TodayisThursday,August20,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L34674October26,1931
MAURICIOCRUZ,petitionerappellant,
vs.
STANTONYOUNGBERG,DirectoroftheBureauofAnimalIndustry,respondentappellee.
JoseYuloforappellant.
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralReyesforappellee.

OSTRAND,J.:
This is a petition brought originally before the Court of First Instance of Manila for the issuance of a writ of
mandatoryinjunctionagainsttherespondent,StantonYoungberg,asDirectoroftheBureauofAnimalIndustry,
requiringhimtoissueapermitforthelandingoftenlargecattleimportedbythepetitionerandfortheslaughter
thereof.ThepetitionerattackedtheconstitutionalityofActNo.3155,whichatpresentprohibitstheimportationof
cattlefromforeigncountriesintothePhilippineIslands.
Amongotherthingsintheallegationofthepetition,itisassertedthat"ActNo.3155ofthePhilippineLegislature
wasenactedforthesolepurposeofpreventingtheintroductionofcattlediseasesintothePhilippineIslandsfrom
foreigncountries,asshownbyanexplanatorynoteandtextofSenateBillNo.328asintroducedinthePhilippine
Legislature,...."TheActinquestionreadsasfollows:
SECTION1.AfterMarchthirtyfirst,nineteenhundredandtwentyfiveexistingcontractsfortheimportation
of cattle into this country to the contrary notwithstanding, it shall be strictly prohibited to import, bring or
introduceintothePhilippineIslandsanycattlefromforeigncountries:Provided,however,Thatatanytime
aftersaiddate,theGovernorGeneral,withtheconcurrenceofthepresidingofficersofbothHouses,may
raise such prohibition entirely or in part if the conditions of the country make this advisable or if decease
amongforeigncattlehasceasedtobeamenacetotheagricultureandlivestockofthelands.
SEC.2.AllactsorpartsofactsinconsistentwiththisActareherebyrepealed.
SEC.3.ThisActshalltakeeffectonitsapproval.
Approved,March8,1924.
Therespondentdemurredtothepetitiononthegroundthatitdidnotstatefactssufficienttoconstituteacauseof
action.Thedemurrerwasbasedontworeasons,namely,(1)thatifActNo.3155weredeclaredunconstitutional
andvoid,thepetitionerwouldnotbeentitledtothereliefdemandedbecauseActNo.3052wouldautomatically
becomeeffectiveandwouldprohibittherespondentfromgivingthepermitprayedforand(2)thatActNo.3155
wasconstitutionaland,therefore,valid.
Thecourtsustainedthedemurrerandthecomplaintwasdismissedbyreasonofthefailureofthepetitionertofile
anothercomplaint.Fromthatorderofdismissal,thepetitionerappealedtothiscourt.
TheappelleecontendsthatevenifActNo.3155bedeclaredunconstitutionalbythefactallegedbythepetitioner
inhiscomplaint,stillthepetitionercannotbeallowedtoimportcattlefromAustraliaforthereasonthat,whileAct
No.3155weredeclaredunconstitutional,ActNo.3052wouldautomaticallybecomeeffective.ActNo.3052reads
asfollows:
SECTION 1. Section seventeen hundred and sixtytwo of Act Numbered Twentyseven hundred and
eleven,knownastheAdministrativeCode,isherebyamendedtoreadasfollows:
"SEC.1762.BringingofanimalsimportedfromforeigncountriesintothePhilippineIslands.Itshall
beunlawfulforanypersonorcorporationtoimport,bringorintroducelivecattleintothePhilippine
Islands from any foreign country. The Director of Agriculture may, with the approval of the head of
the department first had, authorize the importation, bringing or introduction of various classes of
thoroughbredcattlefromforeigncountriesforbreedingthesametothenativecattleoftheseIslands,
andsuchasmaybenecessaryfortheimprovementofthebreed,nottoexceedfivehundredhead

