You are on page 1of 5

Waples v. Marrast, 184 S.W. 180 (Tex.

1916) observed, the votes cast for delegates could not be canvassed in time for that
convention.
Texas Supreme Court
The suit was a mandamus proceeding by E.K. Marrast to require the appellants, who
Filed: March 22nd, 1916 compose the Democratic State executive committee, to hold the primary election
contemplated by the Act. In the trial court the writ of mandamus was awarded, the
Precedential Status: Precedential learned trial judge in an able written opinion holding the Act valid against the attack
made upon it by the respondents. An appeal was prosecuted to the honorable Court
Citations: 184 S.W. 180, 108 Tex. 5 of Civil Appeals, which has certified to us the following questions:

Docket Number: No. 2826. 1. Is the Act, approved March 27, 1913, article 3175a, Vernon's Sayles' Texas Civil
Statutes, void upon the ground that it is in conflict with one or more of the provisions
 LEAD OPINION of the Constitution of this State or of the Union as is claimed by appellants? *Page 9

Judges: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PHILLIPS delivered the opinion of the court. 2. If not void, has the State Democratic executive committee authority to disregard
its requirements in so far as they are impracticable and to supply such regulations
as they may deem proper and necessary?
The case involves the constitutionality of what is familiarly known as the Presidential
Primary Act of the Thirty-third Legislature, chapter 46, General Laws of 1913. The
terms of the Act require the holding of precinct primary elections in the counties of We shall consider only the question of the constitutionality of the Act. That it is
the State on the fourth Tuesday in May in presidential election years by the impracticable, unworkable if literally observed, and is de-ficient because of the
respective political parties of the State polling as many as 50,000 votes for their omission to provide for the nomination of the legal number of presidential electors,
respective candidates for Governor at the last preceding general election, — are not matters which, if true, affect the power of the Legislature to enact the law.
obedience to it being optional with parties so polling a less *Page 8 number of votes,
— for the expression by their qualified electors of their preference of candidates for The authority of the Legislature to require the holding of a primary election by the
the party nomination to the offices of President and Vice President of the United political parties of the State for the purpose of enabling their members to vote their
States and presidential electors, and likewise their choice of party candidates for the choice for party nominees for elective offices, whether State or national, and
places of delegates to the national conventions of such parties. likewise express their preference in the selection of party delegates to party
conventions, is undoubted. The legislative right in such an enactment to make,
The expense of such primary election of a party whose candidate for Governor at the according to their numerical strength, a reasonable classification in respect to the
last preceding general election received as many as 50,000 votes, it is provided by political parties subject to the law, is equally clear. The Act is not invalid under the
the Act, shall be paid out of the county treasury of each county, no provision being classification adopted because it applies at the present time to only the Democratic
made for the expense of the primary election of other parties, if held under the Act. party. It is not to be regarded as having been enacted for only the present day. It
was within the province of the Legislature to determine whether the numerically
weaker parties should be relieved from its compulsory observance; and, if so, to
It is further provided that the votes cast at the election shall be counted, canvassed
provide a classification according to the voting strength of the parties. The selection
and returned as required by the general primary law of the State in relation to party
of a voting strength of 50,000 votes as the test does not create an unreasonable
nominations for the offices of Governor and Lieutenant Governor.
classification, and the Act is not, upon this account, to be overturned.
In respect to the number of presidential electors to be nominated in the primary
The only serious constitutional question involved by the Act is its requirement that
election, the Act is deficient. It provides only for the nomination of one elector from
the expense of the primary election shall be borne out of the public treasury of the
each congressional district, whereas the State is required to elect at the general
counties. This presents, nakedly, the question, whether it is within the power of the
election a number equal to its whole number of Senators and Representatives in
Legislature to devote the public revenues of the State to the payment of the primary
Congress.
election expenses of political parties. The general primary law relating to the
nomination of party candidates for State, district and county offices imposes such
Under the agreed facts of the case, the operation of the Act at the present time is to
expense upon the candidates. Article 3104. In the legislative history of the State this
require only the Democratic party to hold the primary election provided for, since it
is the first effort, so far as we are aware, to make the expense of a party election a
is, at present, the only party in the State whose candidate for Governor at the last
charge upon the public revenue.
general election received as many as 50,000 votes. It is furthermore agreed that the
cost of such a primary election as the Act requires, will be not less than $300,000,
Section 3, article VIII of the Constitution, declares:
and will probably exceed that amount.
