REGULATORY TAXES

WALTER LUTZ v. J. ANTONIO ARANETA

98 Phil. 148

Plaintiff Lutz assailed the constitutionality of Sections 2 and 3, C.A. 567, which provided
for an increase of the existing tax on the manufacture of sugar, alleging such tax as unconstitutional
and void for not being levied for a public purpose but for the aid and support of the sugar industry
exclusively.

As the protection and promotion of the sugar industry is a matter of public concern, the
legislature may determine within reasonable bounds what is necessary for its protection and
expedient for its promotion. Here, the legislative discretion must be allowed full play, subject only
to the test of reasonableness; and it is not contended that the means provided in Section 6 of C.A.
567 bear no relation to the objective pursued or are oppressive in character. If objective and methods
are alike constitutionally valid, no reason is seen why the estate may not levy taxes to raise funds
for their prosecution and attainment. Taxation may be made the implement of the State's police
power.

BENJAMIN GOMEZ v. ENRICO PALOMAR,et al.

25 SCRA 827

Petitioner questions the constitutionality of R.A. 1635 mandating the bearing of Anti-TB
stamps on envelopes, as well as its implementing administrative orders, contending that it is not for
a public purpose.

WALTER LUTZ v. J.ANTONIO ARANETA

98 Phil. 148

Plaintiff Lutz assailed the constitutionality of Section 2 and 3, C.A. 567 which provided for
an increase of the existing tax on the manufacture of sugar, alleging such tax as unconstitutional and
void for not being levied for a public purpose but for the aid and support of the sugar industry
exclusively.

VALENTIN TIO v. VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD

151 SCRA 208

The Supreme Court held the levy of 30% tax under P.D. 1987 as for a public purpose, and
therefore a valid imposition. The law, according to the Court, was imposed primarily for answering
the need for regulating the video industry, particularly because of the rampant film piracy, the
flagrant violation of intellectual property and the proliferation of the pornographic video tapes.
Hence, while the direct beneficiaries of the said decree is the movie industry, the citizens are held
to be indirect beneficiaries.