CHURCHILL & TAIT v. RAFFERTY - CASE DIGEST - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Kenzo
CHURCHILL & TAIT v. RAFFERTY                 G.R. NO. L-10572, December 21, 1915

FACTS:

Plaintiffs put up a billboard on a private land located in Rizal Province quite distance from the road and strongly built, not dangerous to the safety of the people, and contained no advertising matter which is filthy, indecent, or deleterious to the morals of the community.However, defendant Rafferty, Collector of Internal Revenue, decided to remove the billboards after due investigation made upon the complaints of the British and German Consuls.

Act No. 2339 authorized the then Collector of Internal Revenue to remove after due investigation, any billboard exposed to the public view if it decides that it is offensive to the sight or is otherwise a nuisance.

In the agreed statement of facts submitted by the parties, the plaintiffs "admit that the billboards mentioned were and still are offensive to the sight."

The Court of First Instance perpetually restrains and prohibits the defendant and his deputies from collecting and enforcing against the plaintiffs and their property the annual tax mentioned and described in subsection (b) of section 100 of Act No. 2339, effective July 1, 1914, and from destroying or removing any sign, signboard, or billboard, the property of the plaintiffs and decrees the cancellation of the bond given by the plaintiffs.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

WON Act No. 2339 was a legitimate exercise of the police power of the Government?

HELD:

YES. Things offensive to the senses, such as sight, smell or hearing, may be suppressed by the State especially those situated in thickly populated districts. Aesthetics may be regulated by the police power of the state, as long as it is justified by public interest and safety.

Moreover, if the police power may be exercised to encourage a healthy social and economic condition in the country, and if the comfort and convenience of the people are included within those subjects, everything which encroaches upon such territory is amenable to the police power of the State.

Hence, the judgment of the CFI is reversed. 

Post a Comment

Cookie Consent
We serve cookies on this site to analyze traffic, remember your preferences, and optimize your experience.
Oops!
It seems there is something wrong with your internet connection. Please connect to the internet and start browsing again.
AdBlock Detected!
We have detected that you are using adblocking plugin in your browser.
The revenue we earn by the advertisements is used to manage this website, we request you to whitelist our website in your adblocking plugin.
Site is Blocked
Sorry! This site is not available in your country.