Facts: Respondent Toribio is an owner of carabao, residing in the town of Carmen in the province of Bohol. The trial court of Bohol found that the respondent slaughtered or caused to be slaughtered a carabao without a permit from the municipal treasurer of the municipality wherein it was slaughtered, in violation of Sections 30 and 33 of Act No. 1147, an Act regulating the registration, branding, and slaughter of Large Cattle. The act prohibits the slaughter of large cattle fit for agricultural work or other draft purposes for human consumption.
The respondent counters by stating that what the Act is (1) prohibiting is the slaughter of large cattle in the municipal slaughter house without a permit given by the municipal treasurer. Furthermore, he contends that the municipality of Carmen has no slaughter house and that he slaughtered his carabao in his dwelling, (2) the act constitutes a taking of property for public use in the exercise of the right of eminent domain without providing for the compensation of owners, and it is an undue and unauthorized exercise of police power of the state for it deprives them of the enjoyment of their private property.
Issue: Whether or not Act. No. 1147, regulating the registration, branding and slaughter of large cattle, is an undue and unauthorized exercise of police power.
Held: It is a valid exercise of police power of the state.
Facts: The Supreme court Said sections 30 and 33 of the Act prohibit and penalize the slaughtering or causing to be slaughtered for human consumption of large cattle at any place without the permit provided for in section 30
Where the language of a statute is fairly susceptible of two or more constructions, that construction should be adopted which will most tend to give effect to the manifest intent of the lawmaker and promote the object for which the statute was enacted, and a construction should be rejected which would tend to render abortive other provisions of the statute and to defeat the object which the legislator sought to attain by its enactment
The Supreme Court also said that if they will follow the contention of Toribio it will defeat the purpose of the law.
The police power rests upon necessity and the right of self-protection and if ever the invasion of private property by police regulation can be justified, The Supreme Court think that the reasonable restriction placed upon the use of carabaos by the provision of the law under discussion must be held to be authorized as a reasonable and proper exercise of that power.
The Supreme Court cited events that happen in the Philippines like an epidemic that wiped 70-100% of the population of carabaos.. The Supreme Court also said that these animals are vested with public interest for they are fundamental use for the production of crops. These reasons satisfy the requesites of a valid exercise of police power
The Supreme court finally said that article 1147 is not an exercise of the inherent power of eminent domain. The said law does not constitute the taking of caraboes for public purpose; it just serve as a mere regulation for the consumption of these private properties for the protection of general welfare and public interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment