Tiong Eng v. City Mayor
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellants, Chinese citizens and honorably discharged veterans of World War II, alleged they were laborers in the Pasay City Market. They were ordered to stop working in May 1962, based on Republic Act No. 37 and Department of Finance Circular No. 32. They contended these were inapplicable and violated their constitutional rights. Procedural History: The defendants cited Municipal Ordinance No. 33, series of 1948, which stipulated that helpers for market stallholders must be citizens of the Philippines or the United States. The case was initially decided for the plaintiffs by Judge Demetrio Encarnacion. However, upon motion for new trial and intervention by Filipino stallholders, who alleged the Chinese were capitalists posing as laborers, Judge Rilloraza reversed the decision, upholding the validity of the law and rules. The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals, which forwarded it to the Supreme Court due to the constitutional question raised. The Petition: The appellants sought to reverse the dismissal of their amended complaint, praying for an order to allow them to work as laborers in the Pasay City Market. They argued that Section 23 of Municipal Ordinance No. 33 was unconstitutional for being discriminatory against aliens and beyond the power of the Municipal Board of Pasay City to enact.
Issue(s)
Whether Section 23 of Municipal Ordinance No. 33 of Pasay City is legal and constitutional. Whether the said ordinance discriminates against aliens and violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. Whether the Municipal Board of Pasay City had the power to enact the ordinance prohibiting aliens from working as helpers for market stallholders.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, upholding the validity of Republic Act No. 37 and Municipal Ordinance No. 33, series of 1948. The writ of preliminary injunction was dissolved, and the case was dismissed against the plaintiffs-appellants.
Ratio Decidendi
On the constitutionality and legality of Section 23 of Municipal Ordinance No. 33: The Court affirmed the validity of the ordinance. It noted that Republic Act No. 37 already decreed preference for Philippine citizens in the lease of public market stalls, establishing a policy to nationalize public markets and restrict alien intervention. The lower court's finding that the Chinese petitioners were, in reality, capitalists employing Filipinos who posed as stallholders further supported the denial of their claim to be mere laborers. The Court found that the appellants, by seeking to work as laborers, were attempting to circumvent the policy of nationalization. The Court reiterated that the policy of nationalization of public markets is a valid exercise of legislative power. On the alleged discrimination and violation of constitutional guarantees: The Court found no violation of equal protection or due process. The preference given to Philippine citizens in market stall leases and employment is a legitimate exercise of the State's power to promote national interests. The policy behind Republic Act No. 37 and subsequent laws like Republic Act No. 1180 (nationalizing retail trade) is to reserve economic opportunities for Filipino citizens. The appellants, as aliens, could not claim a vested right to work in public markets in a manner that would undermine this national policy. The Court emphasized that such measures are not discriminatory in the constitutional sense when they serve a legitimate public purpose. On the power of the Municipal Board to enact the ordinance: The Court implicitly upheld the power of the Municipal Board of Pasay City to enact Ordinance No. 33. The ordinance was enacted pursuant to the general welfare powers of local government units and in furtherance of national policy as expressed in Republic Act No. 37. The restriction on employing aliens as helpers, conditioned on them being citizens of the Philippines or the United States, was deemed a valid regulatory measure aimed at protecting local labor and promoting national economic interests. The Court recognized that local government units can enact ordinances that complement and implement national laws and policies.
Main Doctrine
The policy of nationalizing public markets and restricting alien intervention therein, as espoused by Republic Act No. 37 and subsequent laws like Republic Act No. 1180, is valid and constitutional. Municipal ordinances and circulars implementing this policy, which prioritize Philippine citizens for market stall leases and employment, are also upheld.