Smith, Bell & Company (Ltd) VS Joaquin Natividad

,Collector of Customs of the port of Cebu,

This is a petition for a wit of mandamus filed by the petitioner to compel Natividad to issue a

certificate of Philippine registry in favor of the former for its motor vessel Bato.

Facts:

Smith, Bell & Co., (Ltd.), is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippline Islands.
majority of fts stockholders are British subjects. It is the owner of a motor vessel known as the Bato built
for it in the Philippine islands in 1916, of more than Tifteen tons gross Ihe Bato was brought to Cebu in
the present year for the purpose of transporting plaintiff's merchandise between ports in the Islands.
Application was made at Cebu, the home pot of the vessel, to the Collector of Customs for a certificate
of Philippine registry. The Collector refused to issue the certificate, giving as his reason that all the
stoCkholders or Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd., were not citizens either or the United States or of the Philippine
Islands. The instant action is the result. Counsel argues that Act No. 2761 denies to Smith, Bell & Co.,
Ltd., the equal protection of the laws because it, in erfect, prohibits the corporation from owning
vessels, and because classitication of corporations based on the citizenship or one or more of their
stocknholders is capricious, and that Act NO. 2/61 deprives the corporation of its property without due
process ot law because by the passage of the law company was automatically deprived of every
beneficial attribute of ownership in the Bato and left with the naked title to a boat it could not use.

Issue:

Whether the Government of the Philippine Islands, through its Legislature, can deny the registry of
vessel in its coastwise trade to corporations having alien stockholders
Ruling:

Yes. Act No. 2761 provides:

investigation into character of vessel.- No application for a certificate of Philippine register shall be
approved until the collector of customs is satistied trom an inspection of the vesel that it is engaged or
destined to be engaged in legitimate trade and that it is or domestic ownership as such ownership is
defined in section eleven hundred and seventy-two of this [Link] of Philippine register.- Upon
registration of a vessel of domestic ownership, and of more than fifteen tons gros5, a certificate of
Philippine register shall be issued for it. if the vessel is of domestic ownership and of fifteen tons gross or
less, the taking of the certificate of Philippine register shall be optional with the owner. Wne smin, Bel &
o. Lta, a Corporation naving alien stocknolders, Is entied to the protection afforded by the due-process
of law and equal protection of the laws clause of the Philippine Bll of RIghts, nevertheless, ACt No. 2/61
of the Philippine Legislature, in denying to corporations such as Smith, Bel &. Co. Ltd, the right to
register vessels in the Pnilippines coastWISe trade, does not belong to that vicious species of class
legislation which must always be condemned, but does fall within authorized exceptions, notably, within
the purview of the police power, and so does not offend against the constitutional provision.

People vs. Vera- Delegation of Powers

FACTS

Respondent Unjieng was convicted in a criminal case entitled "The People of the Philippine lslands vs.
Mariano Cu Unjieng. et al., in which herein petitioner Hongkong and shanghai Banking Corporation is the
offended party and acted as the private prosecutor. Respondent Unjieng filed an application for
probation under the provisions of Act No. 4221 otherwise known as the "Probation Law" in the Court of
First Instance in Manila where Respondent vera is the Judge ad interim. The FiscalCity of Manila filed an
opposition to the granting of probation of respondent, stating that Act No. 4221 is violative of equal
protection under Sec 1 (1), Article 3 of the Constitution because its applicability is not uniform among
the provinces in the Philippines, particulariy, the section 1l or the Act gives the power among the
provinces to determine whether to implement the said law in their province or not. Petitioner
corporation filed a supplementary opposition arguing that the Act is a undue delegation certiorari and
prohibition question ing the constitutionality of Act No. 4221 and alleging that respondent judge has
acted without jurisdiction or in excess of his Jurisdicion in granting the probation. On the other hand, the
respondents contend legislative power. Herein pedtioners nled a peition for that: the act is
constitutional, that the private may not intervene in probation proceedings, that the city Fiscal and the
solicitor General are esto pped rom questioning the validity of the Act, that its validity cannot be
questioned for the first time before the Supreme court and that the section in question of the act is
Inseparable from the entire Act.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not whether or not the constitutionality of Act No. 4221 has been

properly raised in these proceedings

2. Whether or not the said Act is constitutional

RULING
1. Yes. AIthough the general rule is that only those wh0 are parties to a suit may question the
constitutionality of a statute involved in a judicial decision, it has been held that Since the decree
pronounced by a court Without jurisdiction is vold, where the jurisdiction of the court depends on the
validity of the statute in question, the issue of the constitutionallity will be considered on its being
brought to the attention of the court by persons interested in the effect to be given the statute. In the
case at bar, the trial court in granting the probation derived its jurisdiction in the assailed Act therefore
the petitioner have standing in the raising the issue. With regard tothe Solicitor General acting as a
representing the People of the Philippines, if indeedhe Act is violative of the constitution, then the
Peonle hac cahetiue. Ine well-settled rule is, the State an eh sSubstantial interest on In raising
constitutionality questions, It must be raised at the earliest possible [Link], this rule has
exception, wherein courts has jurisdiction to determine the time when question or constitutionality of a
statute may be presented. It can be raised even for the irst time, ir its resolution is necessary for the
decision of a case, which is the situation of the present case. the issue. he well-settled rule is, the state
can challenge its own laws.