Scribd
Upload
172 views1 page

Churchill & Tait V. Rafferty - Case Digest - Constitutional Law

Act No. 2339 authorized the Collector of Internal Revenue to remove billboards that were offensive to sight or a nuisance. The plaintiffs sued, claiming their billboards on private land were not dangerous or indecent. The Court ruled that Act No. 2339 was a legitimate exercise of police power, as the state can suppress things offensive to the senses like sight, especially in populated areas. Aesthetics can be regulated by police power when justified by public interest and safety. The police power extends to encouraging healthy social and economic conditions, and public comfort and convenience are valid subjects of that power. The Court of First Instance's judgment was reversed.

Uploaded by

angelica balatong
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
172 views1 page

Churchill & Tait V. Rafferty - Case Digest - Constitutional Law

Act No. 2339 authorized the Collector of Internal Revenue to remove billboards that were offensive to sight or a nuisance. The plaintiffs sued, claiming their billboards on private land were not dangerous or indecent. The Court ruled that Act No. 2339 was a legitimate exercise of police power, as the state can suppress things offensive to the senses like sight, especially in populated areas. Aesthetics can be regulated by police power when justified by public interest and safety. The police power extends to encouraging healthy social and economic conditions, and public comfort and convenience are valid subjects of that power. The Court of First Instance's judgment was reversed.

Uploaded by

angelica balatong
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

CHURCHILL & TAIT v.

RAFFERTY - CASE DIGEST -


CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
CHURCHILL & TAIT v. RAFFERTY                 G.R. NO. L-10572, December 21, 1915

FACTS:

Plaintiffs put up a billboard on a private land located in Rizal Province “quite distance from the road and strongly built,
not dangerous to the safety of the people, and contained no advertising matter which is filthy, indecent, or deleterious to
the morals of the community.” However, defendant Rafferty, Collector of Internal Revenue, decided to remove the
billboards after due investigation made upon the complaints of the British and German Consuls.

Act No. 2339 authorized the then Collector of Internal Revenue to remove after due investigation, any billboard exposed
to the public view if it decides that it is offensive to the sight or is otherwise a nuisance.

In the agreed statement of facts submitted by the parties, the plaintiffs "admit that the billboards mentioned were and
still are offensive to the sight."

The Court of First Instance perpetually restrains and prohibits the defendant and his deputies from collecting and
enforcing against the plaintiffs and their property the annual tax mentioned and described in subsection (b) of section
100 of Act No. 2339, effective July 1, 1914, and from destroying or removing any sign, signboard, or billboard, the
property of the plaintiffs and decrees the cancellation of the bond given by the plaintiffs.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

WON Act No. 2339 was a legitimate exercise of the police power of the Government?

HELD:

YES. 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 the 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.

Hence, the judgment of the CFI is reversed. 

You might also like