FRANCIS A. CHURCHILL and STEWART TAIT, plaintiffs and appellees, vs. JAMES J.

RAFFERTY, Collector of Internal Revenue, defendant and appellant,

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SCOPE OF INQUIRY IN TESTING VALIDITY OF A LAW.

Unless a law be so repugnant to the supreme law that it appears clearly that
constitutional limitations have been overstepped by the legislature, courts should
not declare a legislative enactment invalid. Merely to doubt its validity is to resolve
the doubt in favor of its validity.

2. ID.; INTERNAL REVENUE; INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN COLLECTION OF A TAX.A

provision in an internal revenue law prohibiting the courts from enjoining the
collection of an internal revenue tax is not invalid as opposed to the "due process"
and "equal protection of the law" clauses of the bill of rights of' the Organic Act.
Such legislation, both Federal and State, has been upheld by the United States
Supreme Court.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; JURISDICTION OF COURTS.Nor is such a provision of law invalid

as curtailing the jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippine Islands as fixed by section
9 of the Organic Act: (a) because jurisdiction was never conferred upon Philippine
courts to enjoin the collection of taxes imposed by the Philippine Commission; and
(b) because, in the present case, another adequate remedy has been provided by
payment and protest.

4. ID.; POLICE POWER; NATURE AND SCOPE IN GENERAL.If a law

581

VOL. 32, DECEMBER 21, 1915.

581

Churchill and Tait vs. Rafferty.

relates to the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welf are of the
community, it is within the 'scope of the police power of the State. Within such
bounds the wisdom, expediency, or necessity of the law does not concern the
courts.

5. ID.; ID.; NOT LIMITED TO ANY PARTICULAR SUBJECT.From whatever direction

the social, economic, or general welfare of the people is menaced, there is legal
justification for the exercise of the police power; and the use of private property
may be regulated or restricted to whatever extent may be necessary to preserve
inviolate these declared essentials to the well being of the public.

6. ID. ; ID. ; THINGS OFFENSIVE TO THE SENSES OF SMELL OR HEARING. It has

long been recognized that uses of private property which are offensive to the
senses of smell or hearing may be so regulated or segregated as to disturb as little
as possible the pursuits of other persons.

7. ID.; ID.; SIGHT.It is not the adoption of a new principle but simply the
extension of a well established principle to hold that the police power may also
regulate and restrict uses of private property when devoted to advertising which is
offensive to the sight.

8. ID,; ID.; ID.; BILLBOARDS.The indiscriminate use of outdoor advertising tends

to mar not only natural outdoor landscapes but whatever of civic beauty has been
attained by the expenditure of public moneys for parks, boulevards, and buildings.
The widespread agitation in many European countries, as well as in the United
States, against the so-called billboardsthe most common form of this kind of
advertisingshows that they are a source of annoyance and irritation to the public
and interfere with the proper enjoyment of outdoor life by the general public. This
justifies their suppression or regulation to the extent that they interfere with the
right of the public. [Churchill and Tait vs. Rafferty., 32 Phil. 580(1915)]