"Taxes shall be levied and collected by general laws and for public purposes only."
The requirement of the general primary law in respect to the time for the canvassing
by the State executive committee of the votes cast for candidates for party
nominations for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, is that it shall be at a meeting By section 52, article III, it is provided:
held on the second Tuesday in August of the election year. The Democratic national
convention, it appears from the statement of the agreed facts, has been appointed "The Legislature shall have no power to authorize any county, city, town, or other
to meet on June 14, 1916. If the primary election should be held and the Act literally political corporation of the State to lend its credit or to grant public money in aid of
or to any individual, association or corporation whatsoever," etc.
The funds possessed by the counties of the State and available for the payment of usage or because they are in no proper sense the instruments of government, it is
the expense of the primary election provided for by this Act are only those which are the duty of the people to provide for themselves. It is not all things which answer a
derived by taxation. If the payment of such expense is, within the meaning of the public need or fill a public want that it is within the authority of the State to furnish
Constitution, "a public *Page 10 purpose," the Act is valid in its provision that it shall for the people's use or support at the public expense. Manufacturing industries,
be borne out of the public treasury of the counties; otherwise it is not. railroads, public enterprises of many kinds, private schools and private charitable
institutions, all afford a service to the public, but the State is without any power to
Taxes are burdens imposed for the support of the government. They are laid as a maintain them. Religion is generally esteemed a helpful influence for public morality.
means of providing public revenues for public purposes. The sovereign power of the But the Constitution expressly declares that no public money shall be granted in aid
State may be exercised in their levy and collection only upon the condition that they of any religious organization.
shall be devoted to such purposes; and no lawful tax can be laid for a different
purpose. When ever they are imposed for private purposes, as was said in General elections are essential to the public welfare and are distinctly related to the
Broadhead v. Milwaukee, 19 Wis. 670, 88 Am. Dec., 711, it ceases to be taxation and discharge of an important governmental duty, because it is only by their means that
becomes plunder. the organic law may be amended and in the elective offices public officials be
supplied for the various administrative agencies of the State. But is it any duty of
It is not easy to state in exact terms what is "a public purpose" in the sense in which the State to provide the people with nominees of political parties for the elective
that term is employed as a limitation upon the State's power of taxation. The offices of the government? Is it in any just sense a concern of the State that those
framers of the Constitution were doubtless sensible of this difficulty, for they did not offices be filled by only the nominees of political parties? And is there any right in
attempt to define it. Many objects may be public in the general sense that their the State to devote the public revenue of the State derived by taxation from the
attainment will confer a public benefit or promote the public convenience, but not be people at large in aid of the purposes of such parties?
public in the sense that the taxing power of the State may be used to accomplish
them. The powers of the State as a sovereignty exist only for governmental A political party is nothing more or less than a body of men associated for the
purposes. They may be freely exerted in the discharge of all the governmental purpose of furnishing and maintaining the prevalence of certain political principles
functions of the State; but cannot be applied to uses, though public in aim and or beliefs in the public policies of the government. As rivals for popular favor they
result, which are not governmental in their nature. As the means provided for the strive at the general elections for the control of the agencies of the government as
support of the government in its administrative duties and existing alone for that the means of providing a course for the government in accord with their political
end, the taxing power may be employed for no purpose save that which in a true principles and the administration of those agencies by their own adherents.
