Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Quiz No.1 - Ryan Paul Aquino - SN22-00258

    Uploaded by

    RPSA CPA
    21 views1 page
    The document is a quiz response addressing two questions related to Congress' power to regulate gambling. For the first question, the response concludes that if Congress passed a law absolutely prohibiting all forms of gambling, the law could be validly challenged as an invalid exercise of police power, as a total ban would not constitute a reasonable means to address gambling and could unduly oppress individuals. For the second question, the response determines that a law imposing a 30% tax on all gambling winnings would comply with constitutional limitations on taxation. Taxes on non-useful enterprises can be increased to limit participation, and taxes are allowed to pursue the objectives of police power. Therefore, the 30% tax would be constitutional.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Quiz No.1_Ryan Paul Aquino_SN22-00258

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document is a quiz response addressing two questions related to Congress' power to regulate gambling. For the first question, the response concludes that if Congress passed a law absolutely prohibiting all forms of gambling, the law could be validly challenged as an invalid exercise of police power, as a total ban would not constitute a reasonable means to address gambling and could unduly oppress individuals. For the second question, the response determines that a law imposing a 30% tax on all gambling winnings would comply with constitutional limitations on taxation. Taxes on non-useful enterprises can be increased to limit participation, and taxes are allowed to pursue the objectives of police power. Therefore, the 30% tax would be constitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    21 views1 page

    Quiz No.1 - Ryan Paul Aquino - SN22-00258

    Uploaded by

    RPSA CPA
    The document is a quiz response addressing two questions related to Congress' power to regulate gambling. For the first question, the response concludes that if Congress passed a law absolutely prohibiting all forms of gambling, the law could be validly challenged as an invalid exercise of police power, as a total ban would not constitute a reasonable means to address gambling and could unduly oppress individuals. For the second question, the response determines that a law imposing a 30% tax on all gambling winnings would comply with constitutional limitations on taxation. Taxes on non-useful enterprises can be increased to limit participation, and taxes are allowed to pursue the objectives of police power. Therefore, the 30% tax would be constitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Name: Ryan Paul S.

    Aquino / SN: 22-00258 / Quiz # 1


    1. The Government, through the Department of Transportation, filed a complaint for
    eminent domain to acquire a property in Bulacan, owned by Baldomero. The court granted
    the expropriation, fixed the amount of just compensation, and installed the Government in
    full possession of the property. If the Government does not immediately pay the amount fixed
    by the court as just compensation, can Baldomero successfully demand the return of the
    property to him? Explain your answer. 5 pts.

    No, Baldomero cannot demand the return of the property if the Government does not immediately
    pay the amount fixed by the court as just compensation.

    In the case of Forfom Development Corporation v. PNR and De Ynchausti v. Manila Electric
    Railroad & Light Co., the Supreme Court held that the owner cannot reclaim the property with a
    court decision granting the Government full possession, and in such a case can only claim right of
    compensation plus interest from the time of taking of the property.

    Under the Constitution, Section 9, Article III states that private property shall not be taken for
    public use without just compensation. Since there is a court decision granting the expropriation
    and fixed the amount of compensation, Baldomero cannot recover the property, however, he can
    claim for compensation plus the legal rate of 6% interest per annum from the taking of the property.

    2. To address the pervasive problem of gambling, Congress is considering the following


    options: (1) prohibit all forms of gambling; (2) allow gambling only on Sundays; (3) allow
    gambling only in government-owned casinos; and (4) remove all prohibitions against
    gambling but impose a tax equivalent to 30% on all winnings.
    a. If Congress chooses the first option and passes the corresponding law absolutely
    prohibiting all forms of gambling, can the law be validly attacked on the ground that it is an
    invalid exercise of police power? Explain your answer. 5 pts.

    Yes, the law can be validly attacked on the ground that it is an invalid exercise of police power.

    Congress has the plenary power to enact law and interfere with the personal liberty and property in
    order to promote the general welfare. In the case of Planters Products Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation,
    the Supreme Court discussed that the exercise of police power is subject to two (2) tests: 1) lawful
    subject which refers to the interest of the general public requiring the interference of the State, and
    2) lawful means which refers to the reasonable means employed necessary for the accomplishment
    of its objective and not duly oppressive upon individuals.

    In addition, there are two (2) basis of the exercise of police power. First, is “sic utere tuo et alienum
    non laedas” or use your property so that you do not injure that of another and the other one is
    “salus populi est suprema lex” which means the welfare of the people is the highest law. Hence,
    Congress may not ban all forms of gambling but may regulate it.

    b. If Congress chooses the last option and passes the corresponding law imposing a 30% tax
    on all winnings and prizes won from gambling, would the law comply with the constitutional
    limitations on the exercise of the power of taxation? Explain your answer. 5 pts.

    A law imposing 30% tax on all winnings and prizes won from gambling complies with the
    limitation on the power of taxation.

    In the case of Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operatos Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of
    Manila, it was held that taxes on non-useful enterprises may be increased to restrain the number
    of persons who might otherwise engage in it. In addition, in the case of Lutz v. Araneta, it was
    noted that taxes may be imposed for the attainment of the objective of police power.

    In this case, the imposition of 30% tax on winnings and prizes comply with the said limitations on
    power of taxation. Hence, it is constitutional.

    You might also like