US vs. Toribio

State (P) vs. Carabao owner (D)
GR 134100	[T]

Summary: _

Rule of Law: _

Facts: A carabao owner (D) slaughtered for human consumption a carabao without a permit in violation of Act No. 1147—an Act regulating the registration, branding, and slaughter of large cattle.

The carabao owner (D) challenged the constitutionality of Act No. 1147 albeit unclear whether the statute constitutes a taking of property for public use in the exercise of the right of eminent domain without providing for the compensation of the owners, or that it is an undue and unauthorized exercise of the police power of the State.

Issues: Is the law a valid exercise of police power?

Ruling: Yes. The statute in question, being a proper exercise of police power, is not in violation of the terms of the constitution, which provide that "no law shall be enacted which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

The restrain on the slaughter for human consumption of carabaos fit for agricultural work is not an appropriation of property for "public use," and is not, therefore, the exercise of the power of eminent domain. It is a mere restriction upon a private use, which the legislature deemed to be detrimental to the public welfare in the exercise of police power which "reaches to every species of property within the commonwealth."

To justify the State in interposing its authority in behalf of the public, it must appear, first, that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require such interference; and, second, that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
__________
* Keywords: police power