L

d.ttSv
l" Case: Defendant was charged with having concealed l
*.ono., rn ult"rion ot Sec' 26,"AcrNo'
1780',,1]:-t:t:*:1"'i::
ffi"*."i;ffi;; fi *"tpon'' such as firearms' 1nd :h:-'in-
clusionof Sec. 3tr in ttid Att uioltte' the constitutionai prcvision o
that "no bill rvhich may be enacted
into law shall embrace more
in the title of the bill'"
than one subiect which shall be expressed
a. deadlv
.":i; ;.;;il; .;;cealment abtut one's person .oI on the
ii'""tnt' The motion to quash based
i:.';r# "fi;ffi " Held: Act No' 1780 was enacted
foregoing .on'"n't'it" a-t"ita'
on october rz, r"sgz.-'Ai-ii", ,i-., the prohibition against,the
enactment of bilis
more than one subject referred' to
""tfttti"t
-ioott-Act No' 1ZSO remained
I pri'0ate or local biils' operative even after
because it is not inconsistent with
^ the Constitution 'Th..onrtrr,rrionut
"ft"tt prohibition in sec.21 (1),
7fi. il: #ffiffi be enacted into law'
Art. vI, refers to ;iil ;il' may therea{ter at the time the
in force and existing
t It has no ,"ft"n-tt-io laws
tff*t ii'optt G'R' No' L'96'9'
Constitution t** us'Valensoy'
May 29, 1957).