Kuan Low & Co. v. Insular Collector of Customs
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Kuan Low & Co. filed a petition for a writ of permanent injunction to prevent the Insular Collector of Customs from interfering with the exportation of rice from Manila to Hongkong. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila denied the appellant's petition. The Petition: The appellant appealed the denial, raising two main issues: (1) whether Act No. 2869 of the Philippine Legislature was in full force and effect on August 6, 1919, and (2) whether said Act is constitutional.
Issue(s)
Whether Act No. 2869 was in full force and effect on August 6, 1919. Whether Act No. 2869 is constitutional.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila is affirmed. Act No. 2869 was in full force and effect on August 6, 1919, and is constitutional.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Act No. 2869 was in full force and effect on August 6, 1919: The Court held that Act No. 2869 became effective on August 6, 1919, when the Governor-General, by proclamation, declared it to be in full force and effect. The Act was approved on July 30, 1919. Section 2 of the Act stipulated that it would take effect upon the express or implicit approval of the President of the United States and announcement by the Governor-General. However, the Court found that the approval of the President of the United States was not necessary for this particular Act under the Jones Law. The Jones Law only required Presidential approval for specific categories of acts, such as those concerning public domain, timber, mining, tariff, immigration, and currency laws. Act No. 2869 did not fall into any of these categories. Therefore, the proclamation by the Governor-General, with the consent of the Council of State, was sufficient to make the Act effective, even if the President's approval had not yet been obtained or was not legally required. On whether Act No. 2869 is constitutional: The Court affirmed the constitutionality of Act No. 2869. The appellant contended that the Act was unconstitutional because it attempted to regulate commerce with foreign nations and that the Philippine Government lacked the authority to do so. The Court cited its previous decision in United States v. Bull (15 Phil., 7, 30) to support the proposition that the Philippine Government, by delegation from Congress, possesses the power to regulate commerce between foreign nations and the ports of the territory. The power to regulate foreign commerce is vested in Congress, and Congress may delegate this power to a legislative body it creates to govern a territory. Therefore, the Philippine Legislature's enactment of Act No. 2869, which authorized the prohibition of rice exportation, was a valid exercise of delegated power.
Main Doctrine
Act No. 2869 of the Philippine Legislature, authorizing the Governor-General to prohibit the exportation of rice or palay, became effective upon its proclamation by the Governor-General on August 6, 1919, as the approval of the President of the United States was not necessary under the Jones Law for such an act, and the Philippine Government, by delegation from Congress, possesses the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.