US vs.

Tang Ho
G.R. No. L-17122, February 27, 1922

FACTS:
 This case revolves around Act No. 2868, a law passed by Philippine Legislature in 1919,
which penalizes the monopoly, hoarding, and speculation in rice, corn and palay.
 The law also granted the Governor-General the authority to issue rules and regulations
to enforce the law.
o Nag Tang Ho, the defendant, was charged with selling rice at an excessive price
in violation of the said law. He was tried, found guilty and sentenced to 5 months
imprisonment and a fine of P500.
 The defendant appealed the lower court’s decision arguing that the Act was not valid
and the law itself is unconstitutional.
 Hence, the present petition.

ISSUES:
W/N the provision in Act No. 2868 which allows the Governor-General to fix the price of rice
and criminalize its sale at a higher price constitutional.

RULING:

NO. The provision in Act No. 2868 is unconstitional.

The Court held that the legislature, as a rule, cannot delegate legislative power to enact any
law. If a law is complete in itself and only authorizes the Governor-General to make rules and
regulations to enforce it, there is no delegation of power and the law is valid. However, if the
law is incomplete and requires further legislative action to make it a law or a crime, which is
vested in the Governor-General, it is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
Here, Act No. 2688 is unconstitutional and void insofar as it authorizes the Governor-General to
issue a proclamation fixing the price of rice and making the sale of rice in violation of the
proclamation a crime.
Thus, the provision in Act No. 2688 is unconstitutional and void.