Practice question
In the historical Lutz controversy, a levy supported stabilization of the sugar industry. A challenger said assistance to that industry necessarily lacked public character because sugar producers also benefited. The Court considered national employment, exports, wealth and foreign-exchange interests. Which principle follows?
- An industry-focused measure can serve genuine public welfare; incidental or sectoral private benefit does not alone negate that purpose
- Any private benefit necessarily invalidates every regulatory measure
- Only a measure covering every industry identically can have public purpose
- A producer benefit automatically proves a private personal-debt bailout
- Industry importance permits disregard of every constitutional limit
Legal references
- Lutz v. Araneta, GRL-7859, December22 1955 MAIN: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1955/dec1955/gr_l-7859_1955.html MAIN explanation of sugar-industry stabilization and police power.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.