Conti Cases IV

POWELL VS PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA

127 US 678 Facts: Plaintif is alleged to have unlawully sold “as an article o ood two cases containing ! "ounds each o an article designed to ta#e the "lace o $utter "roduced ro% "ure unadulterated %il# or crea% ro% %il# the said article so sold as aoresaid $eing an article %anuactured out o certain oleaginous &oily' su$stances and co%"ounds o the sa%e other than that "roduced ro% unadulterated %il# or crea% ro% %il# and said article so sold as aoresaid $eing an i%itation $utter() Under an act &a""roved *ay 21 188! and which too# efect +uly 1 188!' entitled “,n ,ct or the "rotection o the "u$lic health and to "revent adulteration o dairy "roducts "roducts and raud in the sale thereo) no "erson-.r%-cor"orate "erson-.r%-cor"orate $ody shall %anuacture %anuacture o any oleaginous &oily'su$stance &oily'su$stance or any co%"ound o the sa%e other than that "roduced ro% unadulterated %il#( Under Sec( / o the sa%e act it is "rovided that “or every such ofense oreit and "ay the su%o 01 which shall $e recovera$le with costs $y any "erson suing in the na%e o the o%%onwealth as de$ts o li#e a%ount are $y law recovera$le one3hal o which su% when so recovered shall $e "aid to the "ro"er county treasurer or the use o the county in which suit is $rought and the other hal to the "erson or "ersons at whose instance such a suit shall co%%ence4) 5ssue:  the State can use the ta9ing "ower as an i%"le%ent or the attain%ent o a legiti%ate "olice o$ective( ;uling:  he right o "ro"erty in an article involves the right to sell and dis"ose o such article as well as to use and enoy it( ,ny act which declares declares that the owner shall neither sell it nor dis"ose o it nor use and enoy it con.scates it de"riving hi% o his "ro"erty without due "rocess o law( ,gainst such ar$itrary legislation $y the State the ourteenth ,%end%ent afords "rotection( ?ut the "rohi$ition o the State in any way or or any use is @uite a diferent thing ro% a regulation o the sale or use so as to "rotect the health and %orals o the co%%unity4)

GASTON VS REPUBLIC 158 SCRA 621 FACTS:

Petitioners who are sugar "roducers "lanters and %illers .led a %anda%us to i%"le%ent the "rivatiAation o ;e"u$lic Planters ?an# and or the transer o the shares in the govern%ent $an# to sugar "roducers and "lanters( >hey are allegedly the true $ene.cial owners o the $an# since they "ay P1( "er "icul o sugar ro% the "roceeds o sugar "roducers as Bsta$iliAation eesB( >he shares are currently held $y Philsuco% - Sugar ;egulatory ,d%ininistration(  >he Solicitor Ceneral countered that the sta$iliAation ees are considered govern%ent unds and that the transer o shares ro% Philsuco% to the sugar "roducers would $e unlawul( ISSUES:

 the nature o the Bsta$iliAation eesB all under the category o "u$lic unds(  such collection o ees - unds is a lawul e9ercise $y the Covern%ent( HELD:

 he sta$iliAation ees were charged on sugar "roduced and %illed which accrued to Philsuco% under P(D( //8(  >he ees collected are in the nature o ta9es levied $y the govern%ent which is within the "ower o the state to i%"ose or the "ro%otion o an industry in this case the sugar industry( >hey constitute sugar liens( >he collections accrue to a s"ecial unds( 5t is levied not "urely or ta9ation $ut or regulation to "rovide %eans to sta$iliAe the sugar industry( >he levy is "ri%arily a valid e9ercise o "olice "owers(

ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM

F,>S:  >he su$ects o this owned $y "etitioner $y our tenants and declared ull owners o( 27(

"etition are a E3hectare riceland wor#ed $y our tenants and icolas *anaay and his wie and a !3hectare riceland wor#ed owned $y "etitioner ,ugustin er%ano +r( >he tenants were o these lands $y G(( o( 228 as @uali.ed ar%ers under P(D(

 >he "etitioners are @uestioning P(D( o( 27 and G(( os( 228 and 22E on grounds inter alia o se"aration o "owers due "rocess e@ual "rotection and the constitutional li%itation that no "rivate "ro"erty shall $e ta#en or "u$lic use without ust co%"ensation(  >hey contend that President ,@uino usur"ed legislative "ower when she "ro%ulgated G(( o( 228( >he said %easure is invalid also or violation o ,rticle H555 Section I o the onstitution or ailure to "rovide or retention li%its or s%all landowners( *oreover it does not conor% to ,rticle J5 Section 2!&I' and the other re@uisites o a valid a""ro"riation( ISSUE:

 there was grave a$use in the e9ercise o the "ower o e%inent do%ain and "olice "ower( HELD:

one( G%inent do%ain is an inherent "ower o the State that ena$les it to orci$ly ac@uire "rivate lands intended or "u$lic use u"on "ay%ent o ust co%"ensation to the owner( $viously there is no need to e9"ro"riate where the owner is willing to sell under ter%s also acce"ta$le to the "urchaser in which case an ordinary deed o  sale %ay $e agreed u"on $y the "arties( 5t is only where the owner is unwilling to sell or cannot acce"t the "rice or other conditions ofered $y the vendee that the "ower o e%inent do%ain will co%e into "lay to assert the "ara%ount authority o  the State over the interests o the "ro"erty owner( Private rights %ust then yield to the irresisti$le de%ands o the "u$lic interest on the ti%e3honored usti.cation as in the case o the "olice "ower that the welare o the "eo"le is the su"re%e law(

US VS TORRIBIO 15 PHIL 85 FACTS:

So%eti%e in the 1Es >ori$io a""lied or a license to have his cara$ao $e slaughtered( is re@uest was denied $ecause his cara$ao is ound not to $e un.t or wor#( e nevertheless slaughtered his cara$ao without the necessary license( e was eventually sued and was sentenced $y the trial court( is counsel in one way or the other argued that the law %andating that one should ac@uire a "er%it to slaughter his cara$ao is not a valid e9ercise o "olice "ower( ISSUE:

hether or not the said law is valid( HELD:

 >he S ruled against >ori$io( >he S e9"lained that it “is not a ta#ing o the "ro"erty or "u$lic use within the %eaning o the constitution $ut is a ust and legiti%ate e9ercise o the "ower o the legislature to regulate and restrain such "articular use o the "ro"erty as would $e inconsistent with or inurious to the rights o the "u$lics( ,ll "ro"erty is ac@uired and held under the tacit condition that it shall not $e so used as to inure the e@ual rights o others or greatly i%"air the "u$lic rights and interests o the co%%unity()

RP VS PLDT 20 SCRA 620

F,>S: Pu$lic "etitioner co%%enced a suit against "rivate res"ondent "raying or the right o the ?ureau o >eleco%%unications to de%and interconnection $etween the Covern%ent >ele"hone Syste% and that o PKD> so that the Covern%ent >ele"hone Syste% could %a#e use o the lines and acilities o the PKD>( Private res"ondent contends that it cannot $e co%"elled to enter into a contract where no agree%ent is had $etween the%( 5SSUG: hether or not interconnection $etween PKD> and the Covern%ent >ele"hone Syste% can $e a valid o$ect or e9"ro"riation( GKD:  he use o lines and services to allow inter3service connection $etween the $oth tele"hone syste%s through e9"ro"riation can $e a su$ect to an ease%ent o right o way(