CHURCHILL v RAFFERTY

FACTS:
Plaintiffs put up a billboard on private land in Rizal Province "quite a distance from the road and strongly built". Some residents (German and
British Consuls) find it offensive. Act # 2339 allows the defendent, the Collector of Internal Revenue, to collect taxes from such property and to
remove it when it is offensive to sight. Court of first Instance prohibited the defendant to collect or remove the billboard.

ISSUE:
1.May the courts restrain by injunction the collection of taxes?
2.Is Act # 2339 unconstitutional because it deprives property without due process of law in allowing CIR to remove it if it is offensive?

RULING:
1.an injunction is an extraordinary remedy and not to be used if there is an adequate remedy provided by law; here there is an adequate remedy,
therefore court may not do so.
2.unsightly advertisements which are offensive to the sight are not dissociated from the general welfare of the public, therefore can be regulated
by police power, and act is constitutional.

RATIONALE: 1.Writ of injunction by the courts is an extraordinary preventive remedy. Ordinary (adequate) remedies are in the law itself. Sections
139 and 140 of the Act forbids the use of injunction and provides a remedy for any wrong. _Plaintiffs say that those sections are unconstitutional
because by depriving taxpayers remedy, it also deprives them of property without due process of law and it diminishes the power of the courts_.
Taxes, whether legal or illegal, cannot be restrained by the courts by injunction. There must be a further showing that there are special
circumstances such as irreparable injury, multiplicity of suits or a cloud upon title to real estate will result. Practically, if the courts can do so then
there will be an insane number of suits enjoining the collection of taxes by tax avoiders. The state will not function since taxes are not paid (and
judges will become unpaid!). There is, of course, no law nor jurisprudence that says it is not allowed to sue after having paid the tax, and such is
the usual course in bringing suits against illegal(?) taxes. Pay it under protest. As to the diminishment of power of the courts, the Philippine courts
never had the power to restrain the collection of taxes by injunction. It is said par 2 sec 56 Act 136 confers original jurisdiction upon CFI to hear
and determine all civil actions but civil actions at that time had a well-defined meaning. The legislature had already defined the only action
previously and that is the payment of the tax under protest then suit. Civil actions like injunction suits are of a special extraordinary character.
Section 139 also does not diminish power of the courts because the power is still there if there is no adequate remedy available but sec 140 gives
an adequate remedy.

2. sec 100 of act 2339 gives power to the CIR to remove offensive billboards, signs, signboards after due investigation. The question becomes is
that a reasonable exercise of police power affecting the advertising industry? Police power is reasonable insofar as it properly considers public
health, safety, comfort, etc. If nothing can justify a statute, it's void. State may interfere in public interest but not final. Court is final. Police power
has been expanding. Blahblahblah (consti1). The basic idea of civil polity in US is gov't should interfere with individual effort only to the extent
necessary to preserve a healthy social and economic condition of society. State interferes with private property through, taxation, eminent
domain and police power. Only under the last are the benefits derived from the maintenance of a healthy economic standard of society and aka
damnum absque injuria. Once police power was reserved for common nuisances. Now industry is organized along lines which make it possible
for large combinations of capital to profit at the expense of socio-economic progress of the nation by controlling prices and dictating to industrial
workers wages and conditions of labor. It has increased the toll on life and affects public health, safety and morals, also general social and
economic life of the nation, as such state must necessarily regulate industries. Various industries have regulated and even offensive noises and
smells coming from those industries. Those noises and smells though ostensibly regulated for health reason are actually regulated for more
aesthetic reasons. What is more aesthetic than sight which the ad industry is wooing us with. Ads cover landscapes etc. The success of billboards
lie not upon the use of private property but on channels of travel used by the general public. Billboard that cannot be seen by people are useless.
Billboards are legitimate, they are not garbage but can be offensive in certain circumstances. Other courts in US hold the view that police power
cannot interfere with private property rights for purely aesthetic purposes. But this court is of the opinion that unsightly advertisements which
are offensive to the sight are not dissociated from the general welfare of the public.

