CTA Case No. 1917

DECISION

This 4s an appesl from the decision of re- spondent affirming that of the Collector of Cus- toms whieh decreed the forfeiture of five (5) reels of documentary motion picture films in favor of the Republic of the Philippines, | At the outset 4t must be stated that the parties submitted the case for decision on the pleadings and reeords. | On april 3, 1966, Mr. and Mrs. Antonio S Areneta, Jr. arrived from llongkong on board « Cathay "acifie Airways (CPA) plane bringing with then five (5) reels of motion picture films under Tag No. 720721, Three (3) of the five (5) reels are labeled, made in SSA, Moscow Television Service-Movesti “ress Ageney and the other two (2) reels bear no identifying marks te show the coun- try of origin thereof, Said films were seized » 319 DECISION « . ‘ CTA CASE WO, 9917 2 and stored in the Interline bodega unter the custody of varehousekeeper Santos Villaflores, pending the onteame of the seisure proceedings (pp. 5-6, Cus- toms reec.). Im the decision in Seisure Identifie eation No. 706 of July 1, 1966, the Collector of Custema of Manila ordered the forfeiture of the five reels of notion picture filus in question pursuant to Section 4(4) of Republic Aet No. &109 in relation te Section 2539(f) of the Tariff anda Customa Code. From this decision, petitioners appealed te respondent who sustained the decision ef the Collector of Customs of Menile. Hence this appeal, The pertinent provisions of Section 4(4) of Republic Act Yo. 4109 in relation te Section 2930(f) of the Tariff and Custems Code, upon which the for- ‘feiture of the films was based, provide:

sec. 4%, Subject to ae = general supervision and control Seeretary of ©ommerce oar a’ the Director of Standerds shell .

sesa the general powers conferred law epon Chiefs, and the fellowing specifie pe ané duties which he may perform personally or through his duly autherined repre- sentatives:

DECISION

CTA CASE NO, 1917 3 the articles are the growth, rev materials, be ye goes Bg and to os +» *:

wh shipsent satisfies pot A nd ? pede quelity - By grace, que standard which may be indicated on the corresponding customs or ship- ne papers or commercial decmmaahes are shown covered by, or do eee eonforn to, payer's or im belied or stamped conspicuously with eaption “do not conform te buyer's or er's speeifications™s Heavided, turthor ‘vst danorta af ch are gr raw materials, manufacture, process m1 saane of Bagi ye mn gal she treats There is no dispute as to the feets of the case. It is not controverted thet the Philippines has no trade agreenent with Sussia and Communist China. It 4s admitted vy petitioners that the files in question were among the goods which they received from various asseciations in Nussia end Comaumist China, that the films from fussia treat of space exploits of the lussians, the City of Leningred, end the sumer resorts along the Slack Seas and that the Chinese film features the in- dustrial development ef Communist China. It is, however, claimed that the said films are intended to be donated to the Boys' Town fer educational or eultural purpose and not for trade or Gouner- eial purpose and hence are not subjeet to eon- fiseation. We find this contention without merit.

321

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO. 1917 ‘ (& would seem that under Section 4&(d) of Republic Aet 4109, imports of any article which are growth, raw materiels, asnufecture, process er produce of countries wherein the Philip: ines . has no trade agreement is subjeet te confiseation and/ or! seisure irrespective of the purpose for whieh they are brought te the Philippines, The law makes no distinetion between articles intended for trade or commerce and those not so intended. Ubi lex non distinoauit oec nos diatingnere debenos.

The lew speaks only of “any article” without reference to the reason for its importation, ) ‘Petitioners aseail the validity of sections 3 and 4{d) of Republic Act No. 4409 on the ground thet they vielate the Constitution providing that no bill whieh may be enacted inte lew shall exbrece acre than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the ball.

(Te constitutional requirement thet a law shall not embrace more than one subject whieh shall be expressed in its title should receive a reason- able ené not a technical construction, The object of the law ean be very comprehensive yitheut viole- ting the constitutional preseription, in which case it is sufficient if the title be couprehensive enough, reasonably to inelude the general object whieh a statute seeks to effect. The title need " 322 DECISION .

CTA CASE HO, 9917 ol not be an abstract or index of the aet. All that ean be required is that the title shall not be made te cover legislation incongruous in itself and that the provisions are germane to the title. ) ) Thus, seid ovr Supreme Court in the case of the Government of the Philippine Islands v. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, et al.

Constitutional provisions relating te the subject matter and titles of statutes should not be so ase ag construed as to =“. © or oe ay my gy ope treat "ti treit Citizens’ Street Re Cow (18% ae ote Ee 392, 46 AE ed.

Mes Baltes quoted with approval the following language of J ool- ey: “We must give the constitutional I Po @ reasonable construction and effect. The Constitution re-~ quires no law to embrace more than one object, which ge ie ssed in ite “tithes the object may er Seer beauabes and still be Sbinetic and the one be- fn us is of that character, Sut it is by mo means essential that every end and means necessary or con- venient for the accomplishment of the Tal object shonl4é be either re- to or necessarily indicated by the title. All that ean 4 nape es ‘be required is that the title shel congreces in ttestf, oak waten te as congruovs se fair intendment ean be en Be fo = @ Necessary or proper oomee> one The requirement that the sub- ject ef an act shall be expressed in. its title should reeefive a reasonable = not Be. onty wae Beaten 7 Ep ‘ ev ng pt7y 52a 30 late rt sean Toh, Se

