Villegas v. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Municipal Board of Manila passed City Ordinance No. 6537, making it unlawful for any person not a citizen of the Philippines to be employed or engaged in any trade, business, or occupation within the City of Manila without first securing an employment permit from the Mayor and paying a fee of P50.00. Exemptions were provided for diplomatic missions, technical assistance programs, and religious members not paid in kind or money. Procedural History: Private respondent Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho, an alien employed in Manila, filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking to declare Ordinance No. 6537 null and void and to make permanent a preliminary injunction against its enforcement. The grounds cited were that the ordinance was discriminatory, violative of uniformity in taxation, an invalid delegation of legislative power, and arbitrary, oppressive, and unreasonable, violating due process and equal protection. The Petition: The respondent Judge rendered judgment in favor of the private respondent, declaring Ordinance No. 6537 null and void and making the preliminary injunction permanent. Petitioner Mayor Antonio J. Villegas filed the present petition for certiorari, assailing the decision of the respondent Judge.
Issue(s)
Whether Ordinance No. 6537 violates the rule of uniformity of taxation. Whether Ordinance No. 6537 constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power. Whether Ordinance No. 6537 violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the respondent Judge, declaring City Ordinance No. 6537 null and void.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of uniformity of taxation: The Court held that while the ordinance purports to be regulatory, the P50.00 fee imposed is clearly a revenue measure. The Court found no logic in exacting this fee from aliens cleared for employment, concluding that the ordinance's primary purpose was to raise money under the guise of regulation. The Court further stated that the fee was unreasonable and discriminatory as it failed to consider valid substantial differences among aliens, imposing the same amount on casual employees, permanent employees, part-time workers, and highly paid executives alike, thus violating the rule of uniformity in taxation which requires that all taxes must be uniform and equitable. On the issue of undue delegation of legislative power: The Court found that Ordinance No. 6537 does not lay down any criterion or standard to guide the Mayor in the exercise of his discretion in granting or denying employment permits. Citing People vs. Fajardo and Chinese Flour Importers Association vs. Price Stabilization Board, the Court reiterated that an ordinance conferring arbitrary and unrestricted power upon an official without any guiding policy, rule, or standard is invalid. The ordinance, by failing to provide standards, conferred upon the Mayor an undefined and unlimited power to allow or prevent an activity that is per se lawful, constituting an invalid delegation of legislative power. On the issue of due process and equal protection: The Court ruled that requiring an alien to obtain a permit from the City Mayor, who may refuse it at will, is tantamount to denying the right to livelihood. While the Philippines is not obliged to admit aliens, once admitted, they are protected by due process and equal protection clauses, which include the means of livelihood. The ordinance, by imposing a uniform fee without regard to the nature of employment or salary, and by granting the Mayor unchecked discretion, was found to be arbitrary, oppressive, and unreasonable, thus violating these constitutional guarantees, as established in cases like Kwong Sing vs. City of Manila.
Main Doctrine
An ordinance requiring aliens to secure an employment permit and pay a fee, ostensibly for regulation, but lacking clear standards for the Mayor's discretion and imposing a uniform fee regardless of employment status or salary, is void for being an unreasonable revenue measure, an undue delegation of legislative power, and a violation of due process and equal protection.