Facts:
The case arises from the fact that defendant, Collector of Internal Revenue, would like to destroy or remove any sign, signboard, or billboard, the
property of the plaintiffs, for the sole reason that such sign, signboard, or billboard is, or may be offensive to the sight. The plaintiffs allege
otherwise. Was there valid exercise of police power in this case?

Held:
Yes. There can be no doubt that the exercise of the police power of the Philippine Government belongs to the Legislature and that this power is
limited only by the Acts of Congress and those fundamentals principles which lie at the foundation of all republican forms of government. An Act
of the Legislature which is obviously and undoubtedly foreign to any of the purposes of the police power and interferes with the ordinary
enjoyment of property would, without doubt, be held to be invalid. But where the Act is reasonably within a proper consideration of and care for
the public health, safety, or comfort, it should not be disturbed by the courts.
"The power vested in the legislature by the constitution to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes,
and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the
commonwealth, and of the subjects of the same."
"The police power of the State, so far, has not received a full and complete definition. It may be said, however, to be the right of the State, or
state functionary, to prescribe regulations for the good order, peace, health, protection, comfort, convenience and morals of the community,
which do not ... violate any of the provisions of the organic law."
"It [the police power] has for its object the improvement of social and economic conditioned affecting the community at large and collectively
with a view to bring about "he greatest good of the greatest number."Courts have consistently and wisely declined to set any fixed limitations
upon subjects calling for the exercise of this power. It is elastic and is exercised from time to time as varying social conditions demand correction."
"It may be said in a general way that the police power extends to all the great public needs. It may be put forth in aid of what is sanctioned by
usage, or held by the prevailing morality or strong and preponderant opinion to be greatly and immediately necessary to the public welfare."
"It is much easier to perceive and realize the existence and sources of this police power than to mark its boundaries, or to prescribe limits to its
exercise."

YNOT v. IAC

There had been an existing law which prohibited the slaughtering of carabaos (EO 626). To strengthen the law, Marcos issued EO 626-A which
not only banned the movement of carabaos from interprovinces but as well as the movement of carabeef. On 13 Jan 1984, Ynot was caught
transporting 6 carabaos from Masbate to Iloilo. He was then charged in violation of EO 626-A. Ynot averred EO 626-A as unconstitutional for it
violated his right to be heard or his right to due process. He said that the authority provided by EO 626-A to outrightly confiscate carabaos even
without being heard is unconstitutional. The lower court ruled against Ynot ruling that the EO is a valid exercise of police power in order to
promote general welfare so as to curb down the indiscriminate slaughter of carabaos.

ISSUE: Whether or not the law is valid.

HELD: The SC ruled that the EO is not valid as it indeed violates due process. EO 626-A ctreated a presumption based on the judgment of the
executive. The movement of carabaos from one area to the other does not mean a subsequent slaughter of the same would ensue. Ynot should
be given to defend himself and explain why the carabaos are being transferred before they can be confiscated. The SC found that the challenged
measure is an invalid exercise of the police power because the method employed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the
purpose of the law and, worse, is unduly oppressive. Due process is violated because the owner of the property confiscated is denied the right to
be heard in his defense and is immediately condemned and punished. The conferment on the administrative authorities of the power to adjudge
the guilt of the supposed offender is a clear encroachment on judicial functions and militates against the doctrine of separation of powers. There
is, finally, also an invalid delegation of legislative powers to the officers mentioned therein who are granted unlimited discretion in the distribution
of the properties arbitrarily taken.

The challenged measure was an invalid exercise of police power because the method toconfiscate carabos was oppressive.
Due process was violated because the owner was denied the right to be heard or his defense and punished immediately.
This was a clear encroachment on judicial functions and against the separataion of powers.
The policeman wasn’t liable for damages since the law during that time was valid.