* B23

DECISION «

CTA CASE 80, 1917 6 eis enough reasonably to nelude the general objeet which a atatute seeks to effeet, without ex- pressing each and every "end and means neces or convenient for Indemnity Co. yg. Jarman, 187 U. S., 1975 47 139.) The title N2Uh ee Soom abstract on index se © Mahomet yg. \uackenbush;

the General hasembly of the State of Charter upon The body of the Act provided that err towns or townships in es mene the railroad route A a subscribe to its qasesee stock, and further provided the manner of hold- ing jens in regard to the sub- seription. The Supreme Court of the Oni ted Stetes held thet the title of the act covered the provisions in its body within the of section 23 of article 3 of Tllineis Censti- tution of 1 which provided thate bony mo private or local law which Sie cnet aes by the General Assem- eubrace more than one ob- Sent and that shell be expressed in bitte." In the course of its decision, the court saids ‘The point now made is that the statute, so far = it undertakes to authorize msun- ital steer” to subseribe to the esp- a of the corporation, is un- tional because it embraces two we etant sudjects, one the in- palapesd r 324

DECISION «

CTA CASE NO. 1917 7 Covert of Illinois in 12606,

to Ila-

there title was ‘An Aet eor ate the Rock Island & Alton bee + . Company feang t and the Act, s ineorpera ae eaniar eaaiiee 4@ waaene te the steck, Age to this the court said, speaking through Chief Justice Caton: "ve think the title of this Act suf- ficient te embrace the whole of the law, ond that it is a compliance with the constitutional requirezent, 411 the provisions ef the Act are ap- propriately designed to out the object of the corporation, If it was fo the to authorize subseriptions stoe’, it was certeinly hy a to enable individuals or counties to subseribe and specify the terms and conditions on which t sub- seribe and the mode of making the subser{ption.* “In States where constitutional , provisions like that now under cson- eee ear roy ~~, a bo any ory, no re on it has generally been he hela that the requirement 4s satisfied if the law has but ome general object, and that is clearly a in the ag It da Se the body of the Act _ is germane to the titles" - The — of Aet No, 4007 iss “An Act to re ze the departments, bureaus and ees of the Insular Government, and for other purposes," At the tine of = ssage of this » the Burean of was already in existence aa one of the bureaus of the Insular Government, (Act lo. 35194) It seems clear therefore that he bureau is embraced in that title. ad the other hand, the contents of section 11 are germane te and con- saintenence of said bureans, (66 Phil enance sa CaUe .

467-489.)

Under ita title, the law in question purports te convert the Division of Standards inte a te reau, to provide for the standardisation and/or » 395

DRCISION «

CTA CASR WO, 1997 & inspection of products and imports ef the Phi lip pines and for other purposes. I*€ is obvious from ite title that the law would deal with the jurisdiction, powers and prerogatives of the office; the standardization and/or inspeetion of the pro‘vets and imports of the Philippines; and other purposes which are gerwene to or not incongruous in the | legislation, ‘The provision in section 3 thereof granting the bureau the power to prohibit the discharge and/or release of any article which are growth, raw uaterials, nanufecture, process or produce of countries without trade relation vith the Philippine Government, and the provision in section 4(d) thereof ordering the eonfiseation of said goods when they come from countries that had no trade agreement with the Philippines, would seem to be germane to the subject of the legislation, re- ferring as they are to the powers of the bureau created and at the same time pertaining to the disposition of the articles subject to the inspect- fon of the office. ;

{ Petitioner also alleges that the Congressional record and the Act itself do not indicate any publie good sought te be achieved or any evil de- ; signed to be avoided in the interest of general welfere by impounding imports fron countries with whieh we have no trade agreement. Petitioner then * 326

DECTSION «

CTACCASR WO, 1917 9 contends that since under the due process clause a person may not be deprived of his property ex- cept for publie interest and welfare then the controverted provisions are unconstitutionel, Tt is hardly necessary to say that legislative enactments are presumed to be constitutional (41 Am, Jur. 776)3 the element of publie welfare is a pert and parcel of this presumption and hence publie purpese is presumed. On the other hand, he who asseils the constitutionality of « law hes the burden of proving the circumstances that make At unconstitutional and petitioner has not complied _ with this burden (11 Am. Jur. 796-797). It may also be said.in this connection that the provision in question appears to be a statemeat of an econc~ mie policy of the state, s field which 48 propedly within the province of the legislative department, If the same needs correction, the correction should cone from Congress...

nost ee ) yu tS ag cerca te Oe SP eae stitutional law is that the propriety, wisdom, necessity, utility, and ex- ifeney of legislation are exclusive- laws otherwise constitutional for any sons such as these or declare statu invalid because they may seem to the eourt to be detrimental to the best interests of the state.

© 327

DECISION «

CTA CASE NO, 1917 « The ty either te declare aneh eed er, when it is declared legislature, to override it. If the Sombie pelakbes te © pooner Menke Po on to a proper lative purpose, and are neither erbitrary nor Aiseriuinetory, the requirements of due process are satisfied, and judicial determina- tion to that e eet renders a court 950, o) (Ichong etes, et sl, ve.

Herne Otc. One 10r, Phils’ $18204183.) =~ WIPREVORR, the decision epoeuled from is here- by affirmed, with costs against vetitioners.

| : Pee

RAMON Le AVASCEJA

= CoactR: Agnoetate Todec

—_ Brot.

ROLE Ee, WALT

Presiding Judge

é c ste aay

Associate Judge

* 328