THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ANG TANG HO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS: The case is an appeal in the judgement of the Court of First Instance of Manila. The
decision that convicted Ang Tang Ho of selling one ganta of rice at the price of eighty centavos on
August 6, 1919, a price higher than that of the fixed price as pursuant to Executive Order No. 53 of
the Governor-General of the Philippines,the issuance of the said E.O is pursuant Sec 1 of Act No.
2868 enacted in August 1, 1919 but was published in August 13, 1919.
The said act is entitled "An Act penalizing the monopoly and holding of, and speculation in, palay,
rice, and corn under extraordinary circumstances, regulating the distribution and sale thereof, and
authorizing the Governor-General, with the consent of the Council of State, to issue the necessary
rules and regulations therefor, and making an appropriation for this purpose," the material
provisions of which are as follows:
Section 1. The Governor-General is hereby authorized, whenever, for any cause, conditions arise
resulting in an extraordinary rise in the price of palay, rice or corn, to issue and promulgate, with
the consent of the Council of State, temporary rules and emergency measures for carrying out the
purpose of this Act, to wit:
(a) To prevent the monopoly and hoarding of, and speculation in, palay, rice or corn.
(b) To establish and maintain a government control of the distribution or sale of the commodities
referred to or have such distribution or sale made by the Government itself.
(c) To fix, from time to time the quantities of palay rice, or corn that a company or individual may
acquire, and the maximum sale price that the industrial or merchant may demand.
The complaint was filed on August 8, 1919, that Ang Tang Ho violated the Executive Order No. 53
of the Governor-General of the Philippines, in relation with the provisions of sections 1, 2 and 4 of
Act No. 2868. Upon this charge, he was tried, found guilty and sentenced to five months'
imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500, from which he appealed to this court, claiming that the
lower court erred in finding Executive Order No. 53 of 1919, to be of any force and effect, in
finding the accused guilty of the offense charged.
ISSUE: Whether or not, the Act No.2868, authorizes the Governor-General to fix the price at which
rice should be sold.
RULING: No. The Act No. 2868 undertakes to authorize the Governor-General, in his discretion, to
regulate the prices of the products, to have a fix price all throughout the country. However, the
proclamation E.O No. 53 in itself is violative of the private right of an individual, and in the passage
of the Act No.2868 there had been no legislative act to punish those who sell at any price. Thus,
there has been no crime, judgement was reversed. Also, it would be noted that the proclamation had
not been published when the act is committed therefore, if there is no law punishing the at, there is
no crime. (Mentioned in one of the opinions of the court)
Additional Notes: In connection to Delegation of powers, it is noted that the Act No 2868 did
authorize the Governor-General to fix the prices of rice, palay, corn.etc, However in delegating
powers of legislation it must first undergo past the 2 types of test to make the delegation of powers
valid. One of which is the Completeness test, which is defined as the law being complete in all its
essential terms and conditions that there is nothing left to do by the delegate but to enforce.

However, Act No. 2868 had left the enforcement of the law in the discretion and sole judgement of
Governor-General, thus making it an incomplete legislation. It failed the completeness test, which
renders the delegation as invalid.
See page 177 of Phil Political Law by Cruz for the whole discussion.