CONSTI LAW 2 (ATTY.

TAGARDA-MABILEN)
Kani lang jud ako nakaya. Ayaw
POLICE POWER mu panaway ha. Hehe. Hope these
could help. Good luck and God
bless!
#1 -Farhanna

STONE VS MISSISSIPPI (Waite, C.J.)

101 US 814

Facts:

-the legislature of Mississippi passed an act, approved on Feb 16 1867, entitled an Act
incorporating the Mississippi Agricultural and Manufacturing Aid Society. Its provisions involve,
“to receive subscriptions, and sell and dispose of certificates of subscription which shall entitle
the holders thereof to…any lands, books, paintings, antiques, scientific instruments or apparatus,
or any other property or thing that may be ornamental, valuable, or useful…awarded to them…
by the casting of lots, or by lot, chance or otherwise.”

-Constitution of the State: adopted in convention May 15, 1868; ratified by the people on Dec 1,
1869; July 16, 1870-legislature passed an Act enforcing the provisions of the Constitution of the
State of Mississippi; Constitution of the State declares that the “legislature shall never authorize
any lottery; nor shall the sale of lottery-tickets be allowed; nor shall any lottery heretofore
authorized be permitted to be drawn, or tickets therein to be sold.”

-The Attorney-General of Mississippi filed charges against John B. Stone and others alleging that
they have violated the aforementioned provision of the Constitution; that they have been
carrying on a lottery or gift enterprise within said county and State under the name of “The
Mississippi Agricultural and Manufacturing Aid Society”

-The defendants (Stone, et.al.) aver that they were exercising the rights, privileges, and
franchises conferred by their charter, and that they have in all things complied with its
provisions.

Issue: WON the legislature of a State can, by the charter of the lottery company, defeat the will
of the people (Constitution) in relation to the further continuance of such business in the midst.

Ruling: The Court held that the respondents be ousted of and from all the liberties and privileges,
franchises and emoluments, exercised by them under and by virtue of the said Act which was
annulled with the enactment of the 1868 Constitution.

RD: The legislature cannot bargain away the police power of a State. Irrevocable grants of
property andfranchises may be made if they do not impair the supreme authority to make laws
for the right government of the State; but no legislature can curtail the power of its successors to
make such laws as they may deem proper in matters of police. Furthermore, police power
extends to all matters affecting the public health or the public morals. It cannot be denied that
lotteries are proper subjects for the exercise of this power.
#2

ICHONG VS HERNANDEZ (Labrador, J.)

101 Phil 1155

Facts:

-RA 1180 entitled “An Act to Regulate the Retail Business” –nationalizes the retail trade business

-The main provisions of the Act are: “ (1) prohibition against persons, not citizens of the Phils.,
and against associations, partnerships and corporations the capital of which are not wholly
owned by citizens of the Phils., from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade … (2) a
prohibition against the establishment or opening by aliens actually engaged in the retail business
of additional stores or branches of retail business.”

-Petitioner, for and in his own behalf and on behalf of other alien residents corporations and
partnerships adversely affected by the provisions of RA 1180, brought this action to obtain a
judicial declaration that said Act is unconstitutional because it denies to alien residents the
equal protection of the laws and deprives of their liberty and property without due process of law
and that it violates international treaties.

-in answer, the solicitor-General and the Fiscal of the City of Manila contend that the Act was
passed in the valid exercise of the police power of the State, which exercise is authorized in the
Constitution in the interest of national economic survival and that no treaty or international
obligations are infringed.

Issue: WON the enactment falls within the scope of the police power of the state.

Ruling: Yes.

RD: The disputed law was enacted to remedy a real actual threat and danger to national
economy posed by alien dominance and control of the retail business and free citizens and
country from dominance and control; the enactment clearly falls within the scope of the police
power of the State, thru which and by which it protects its own personality and insures its
security and future.

#3

POWELL VS PENNSYLVANIA (Harlan, J.)

127 US 678

Facts:

-the plaintiff is alleged to have unlawfully sold “as an article of food two cases, containing 5
pounds each, of an article designed to take the place of butter produced from pure
unadulterated milk, or cream from milk, the said article so sold as aforesaid being an article
manufactured out of certain oleaginous (oily) substances and compounds of the same other than
that produced from unadulterated milk or cream from milk, and said article so sold as aforesaid
being an imitation butter.”

-under an act (approved May 21, 1885 and which took effect July 1, 1885) entitled “An Act for the
protection of the public health, and to prevent adulteration of dairy products, and fraud in the
sale thereof”, no person/firm/corporate body shall manufacture of any oleaginous (oily)
substance or any compound of the same other thatn that produced from unadulterated milk.

-Under Sec. 3 of the same act, it is provided that “for every such offense, forfeit and pay the sum
of $100, which shall be recoverable, with costs, by any person suing in the name of the
Commonwealth, as debts of like amount are by law recoverable, one-half of which sum, when so
recovered, shall be paid to the proper county treasurer for the use of the county in which suit is
brought, and the other half to the person or persons at whose instance such a suit shall
commence…”

Issue: WON the state can use the taxing power as an implement for the attainment of a
legitimate police objective.

Ruling: Yes.

RD: Regulations of the said article’s sale and restraints against its improper use undoubtedly
could be made, as they may be made with respect to all kinds of property, but the prohibition of
its use and sale is nothing less than confiscation. “The right of property in an article involves the
right to sell and dispose of such article, as well as to use and enjoy it. Any act which declares
that the owner shall neither sell it nor dispose of it nor use and enjoy it, confiscates it,
deprivinghim of his property without due process of law. Against such arbitrary legislation by the
State, the fourteenth Amendment affords protection. But the prohibition of the State in any way
or for any use is quite a different thing from a regulation of the sale or use so as to protect the
health and morals of the community…”