per annum: Provided, however, That the Director of Agriculture shall in all cases permit the
importation, bringing or introduction of draft cattle and bovine cattle for the manufacture of serum:
Provided,further,Thatalllivecattlefromforeigncountriestheimportation,bringingorintroductionof
which into the Islands is authorized by this Act, shall be submitted to regulations issued by the
Director of Agriculture, with the approval of the head of the department, prior to authorizing its
transfertootherprovinces.
"At the time of the approval of this Act, the GovernorGeneral shall issue regulations and others to
provideagainstaraisingofthepriceofbothfreshandrefrigeratedmeat.TheGovernorGeneralalso
may,byexecutiveorder,suspend,thisprohibitionforafixedperiodincaselocalconditionsrequire
it."
SEC.2.ThisActshalltakeeffectsixmonthsafterapproval.
Approved,March14,1922.
ThepetitionerdoesnotpresentanyallegationsinregardtoActNo.3052toshowitsnullityorunconstitutionality
though it appears clearly that in the absence of Act No. 3155 the former act would make it impossible for the
DirectoroftheBureauofAnimalIndustrytograntthepetitionerapermitfortheimportationofthecattlewithout
theapprovaloftheheadofthecorrespondingdepartment.
Anunconstitutionalstatutecanhavenoeffecttorepealformerlawsorpartsoflawsbyimplication,since,
beingvoid,itisnotinconsistentwithsuchformerlaws.(ILewisSutherland,StatutoryConstruction2nded.,
p.458,citingMcAllistervs.Hamlin,83Cal.,36123Pac.,357OrangeCountryvs.Harris,97Cal.,60032
Pac.,594Carrvs.State,127Ind.,20411L.R.A.,370,etc.)
This court has several times declared that it will not pass upon the constitutionality of statutes unless it is
necessarytodoso(McGirrvs.HamiltonandAbreu,30Phil.,563,568WalterE.Olsen&Co.vs.Aldaneseand
Trinidad,43Phil.,259)butinthiscaseitisnotnecessarytopassuponthevalidityofthestatuteattackedbythe
petitionerbecauseevenifitweredeclaredunconstitutional,thepetitionerwouldnotbeentitledtoreliefinasmuch
asActNo.3052isnotinissue.
ButasidefromtheprovisionsofActNo.3052,weareoftheopinionthatActNo.3155isentirelyvalid.Asshown
inparagraph8oftheamendedpetition,theLegislaturepassedActNo.3155toprotectthecattleindustryofthe
countryandtopreventtheintroductionofcattlediseasesthroughimportationofforeigncattle.Itisnowgenerally
recognizedthatthepromotionofindustriesaffectingthepublicwelfareandthedevelopmentoftheresourcesof
thecountryareobjectswithinthescopeofthepolicepower(12C.J.,9276R.C.L.,203206anddecisionscited
thereinReidvs.Colorado,187U.S.,137,147,152Yeazelvs.Alexander,58Ill.,254).Inthisconnectionitissaid
inthecaseofPunzalanvs.FerriolsandProvincialBoardofBatangas(19Phil.,214),thattheprovisionsoftheAct
of Congress of July 1, 1902, did not have the effect of denying to the Government of the Philippine Islands the
righttotheexerciseofthesovereignpolicepowerinthepromotionofthegeneralwelfareandthepublicinterest.
The facts recited in paragraph 8 of the amended petition shows that at the time the Act No. 3155 was
promulgated there was reasonable necessity therefor and it cannot be said that the Legislature exceeded its
power in passing the Act. That being so, it is not for this court to avoid or vacate the Act upon constitutional
grounds nor will it assume to determine whether the measures are wise or the best that might have been
adopted.(6R.C.L.,243anddecisionscitedtherein.)
1 a w p h il.n e t

In his third assignment of error the petitioner claims that "The lower court erred in not holding that the power
givenbyActNo.3155totheGovernorGeneraltosuspendornot,athisdiscretion,theprohibitionprovidedinthe
actconstitutesanunlawfuldelegationofthelegislativepowers."WedonotthinkthatsuchisthecaseasJudge
RanneyoftheOhioSupremeCourtinCincinnati,WilmingtonandZanesvilleRailroadCo.vs. Commissioners of
ClintonCounty(1OhioSt.,77,88)saidinsuchcase:
The true distinction, therefore, is between the delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily
involvesadiscretionastowhatitshallbe,andconferringanauthorityordiscretionastoitsexecution,tobe
exercisedunderandinpursuanceofthelaw.Thefirstcannotbedonetothelatternovalidobjectioncan
bemade.
UnderhisfourthassignmentoferrortheappellantarguesthatActNo.3155amendssection3oftheTariffLaw,
butitwillbenotedthatActNo.3155isnotanabsoluteprohibitionoftheimportationofcattleanditdoesnotadd
anyprovisiontosection3oftheTariffLaw.AsstatedinthebriefoftheAttorneyGeneral:"Itisacompletestatute
in itself. It does not make any reference to the Tariff Law. It does not permit the importation of articles, whose
importationisprohibitedbytheTariffLaw.Itisnotatariffmeasurebutaquarantinemeasure,astatuteadopted
under the police power of the Philippine Government. It is at most a `supplement' or an `addition' to the Tariff
Law. (See MacLeary vs. Babcock, 82 N.E., 453, 455 169 Ind., 228 for distinction between `supplemental' and
`amendatory' and O'Pry vs. U.S., 249 U.S., 323 63 Law. ed., 626, for distinction between `addition' and
`amendment.')"
Thedecisionappealedfromisaffirmedwiththecostsagainsttheappellant.Soordered.
Avancea,C.J.,Johnson,Street,Malcolm,Villamor,Romualdez,VillaReal,andImperial,JJ.,concur.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation