Lutz vs.

Araneta

LUTZ v. ARANETA
GR No. L-7859, December 22, 1955
98 PHIL 148

FACTS: Plaintiff Walter Lutz, in his capacity as judicial administrator of the intestate estate of Antionio
Ledesma,

sought to recover from the CIR the sum of P14,666.40 paid by the estate as taxes, under section 3 of the
CA

567 or the Sugar Adjustment Act thereby assailing its constitutionality, for it provided for an increase of
the

existing tax on the manufacture of sugar, alleging that such enactment is not being levied for a public
purpose

but solely and exclusively for the aid and support of the sugar industry thus making it void and
unconstitutional.

The sugar industry situation at the time of the enactment was in an imminent threat of loss and needed
to be

stabilized by imposition of emergency measures.

ISSUE: Is CA 567 constitutional, despite its being allegedly violative of the equal protection clause, the
purpose of

which is not for the benefit of the general public but for the rehabilitation only of the sugar industry?

HELD: Yes. The protection and promotion of the sugar industry is a matter of public concern, it follows
that 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 to fully play, subject only to the test of

reasonableness; and it is not contended that the means provided in the law 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 state may not levy taxes to raise funds for their prosecution and attainment. Taxation may be
made the

implement of the state's police power.