Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

CRUZ vs youngberg, Contingent regulation- determininng state of facts of

things on which the enforcement of the law depends

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 unconstitutional2.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 powers3.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.