P. 1
US vs Tang Ho Example Case for Admin

US vs Tang Ho Example Case for Admin

|Views: 9|Likes:
Published by Cheska Lesaca
US vs Tang Ho
US vs Tang Ho

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Cheska Lesaca on Jul 08, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





US vs Tang Ho (1922) G.R. No. 17122 Facts: At its special session of 1919, the Philippine Legislature passed Act No.

2868, entitled "An Act penalizing the monopoly and holding of, and speculation in, palay, rice, and corn under extraordinary circumstances, regulating the distribution and sale thereof, and authorizing the Governor-General, with the consent of the Council of State, to issue the necessary rules and regulations therefore, and making an appropriation for this purpose". Section 3 defines what shall constitute a monopoly or hoarding of palay, rice or corn within the meaning of this Act, but does not specify the price of rice or define any basic for fixing the price. August 1, 1919, the Governor-General issued a proclamation fixing the price at which rice should be sold. Then, on August 8, 1919, a complaint was filed against the defendant, Ang Tang Ho, charging him with the sale of rice at an excessive price. Upon this charge, he was tried found guilty and sentence.

The official records show that the Act was to take effect on its approval; that it was approved July 30, 1919; that the Governor-General issued his proclamation on the 1st of August, 1919; and that the law was first published on the 13th of August, 1919; and that the proclamation itself was first published on the 20th of August, 1919. Issue: WON the delegation of legislative power to the Governor General was valid. Held: By the Organic Law, all Legislative power is vested in the Legislature, and the power conferred upon the Legislature to make laws cannot be delegated to the Governor-General, or anyone else. The Legislature cannot delegate the legislative power to enact any law. The case of the United States Supreme Court, supra dealt with rules and regulations which were promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture for Government land in the forest reserve. These decisions hold that the legislative only can enact a law, and that it cannot delegate it legislative authority. The line of cleavage between what is and what is not a delegation of legislative power is pointed out and clearly defined. As the Supreme Court of Wisconsin says: That no part of the legislative power can be delegated by the legislature to any other department of the government, executive or judicial, is a fundamental principle in constitutional law, essential to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government established by the constitution. Where an act is clothed with all the forms of law, and is complete in and of itself, it may be provided that it shall become operative only upon some certain act or event, or, in like manner, that its operation shall be suspended.

and what was and what was not "an extraordinary rise in the price of palay. in so far as it undertakes to authorized the Governor-General in his discretion to issue a proclamation. the Legislature left it to the sole discretion of the Governor-General to say what was and what was not "any cause" for enforcing the act. In the absence of the proclamation no crime was committed. after the passage of act No." or what was "an extraordinary rise in the price of rice. because there would be no law fixing the price of rice. 2868. and whether or not the law should be enforced. When Act No. even at a peso per "ganta. In other words. The alleged sale was made a crime. if at all.80) which is a price greater than that fixed by Executive order No." and that he would not commit a crime. it was because the Governor-General issued the proclamation. it must follow that. a dealer in rice could sell it at any price. and without the proclamation. Without that proclamation. palay or corn. without regard to grade or quality. That is to say. it is the violation of the proclamation of the Governor-General which constitutes the crime. . it was no crime to sell rice at any price. is unconstitutional and void. 2868. and to make the sale of rice in violation of the proclamation a crime. fixing the price of rice. when. The act or proclamation does not say anything about the different grades or qualities of rice. and the defendant is charged with the sale "of one ganta of rice at the price of eighty centavos (P0. Hence. or intends to make. if the defendant committed a crime. but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes. It must be conceded that. The Legislature did not specify or define what was "any cause. rice or corn." and under certain undefined conditions to fix the price at which rice should be sold.The legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law. because the Governor-General issued the proclamation." We are clearly of the opinion and hold that Act No. in the absence of a proclamation. and to make the sale of rice in violation of the price of rice. and the sale of it at any price would not be a crime. its own action to depend. and before any rules and regulations were promulgated by the Governor-General. and when the law should be suspended. 2868 is analyzed. it was not a crime to sell rice at any price. also to say whether a proclamation should be issued. There was no act of the Legislature making it a crime to sell rice at any price. if so. how long it should be enforced. the sale of it at any price was to a crime. 53." Neither did it specify or define the conditions upon which the proclamation should be issued.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->