Yu Cong Eng v.

Trinidad
Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad
7 June 1926 | Taft | Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands

Facts
Act No. 2972 (An act to provide in what languages account books shall be kept, and to
establish penalties for its violation), also known as the “Chinese Bookkeeping Act,” was
passed by the Philippine Legislature and approved in 1921. It provides:

 Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, company, or partnership or

corporation engaged in commerce, industry or any other activity for the purpose of profit
in the Philippine Islands, in accordance with existing law, to keep its account books in
any language other than English, Spanish, or any local dialect.
 Section 2. Any person violating the provisions of this act shall, upon conviction,
be punished by a fine of not more than ten thousand pesos, or by imprisonment for not
more than two years, or both.

Yu Cong Eng, a Chinese merchant, keeps the books of account of his lumber business
in Chinese, as he cannot read, write nor understand English, Spanish, or any local
dialect. He was arrested for violating Act No. 2972, and his books were seized.

Trial was about to proceed when Yu Cong Eng and another petitioner Co Liam (on
behalf of all other Chinese merchants in the Philippines) filed a petition against the
fiscal, the collector of internal revenue, and the presiding judge.

Arguments

By the petitioner
 Even if he would employ a bookkeeper who could keep his books in
English or Spanish, he would have no means of verifying the correctness of the books.
If he would employ a translator or interpreter, he might be at the mercy of his
employees if they might cheat and defraud him. According to the Act, he is prohibited
from even keeping a duplicate set of accounts in his own language and he will
be compelled to remain in total ignorance of the status of his business.
 The enforcement of the Act would drive several Chinese merchants out of
business (They do 60% of the business in the country).
 The enforcement of the Act would deprive the Chinese merchants of their
liberty and property without due process of law, and deny them the equal protection of
the laws.
 Under the treaty in force between US and China, petitioners are entitled to
the same rights, privileges, and immunities as the citizens and subjects of Great Britain
and Spain.
 By the respondent
 The law is valid and necessary, and it is only the exercise of proper
legislative power. Due to the inability of internal revenue officials to check the books of
the Chinese merchants, the treasury loses large sums of money corresponding to taxes.
Pronouncements of the Philippine Court

 A literal translation of the Act makes it unlawful for any Chinese merchant to keep
his account books in languages other than those listed
 Another interpretation of the Act is that the Chinese merchant may keep his
account books in Chinese, but he has to keep another set of books in the prescribed
languages
 A third construction is that the law only intended to require the keeping of such
books to facilitate governmental inspection of the same for tax purposes. However, the
law does not specify what kinds of books shall be kept.
 The Act is not unconstitutional under the Court’s construction of the law. A literal
interpretation would render it unconstitutional, so the Court made a reasonable
construction to preserve the law.
A writ of certiorari was filed before the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Philippine
Supreme Court’s decision denying an original petition for prohibition against the
enforcement of criminal prosecution of Act No. 2972, on the ground of its invalidity.

Issues

 WON the PH SC made a valid construction of Act No. 2972. NO

Issue # 1
WON the PH SC made a valid construction of Act No. 2972. NO

It is the duty of a court in considering the validity of an act to give it such reasonable
construction as can be reached to bring it within the fundamental law. However, a court
may not exercise legislative functions to save the law from conflict with constitutional
limitation.

What the court did was to change a penal prohibitive law to a mandatory law of great
indefiniteness to conform to what the court assumes was, or ought to have been, the
purpose of the legislature, and which in the change would avoid a conflict with
constitutional restriction. Such strained construction, in order to make a law conform to
a constitutional limitation, cannot be sustained.

“It would certainly be dangerous if the legislature could set a net large enough to catch
all possible offenders, and leave it to the courts to step inside and say who could be
rightfully detained and who should be set at large. This would, to some
extent, substitute the judicial for the legislative department of the government.” (US v.
Reese)