and just sense is related to the performance by the State of its governmental office. According to the soundness of their principles and the wisdom of their policies they
The appropriation of the public revenue is a legislative power, and the Legislature serve a great purpose in the life of a government. But the fact remains that the
must necessarily be allowed a large discretion in determining to what uses public objects of political organizations are intimate to those who compose them. They do
moneys may be put. Subject to the constitutional limitation that the public revenue not concern *Page 12 the general public. They directly interest, both in their conduct
shall be applied to only public purposes, to the prudent husbandry of the Legislature and in their success, only so much of the public as are comprised in their
as well as its provident foresight has been committed the public trust of making membership, and then only as members of the particular organization. They perform
such use of it as will afford the economical administration of the government which no governmental function. They constitute no governmental agency. The purpose of
both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution enjoin. The term "public purpose" as their primary elections is merely to enable them to furnish their nominees as
used in this relation is not, therefore, to be construed narrowly, so as to deny candidates for the popular suffrage. In the interest of fair methods and a fair
authority to the Legislature to make such provision for the administration and expression by their members of their preference in the selection of their nominees,
support of the government in its several branches and subdivisions as will faithfully the State may regulate such elections by proper laws, as it has done in our general
subserve the present and future interests of the people. The limitation imposed by primary law, and as it was competent for the Legislature to do by a proper act of the
the Constitution upon the power is, however, imperative. And it is essentially true character of the one here under review. But the payment of the expenses of purely
that it does not permit taxation for all purposes which in a broad and general sense party elections is a different matter. On principle, such expenses can not be
may be regarded as public, but expressly confines its exercise to only those public differentiated from any other character of expense incurred in carrying out a party
purposes with which the State, as a government, invested with high and sovereign object, since the attainment of a party purpose — the election of its nominees at the
powers, but only as a grant from the people and, therefore, to be solely used for the general elections through the unified vote of the party membership, is necessarily
common benefit of all of them, and not as a paternal institution, may justly the prime object of a party primary.
concern *Page 11 itself, and to which, for that reason, the public revenues may be
rightfully devoted. The great powers of the State, — and the taxing power is the one to be always the
most carefully guarded, — can not be used, in our opinion, in aid of any political
As to what is a public purpose within the meaning of section 3, article VIII of the party or to promote the purposes of all political parties. They are no more to be
Constitution, no better test can be presented than the inquiry: Is the thing to be made the objects of governmental bounty or favor than any other class of public
furthered by the appropriation of the public revenue something which it is the duty organizations into which groups of citizens may form themselves. Expenses incurred
of the State, as a government, to provide? Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall., 655, in the furtherance of their objects can no more be defrayed out of the public
22 Law. Ed., 455; The People v. The Town of Salem, 20 Mich. 452, 4 Am. Rep., 400. treasury than the expenses of other associations of individuals. If it is constitutional
Those things which it is the duty of the State to provide for the people it is equally to use the public revenues to pay the cost of their primary elections, it would
the right of the State, by means of the public revenue, to maintain. Within this likewise be constitutional to pay the cost of their candidates' campaigns. If the
category fall the general instrumentalities of the government, the public schools, constitutional barrier is removed in the one case, it can not be restored in the other;
and other institutions of like nature. But the State is wholly without any power to but it will have to be admitted that any and all kinds of expense of political parties
levy and appropriate taxes for the support of those things which, either by common may be lawfully imposed as a part of the public burden of taxation.
For a stronger constitutional reason than would apply to other kinds of public is a pioneer case of public importance, I wish, by way of making my own
organizations is it the clear duty of the State to withhold the use of its public views clear, to emphasize, if possible, said distinction, and, in that
revenues as an aid to political parties, and particularly as an aid in the holding of connection, to say that said opinion, as I understand it, does not question
their party elections? The object of such parties is the political control of the the power and authority of the Legislature to direct payment, out of public
government; and we regard it as a fundamentally sound proposition that no power funds raised by taxation, of any and all reasonable expenses which may be
of the government can be constitutionally used in furtherance or aid of the effort of incurred in the mere regulation *Page 14 — but not in the maintenance —
any class or kind of organization, political or otherwise, to obtain the control of the of primary elections. DeWalt v. Bartley, 146 Pa. St., 529, 24 A. 185, 15
government. L.R.A., 771, 28 Am. St. Rep., 814.

