G.R. No.

L-34674 | October 26, 1931 | MAURICIO CRUZ,

petitioner-appellant, vs.
STANTON YOUNGBERG, Director of the Bureau of Animal Industry,
respondent-appellee. |
OSTRAND, J.:FACTS
:Petitioner Mauricio Cruz brought a petition before the Court of First Instance of
Manila for theissuance of a writ of mandatory injunction against the respondent
Director of the Bureau of Animal Industry, Stanton Youngberg, requiring him to issue
a permit for the landing of tenlarge cattle imported by the petitioner and for the
slaughter thereof. Cruz attacked theconstitutionality of Act No. 3155, which at
present prohibits the importation of cattle fromforeign countries into the Philippine
Islands. He also asserted that the sole purpose of theenactment was to prevent the
introduction of cattle diseases in the country. The respondent asserted that the
petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a causeof action. The demurrer
was based on two reasons: (1) that if Act No. 3155 was declaredunconstitutional
and void, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief demandedbecause Act
No. 3052 would automatically become effective and would prohibit therespondent
from giving the permit prayed for; and (2) that Act No. 3155 was constitutionaland,
therefore, valid. The CFI dismissed the complaint because of petitioners failure to
fileanother complaint. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. Youngberg
contended that even if Act No. 3155 be declared unconstitutional by the factalleged
by the petitioner in his complaint, still the petitioner can not be allowed to
importcattle from Australia for the reason that, while Act No. 3155 were declared
unconstitutional,Act No. 3052 would automatically become effective.
ISSUES
:1.WON Act No. 3155 is unconstitutional
2.WON the lower court erred in not holding that the power given by Act No. 3155 to
theGovernor-General to suspend or not, at his discretion, the prohibition provided in
theact constitutes an unlawful delegation of the legislative powers
3.WON Act No. 3155 amended the Tariff Law
RULING
:
1.
No. An unconstitutional statute can have no effect to repeal former laws or parts of
lawsby implication. The court will not pass upon the constitutionality of statutes

unless it isnecessary to do so. Aside from the provisions of Act No. 3052, Act 3155 is
entirely valid. The latter was passed by the Legislature to protect the cattle industry
of the countryand to prevent the introduction of cattle diseases through importation
of foreign cattle.It is now generally recognized that the promotion of industries
affecting the publicwelfare and the development of the resources of the country are
objects within thescope of the police power. The Government of the Philippine
Islands has the right to theexercise of the sovereign police power in the promotion
of the general welfare and thepublic interest. At the time the Act No. 3155 was
promulgated there was reasonablenecessity therefore and it cannot be said that the
Legislature exceeded its power inpassing the Act.
2.
No. The true distinction is between the delegation of power to make the law,
whichnecessarily involves discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring an
authority ordiscretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of
the law. Thefirst cannot be done; to the latter no valid objection can be made. There
is no unlawfuldelegation of legislative power in the case at bar.

3.
No. It is a complete statute in itself. It does not make any reference to the Tariff Law.
Itdoes not permit the importation of articles, whose importation is prohibited by the
Tariff Law. It is not an amendment but merely supplemental to Tariff Law