THE UNITED STATES vs SILVESTRE POMPEYA G.R. NO. L-10255, AUGUST 6, 2015 FACTS:
1.
Acting prosecuting attorney of the Province of Iloilo charges Silvestre Pompeya with violation of the municipal ordinance of Iloilo, on the subject of patrol duty, Executive Order No. 1, series of 1914, based on section 40 (m) of (m) of the Municipal Code. (fail to render service on patrol duty; an act performed in violation of the law)
2.
Upon arraignment the defendant presented a demurrer on the ground that the acts charged therein do not constitute a crime. The municipal ordinance alleged to be violated is unconstitutional because it is repugnant to the Organic Act of the Philippines, which guarantees the liberty of the citizens."
3.
Honorable J. s .Powell, sustained said demurrer and ordered the dismissal of said complaint. complaint.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the ordinance upon which said complaint was based (paragraph "m" of of section 40 of the Municipal Code) which was adopted in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 1309 is constitutional 2. Whether or not the facts stated in the complaint are sufficient to show: (a) A cause of action under the said law; (b) Whether or not said law is in violation of the provisions of the Philippine Bill in depriving citizens of their rights therein guaranteed 1.
HELD:
1.
Yes. The right or power conferred upon the municipalities by Act No. 1309 falls within the police power of the state. The Philippine Legislature has power to legislate upon all subjects affecting the people of the Philippine Islands which has not been delegated to Congress or expressly prohibited by said Organic Act. Police power of the state has been variously defined. It has been defined as the power of the government, inherent in every sovereign, and cannot be limited. The power vested in the legislature to make such laws as they shall judge to be for the good of the state and its subjects. The power to govern men and things, extending to the protection of the lives, limbs, health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and the protection of all property within the state. The authority to establish such rules and regulations for the conduct of all persons as may be conducive to the public interest. Blackstone defines police power as "the defenses, regulations, and domestic order of the country, whereby the inhabitants of a state, like members of a well-governed family, are bound to conform their general behaviour to the rules of propriety, good neighborhood, and good manners, and to be decent, industrious, and inoffensive in their respective stations." The police power of the state includes not only the public health and safety, but also the public welfare, protection against impositions, and generally the public's best best interest. It so extensive and all pervading, that the courts refuse to lay down a general rule defining it, but
decide each specific case on its merits. The police power of the state has been exercised in controlling and regulating private business, even to the extent of the destruction of the property of private persons, when the use of such property became a nuisance to the public health and convenience
IN THE CASE AT BAR: The power exercised under the provisions of Act No. 1309 falls within the police power of the state and that the state was fully authorized and justified in conferring the same upon the municipalities of the Philippine Islands and that, therefore, the provisions of said Act are constitutional and not in violation nor in derogation of the rights of the persons affected thereby. It will also be noted that the law authorizing the president of the municipality to call upon persons, imposes certain conditions as prerequisites: (1) The person called upon to render such services must be an able-bodied male resident of the municipality; (2) he must be between the ages of 18 and 55 [50], and (3) certain conditions must exist requiring the services of such persons. Moreover, the persons liable for the service mentioned in the law cannot be called upon at the mere whim or caprice of the president. There must be some just and reasonable ground, at least sufficient in the mind of a reasonable man, before the president can call upon the the persons for the service mentioned in the law. The law does not apply to all persons. The law does not apply to every condition. The law applies to special persons and special conditions. 2. No. A complaint based upon such a law, in order to be free from objection under a demurrer, must show that the person charged belongs to the class of persons to which the law is applicable. The complaint, in a criminal case, must state every fact necessary to make out an offense. The complaint must show, on its face that, if the facts alleged are true, an offense has been committed. It must state explicitly and directly every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute an offense. If the statute exempts certain persons, or classes of persons, from liability, then the complaint should show that the person charged does not belong to that class. Even admitting all of the facts in the complaint in the present case, the court would be unable to impose the punishment provided for by law, because it does not show (a) that the defendant was a male citizen of the municipality; (b) that he was an able-bodied citizen; (c) that he was not under 18 years of age nor over 55 [50]; nor (d) that conditions existed which justified the president of the municipality in calling upon him for the services mentioned in the law. Judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed.