To provide nominees of political parties for the people to vote upon in the general
elections, is not the business of the State. It is not the business of the State because PASCUAL vs. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS
in the conduct of the government the State knows no parties and can know none. If 110 PHIL 331
it is not the business of the State to see that such nominations are made, as it GR No. L-10405, December 29, 1960
clearly is not, the public revenues can not be employed in that connection. To *Page
13 furnish their nominees as claimants for the popular favor in the general elections "A law appropriating the public revenue is invalid if the public advantage or benefit,
is a matter which concerns alone those parties that desire to make such derived from such expenditure, is merely incidental in the promotion of a particular
nominations. It is alone their concern because they alone are interested in the enterprise."
success of their nominees. The State, as a government, can not afford to concern
itself in the success of the nominees of any political party, or in the elective offices FACTS: Governor Wenceslao Pascual of Rizal instituted this action for declaratory
of the people being filled only by those who are the nominees of some political party. relief, with injunction, upon the ground that RA No. 920, which apropriates funds for
Political parties are political instrumentalities. They are in no sense governmental public works particularly for the construction and improvement of Pasig feeder road
instrumentalities. The responsible duties of the State to all the people are to be terminals. Some of the feeder roads, however, as alleged and as contained in the
performed and its high objects effected without reference to parties, and they have tracings attached to the petition, were nothing but projected and planned
no part or place in the exercise by the State of its great province in governing the subdivision roads, not yet constructed within the Antonio Subdivision, belonging to
people. private respondent Zulueta, situated at Pasig, Rizal; and which projected feeder
roads do not connect any government property or any important premises to the
We have been pointed to but one authority holding that the public revenues may be main highway. The respondents' contention is that there is public purpose because
used to pay the cost of the primary elections of political parties, State v. Michel, 121 people living in the subdivision will directly be benefitted from the construction of
La. 374; but in that case the question received only a casual consideration, and we the roads, and the government also gains from the donation of the land supposed to
do not feel at liberty to adopt the conclusion there announced. be occupied by the streets, made by its owner to the government.

Holding an Act of the Legislature to be unconstitutional is never a welcome duty, ISSUE: Should incidental gains by the public be considered "public purpose" for the
and this court has never performed it except with reluctance. It is a duty, however, purpose of justifying an expenditure of the government?
plain and unmistakable when upon mature consideration such is the conviction of
the court. The Constitution is the supreme law of the State, and no consideration HELD: No. It is a general rule that the legislature is without power to appropriate
should be suffered to stand in the way of its enforcement. Tested by legal principles public revenue for anything but a public purpose. It is the essential character of the
which are clear and established, the payment of the expenses of primary elections direct object of the expenditure which must determine its validity as justifying a tax,
of political parties is not a public purpose for which public revenues may be used; and not the magnitude of the interest to be affected nor the degree to which the
and in our opinion the Act in question is, therefore, unconstitutional and general advantage of the community, and thus the public welfare, may be ultimately
unenforceable. benefited by their promotion. Incidental to the public or to the state, which results
from the promotion of private interest and the prosperity of private enterprises or
 CONCURRENCE business, does not justify their aid by the use public money.
The test of the constitutionality of a statute requiring the use of public funds is
whether the statute is designed to promote the public interest, as opposed to the
 Judges: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PHILLIPS delivered the opinion of the court.
furtherance of the advantage of individuals, although each advantage to individuals
might incidentally serve the public.
 I concur in the conclusion and also in the general course of reasoning upon
which it has been reached, and in nearly all that our Chief Justice has said G.R. No. 92585 May 8, 1992CALTEX PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner,vs.THE
so well, above. However, I consider it proper for me to say this: HONORABLE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, HONORABLECOMMISSIONER
BARTOLOME C. FERNANDEZ and HONORABLECOMMISSIONER ALBERTO P.
 Undoubtedly "common usage" is one very valuable test, or measure, by CRUZ, respondents.
which the courts may determine whether a given expenditure of public Topic: (1) tax vs. ordinary debt, (2) purpose/objective of taxation: non-revenue /
funds is or is not for "a public purpose," and to that effect are the special / regulatoryPonente: Davide, Jr. J.
authorities; but I do not regard it as the only test, in any instance. DOCTRINE:
A taxpayer may not offset taxes due from the claims that he may have againstthe
 The distinction between the maintenance and the regulation of primary government.
elections is drawn, and properly so, in said opinion, and that, indeed, is as QUICK FACTS
far as it is necessary to go in answering the certified question; but, as this
: Caltex Philippines questions the decisions of COA fordisallowing the offsetting of its the equal protection clause because it constitutes mail users into a class for the
claims for reimbursement with its due OPSFremittance purpose of the tax while leaving
untaxed the rest of the population and that even among postal patrons the statute
FACTS: discriminatorily grants
The Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) was created under Sec. 8, PD 1956, exemptions. The law in question requires an additional 5 centavo stamp for every
asamended by EO 137 for the purpose of minimizing frequent price changesbrought mail being posted, and no mail
about by exchange rate adjustments. It will be used to reimburse theoil companies shall be delivered unless bearing the said stamp.
for cost increase and possible cost underrecovery incurred dueto reduction of
domestic prices.COA sent a letter to Caltex directing the latter to remit to the OPSF ISSUE: Is the Anti-TB Stamp Law unconstitutional, for being allegedly violative of the
itscollection. Caltex requested COA for an early release of its equal protection clause?
reimbursementcertificates which the latter denied.COA disallowed recover of
financing charges, inventory losses and sales tomarcopper and atlas but allowed the HELD: No. It is settled that the legislature has the inherent power to select the
recovery of product sale or those arisingfrom export sales.Petitioner’s subjects of taxation and to grant
Contention:Department of Finance issued Circular No. 4-88 allowing exemptions. This power has aptly been described as "of wide range and flexibility."
reimbursement.Denial of claim for reimbursement would be inequitable. NCC Indeed, it is said that in the
(compensation)and Sec. 21, Book V, Title I-B of the Revised Administrative Code field of taxation, more than in other areas, the legislature possesses the greatest
(Retention of Money for Satisfaction of Indebtedness to Government) allows freedom in classification. The
offsetting.Amounts due do not arise as a result of taxation since PD 1956 did not reason for this is that traditionally, classification has been a device for fitting tax
create asource of taxation, it instead established a special fund. This lack of programs to local needs and
publicpurpose behind OPSF exactions distinguishes it from tax.Respondent’s usages in order to achieve an equitable distribution of the tax burden.
Contention:Based on The classification of mail users is based on the ability to pay, the enjoyment of a
Francia v. IAC privilege and on administrative
, there’s no offsetting of taxes against the the claimsthat a taxpayer may have convenience. Tax exemptions have never been thought of as raising revenues under
against the government, as taxes do not arise fromcontracts or depend upon the will the equal protection clause.
of the taxpayer, but are imposed by law. Planters Product v. Fertiphil Corp.
ISSUE: WON Caltex is entitled to offsetting G.R. No. 166006 March 14, 2008
DECISION: NO. COA AFFIRMED REYES, R.T., J.
HELD:
It is settled that a taxpayer may not offset taxes due from the claimsthat he may
have against the government. Taxes cannot be subject of compensation because the
Lessons Applicable: Bet. private and public suit, easier to file public suit, Apply real
government and taxpayer are not mutuallycreditors and debtors of each other and a
party in interest test for private suit and direct injury test for public suit, Validity test
claim for taxes is not such adebt, demand, contract or judgment as is allowed to be
varies depending on which inherent power
set-off.
Technically, the oil companies merely act as agents for the Governmentin the
latter’s collection since the taxes are, in reality, passed unto theend-users – the
consuming public. Their primary obligation is to accountfor and remit the taxes Laws Applicable:
collection to the administrator of the OPSF.
