares in the government bank to sugar producers and planters. They are allegedly
the true beneficial owners of the bank since they pay P1.00 per picul of sugar from
the proceeds of sugar producers as 'stabilization fees'. The shares are currently held
by Philsucom / Sugar Regulatory Admininistration.

The Solicitor General countered that the stabilization fees are considered
government funds and that the transfer of shares from Philsucom to the sugar
producers would be unlawful.


WON the nature of the 'stabilization fees' fall under the category of public funds.

WON such collection of fees / funds is a lawful exercise by the Government.


Yes. While it is true that the collected fees were used to buy shares in RPB, it did not
collect said fees for the account of sugar producers. The stabilization fees were
charged on sugar produced and milled which accrued to Philsucom, under P.D. 338.

The fees collected are in the nature of taxes levied by the government, which is
within the power of the state to impose for the promotion of an industry, in this
case, the sugar industry. They constitute sugar liens. The collections accrue to a
special funds. It is levied not purely for taxation, but for regulation, to provide
means to stabilize the sugar industry. The levy is primarily a valid exercise of police


The subjects of this petition are a 9-hectare riceland worked by four tenants and
owned by petitioner Nicolas Manaay and his wife and a 5-hectare riceland worked
by four tenants and owned by petitioner Augustin Hermano, Jr. The tenants were
declared full owners of these lands by E.O. No. 228 as qualified farmers under P.D.
No. 27.

The petitioners are questioning P.D. No. 27 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 on grounds
inter alia of separation of powers, due process, equal protection and the
constitutional limitation that no private property shall be taken for public use
without just compensation.

They contend that President Aquino usurped legislative power when she
promulgated E.O. No. 228. The said measure is invalid also for violation of Article
XIII, Section 4, of the Constitution, for failure to provide for retention limits for small
landowners. Moreover, it does not conform to Article VI, Section 25(4) and the other
requisites of a valid appropriation.


WON there was grave abuse in the exercise of the power of eminent domain and
police power.


None. Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that enables it to forcibly
acquire private lands intended for public use upon payment of just compensation to
the owner. Obviously, there is no need to expropriate where the owner is willing to
sell under terms also acceptable to the purchaser, in which case an ordinary deed of
sale may be agreed upon by the parties. It is only where the owner is unwilling to
sell, or cannot accept the price or other conditions offered by the vendee, that the
power of eminent domain will come into play to assert the paramount authority of
the State over the interests of the property owner. Private rights must then yield to
the irresistible demands of the public interest on the time-honored justification, as
in the case of the police power, that the welfare of the people is the supreme law.

15 PHIL 85


Sometime in the 1900s, Toribio applied for a license to have his carabao be
slaughtered. His request was denied because his carabao is found not to be unfit for
work. He nevertheless slaughtered his carabao without the necessary license. He
was eventually sued and was sentenced by the trial court. His counsel in one way or
the other argued that the law mandating that one should acquire a permit to
slaughter his carabao is not a valid exercise of police power.


Whether or not the said law is valid.


The SC ruled against Toribio. The SC explained that it is not a taking of the
property for public use, within the meaning of the constitution, but is a just and
legitimate exercise of the power of the legislature to regulate and restrain such
particular use of the property as would be inconsistent with or injurious to the rights
of the publics. All property is acquired and held under the tacit condition that it shall
not be so used as to injure the equal rights of others or greatly impair the public
rights and interests of the community.

20 SCRA 620


Public petitioner commenced a suit against private respondent praying for the right
of the Bureau of Telecommunications to demand interconnection between the
Government Telephone System and that of PLDT, so that the Government Telephone
System could make use of the lines and facilities of the PLDT. Private respondent
contends that it cannot be compelled to enter into a contract where no agreement
is had between them.


Whether or not interconnection between PLDT and the Government Telephone

System can be a valid object for expropriation.


Yes, in the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain, the Republic may
require the telephone company to permit interconnection as the needs of the
government service may require, subject to the payment of just compensation. The
use of lines and services to allow inter-service connection between the both
telephone systems, through expropriation can be a subject to an easement of right
of way.