United States v. Ang Tang Ho
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Philippine Legislature passed Act No. 2868, an act penalizing the monopoly and holding of, and speculation in, palay, rice, and corn under extraordinary circumstances. Section 1 authorized the Governor-General, with the consent of the Council of State, to issue temporary rules and emergency measures, including fixing quantities and maximum sale prices. Section 2 prohibited obstruction of production or milling to raise prices, and hoarding. Section 4 prescribed penalties for violations. On August 1, 1919, the Governor-General issued Executive Order No. 53, fixing the maximum selling price of rice. On August 8, 1919, a complaint was filed against Ang Tang Ho for selling one ganta of rice for P0.80 on August 6, 1919, which was a price greater than that fixed by the Executive Order. Procedural History: The defendant was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to five months' imprisonment and a fine of P500. He appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming the lower court erred in upholding the Executive Order, finding him guilty, and imposing the sentence. The Petition: The appellant argued that Executive Order No. 53 had no force and effect, and that the lower court erred in finding him guilty and imposing the sentence.
Issue(s)
Whether Act No. 2868, by authorizing the Governor-General to issue a proclamation fixing the price of rice and making its violation a crime, constitutes an unlawful delegation of legislative power. Whether Executive Order No. 53, issued pursuant to Act No. 2868, is valid and enforceable. Whether the sale of rice at a price exceeding that fixed by Executive Order No. 53 constitutes a crime.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court, declared Act No. 2868 unconstitutional and void insofar as it authorized the Governor-General to fix the price of rice and make its violation a crime, and discharged the defendant. The Court held that the Act constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative power.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of unlawful delegation of legislative power: The Court held that Act No. 2868, by granting the Governor-General discretion to determine "any cause" for extraordinary price rises, what constitutes "an extraordinary rise," and when to issue temporary rules and emergency measures, effectively delegated legislative power. The Legislature cannot delegate its power to make laws; it can only delegate the power to determine facts or states of things upon which a law makes its action depend. In this case, the Act did not define a crime within itself but left it to the Governor-General's discretion to create a crime by proclamation. The Court cited numerous US Supreme Court cases, including Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, to emphasize that while a law can be made to depend on the ascertainment of a fact or event by an administrative officer, the law itself must be complete and leave no legislative discretion to the delegate. The Act here was deemed incomplete, requiring the Governor-General to supply essential elements of the law, which is impermissible. On the validity and enforceability of Executive Order No. 53: Because Act No. 2868 was found to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, the Executive Order issued pursuant to it was rendered invalid and unenforceable. The Court noted that without the proclamation, selling rice at any price was not a crime, indicating that the crime, if any, was predicated solely on the Governor-General's proclamation, which was based on an unconstitutional delegation of authority. The Court also pointed out that the proclamation attempted to fix different prices in different provinces and delegated further power to provincial treasurers, constituting a sub-delegation of a delegated power. On whether the sale constituted a crime: Since the Act authorizing the price fixing was unconstitutional, and consequently the Executive Order was invalid, the act of selling rice at a price exceeding that fixed by the Executive Order did not constitute a crime. The Court emphasized that the Constitution is a solid, permanent, and substantial document protecting rights, and its stability should not change with emergency conditions. The power to fix prices of private property, especially without the government taking possession or ownership, cannot be delegated under a republican form of government.
Main Doctrine
Act No. 2868, in so far as it authorizes the Governor-General, in his discretion, to issue a proclamation fixing the price of rice and making the sale of rice in violation thereof a crime, is unconstitutional and void for constituting an unlawful delegation of legislative power.