There is not merit in Caltex’s contention that the OPSF contributions
arenot for a public purpose because they go to a special fund of thegovernment. FACTS:
Taxation is no longer envisioned as a measure merely toraise revenue to support the  President Ferdinand Marcos, exercising his legislative powers, issued LOI No. 1465
existence of the government; taxes may belevied with a regulatory purpose to which provided, among others, for the imposition of a capital recovery component
provide means for the rehabilitationand stabilization of a threatened industry which (CRC) on the domestic sale of all grades of fertilizers which resulted in having
is affected with publicinterest as to be within the police power of the State. Fertiphil paying P 10/bag sold to the Fertilizer and Perticide Authority (FPA).
The oil industry is greatly imbued with public interest as it vitally affectsthe general
 FPA remits its collection to Far East Bank and Trust Company who applies to the
welfare.
payment of corporate debts of Planters Products Inc. (PPI)
PD 1956, as amended by EO No. 137 explicitly provides that the sourceof OPSF is
 After the Edsa Revolution, FPA voluntarily stopped the imposition of the P10 levy.
taxation.
Upon return of democracy, Fertiphil demanded a refund but PPI refused. Fertiphil
GOMEZ v. PALOMAR
filed a complaint for collection and damages against FPA and PPI with the RTC on the
GR No. L-23645, October 29, 1968
ground that LOI No. 1465 is unjust, unreaonable oppressive, invalid and unlawful
25 SCRA 827
resulting to denial of due process of law.
FACTS: Petitioner Benjamin Gomez mailed a letter at the post office in San Fernando,  FPA answered that it is a valid exercise of the police power of the state in ensuring
Pampanga. It did not bear the stability of the fertilizing industry in the country and that Fertiphil did NOT
the special anti-TB stamp required by the RA 1635. It was returned to the petitioner. sustain damages since the burden imposed fell on the ultimate consumers.
Petitioner now assails the  RTC and CA favored Fertiphil holding that it is an exercise of the power of taxation
constitutionality of the statute claiming that RA 1635 otherwise known as the Anti-TB ad is as such because it is NOT for public purpose as PPI is a private corporation.
Stamp law is violative of ISSUE:
1. W/N Fertiphil has locus standi
2. W/N LOI No. 1465 is an invalid exercise of the power of taxation rather the police
power

Held:
1. Yes. In private suits, locus standi requires a litigant to be a "real party in interest"
or party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. In public
suits, there is the right of the ordinary citizen to petition the courts to be freed from
unlawful government intrusion and illegal official action subject to the direct injury
test or where there must be personal and substantial interest in the case such that
he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result. Being a mere procedural
technicality, it has also been held that locus standi may be waived in the public
interest such as cases of transcendental importance or with far-reaching implications
whether private or public suit, Fertiphil has locus standi.

2. As a seller, it bore the ultimate burden of paying the levy which made its products
more expensive and harm its business. It is also of paramount public importance
since it involves the constitutionality of a tax law and use of taxes for public
purpose.

3. Yes. Police power and the power of taxation are inherent powers of the state but
distinct and have different tests for validity. Police power is the power of the state to
enact the legislation that may interfere with personal liberty on property in order to
promote general welfare. While, the power of taxation is the power to levy taxes as
to be used for public purpose. The main purpose of police power is the regulation of
a behavior or conduct, while taxation is revenue generation. The lawful subjects and
lawful means tests are used to determine the validity of a law enacted under the
police power. The power of taxation, on the other hand, is circumscribed by inherent
and constitutional limitations.

In this case, it is for purpose of revenue. But it is a robbery for the State to tax the
citizen and use the funds generation for a private purpose. Public purpose does NOT
only pertain to those purpose which are traditionally viewed as essentially
governmental function such as building roads and delivery of basic services, but also
includes those purposes designed to promote social justice. Thus, public money may
now be used for the relocation of illegal settlers, low-cost housing and urban or
agrarian reform.