Professional Documents
Culture Documents
UNITED STATES VS Ang Tang Ho Digest Statcon
UNITED STATES VS Ang Tang Ho Digest Statcon
ANG TANG HO
Summary:
Doctrine:
All legislative power is vested in the Legislature, and the power conferred upon the
Legislature to make laws cannot be delegated to the Governor-General, or any one
else. The Legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law, but it can make a
law to delegate a power to determine some facts or state of things upon which the
law makes, or intends to make, its own action to depend.
Facts:
At the special session of the Philippine Legislature, they passed Act No.
2868, entitled, “An act penalizing the monopoly and hoarding 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 therefore, and making an appropriation for this purpose.”
On August 1, 1919, the Governor-General issued EO No. 53 fixing the price
at which rice should be sold.
On August, 8, 1919, a complaint was filed against Ang Tang Ho, charging
him with sale of rice at an excessive price.
The respondent was tried and found guilty and sentenced to 5 months
imprisonment and to pay a fine. He appealed, claiming that the lower court
erred in finding EO No. 53 to be of any force and effect, in finding accused
guilty and in imposing the sentence.
Issues Ratio:
1. WON Legislature can delegate power. – NO.
By the Organic Law, all legislative power is vested in the Legislature, and the
power conferred upon the Legislature to make laws cannot be delegated to the
Governor-General, or any one else. The Legislature cannot delegate its power
to make a law, but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some
facts or state of things upon which the law makes, or intends to make, its own
action to depend.
If Act No. 2868 is a law unto itself and within itself, and it does nothing more than
to authorize the Governor-General to make rules and regulations to carry it into
effect, then the Legislature created the law. There is no delegation of power and is
valid. On the other hand, if the act within itself does not define a crime and is not
complete, and some legislative act remains to be done to make it a law or a crime,
the doing of which is vested in the Governor-General, the act is a delegation of
power, is unconstitutional and void.
After the passage of Act No. 2868, and without any rules and regulations of the
Governor-General, a dealer in rice could sell it at, any price and he would not
commit a crime. There was no legislative act, which made it a crime to sell rice at
any price. When Act No. 2868 is analyzed, it is the violation of the Proclamation
of the Governor-General, which constitutes the crime. The alleged sale was made a
crime because of the Proclamation.
We are clearly of the opinion and hold that Act No. 2868, in so far as it
undertakes to authorize the Governor-General in his discretion to issue a
proclamation, fixing the price of rice, and to make the sale of rice in violation
of the proclamation a crime, is unconstitutional and void.
Dispositive:
The judgement of the lower court is reversed and the defendant is discharged.