Churchill and Tait v.
Rafferty  Plaintiffs filed this case before CFI Rizal to question the
Police Power | December 21, 1915 | Trent, J.
Nature of Case: Appeal
SUMMARY: The Collector of Internal Revenue (defendant-appellant) removed
plaintiffs-appellees’ billboards pursuant to Sec. 100 of Act No. 2339 for
constituting a nuisance. Plaintiffs-appellees filed this case to enjoin defendant
from removing the same. The lower court ruled for plaintiffs. SC held that the
act in question was a valid exercise of police power by the State, granting
defendant’s appeal.
DOCTRINE: Things offensive to the senses, such as sight, smell or hearing, may
be suppressed by the State especially those situated in thickly populated
districts. Aesthetics may be regulated by the police power of the state, as long
as it is justified by public interest and safety.
Moreover, if police power may be exercised to encourage a healthy social and
economic condition in the country, and if the comfort and convenience of the
people are included within those subjects, everything which encroaches upon
such territory is amenable to the police power of the State.
FACTS:
 Plaintiffs-appellees Francis Churchill and Stewart Tait owned and
operated a billboard situated on private land in the Province of Rizal.
(The case didn’t go into specifics as to what the billboard looked like or
what it actually featured.)
 Defendant-appellant James Rafferty, the Collector of Internal Revenue,
assessed deficiency taxes against plaintiffs, which led to defendant
ordering the closure of the business of plaintiffs.
o Pursuant to the power granted him by Sec. 100, Act No. 23391,
defendant also ordered the said billboard removed for being a
nuisance.
1Sec. 100, Act No. 2339: If after due investigation the Collector of Internal
Revenue shall decide that any sign, signboard, or billboard displayed or
exposed to public view is offensive to the sight or is otherwise a nuisance, he
may by summary order direct the removal of such sign, signboard, or billboard,
and if same is not removed within ten days after he has issued such order he
my himself cause its removal, and the sign, signboard, or billboard shall
thereupon be forfeited to the Government, and the owner thereof charged with
the expenses of the removal so effected. When the sign, signboard, or billboard
ordered to be removed as herein provided shall not comply with the provisions
of the general regulations of the Collector of Internal Revenue, no rebate or
refund shall be allowed for any portion of a year for which the tax may have
constitutionality of Act No. 2339. They claimed that the law violated
their right to the protection of property.
 The lower court decided in favor of plaintiffs, issuing an order
perpetually enjoining the authorities from the collection of taxes
imposed by Act No. 2339, and to return the amount paid by plaintiffs
under protest. Thus, this appeal by defendant CIR.
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
1. WON the assailed provision was a valid exercise of police power – Yes.
 Plaintiffs: The assailed provision granting the CIR the power to remove
billboards objectionable to the sight is unconstitutional for constituting
a deprivation of property without due process.
 The exercise of the police power of government belongs to the
legislature and that this power is limited only by the acts of Congress
and those fundamental principles which lie at the foundation of all
republican forms of government.
o An act of the legislature which is foreign to any of the purposes
of the police power and interferes with the ordinary enjoyment
of property would be invalid.
o But where the act is reasonably within a proper consideration
of and care for the public health, safety, or comfort, it should
not be disturbed by the courts.
 The power vested in the legislature by the Constitution to make, ordain,
and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes,
and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the
Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the
commonwealth, and of the subjects of the same.
 The police power of the State, so far, has not received a full and
complete definition.
o It may be said, however, to be the right of the State, or state
functionary, to prescribe regulations for the good order, peace,
health, protection, comfort, convenience and morals of the
community, which do not ... violate any of the provisions of the
organic law.
o It has for its object the improvement of social and economic
conditioned affecting the community at large and collectively
been paid. Otherwise, the Collector of Internal Revenue may in his discretion
make a proportionate refund of the tax for the portion of the year remaining for
which the taxes were paid. An appeal may be had from the order of the
Collector of Internal Revenue to the Secretary of Finance and Justice whose
decision thereon shall be final.
 with a view to bring about "the greatest good of the greatest
number.
 Courts have consistently and wisely declined to set any fixed
limitations upon subjects calling for the exercise of police power. It is
elastic and is exercised from time to time as varying social conditions
demand correction.
o It may be said in a general way that police power extends to all
the great public needs. It may be put forth in aid of what is
sanctioned by usage, or held by the prevailing morality or
strong and preponderant opinion to be greatly and
immediately necessary to the public welfare.
o It is much easier to perceive and realize the existence and
sources of this police power than to mark its boundaries, or to
prescribe limits to its exercise.
 Things offensive to the senses, such as sight, smell or hearing, may be
suppressed by the State especially those situated in thickly populated
districts. Aesthetics may be regulated by the police power of the state,
as long as it is justified by public interest and safety.
 Moreover, if police power may be exercised to encourage a healthy
social and economic condition in the country, and if the comfort and
convenience of the people are included within those subjects,
everything which encroaches upon such territory is amenable to the
police power of the State.

RULING: Petition granted. Lower court judgment reversed.