U.S. vs.

Ang Tang Ho
G.R. No. 17122
February 27, 1922
Johns, J.

FACTS:
In 1919, the Philippine Legislature passed Act No. 2868, titled "An Act penalizing the monopoly and
holding of, and speculation in, palay, rice, and corn under extraordinary circumstances." The Act
empowered the Governor-General, under certain conditions, to issue temporary rules and emergency
measures to prevent the monopoly, hoarding, and speculation of these commodities. It also granted the
authority to establish government control over their distribution and sale, set quantity limits, and fix
maximum sale prices. Violations were subject to fines or imprisonment.

The Act aimed to address situations of extraordinary price rises and prohibited actions hindering the
production or milling of palay, rice, or corn to inflate prices. It outlined penalties for violations and
allowed the Governor-General to suspend other inconsistent laws in the interest of public welfare.

On August 1, 1919, the Governor-General issued a proclamation fixing the price of rice. Subsequently, a
complaint was filed against Ang Tang Ho for selling rice at a price exceeding the set limit. He was found
guilty, sentenced to imprisonment, and fined. Ang Tang Ho appealed, challenging the validity of
Executive Order No. 53 and the court's decision. The Act took effect on July 30, 1919, with the
proclamation and publication following in August 1919.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Executive Order No. 53, issued by the Governor-General that convicted the herein
defendant-appellant in connection with Act No. 2868 has force of a law and can be considered,
constitutional?

HELD:
No. When Act No. 2868 is analyzed, it is the violation of the proclamation of the Governor-General which
constitutes the crime. Without that proclamation, it was no crime to sell rice at any price. In the absence
of the proclamation no crime was committed. The alleged sale was made a crime, if at all, because the
Governor-General issued the proclamation.

The Court was 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 price of rice, and to make the sale of rice in violation of the proclamation a
crime, is unconstitutional and void.

In the fixing of the price at which the defendant should sell his rice, the law was not dealing with
government property. It was dealing with private property and private rights, which are sacred under the
Constitution. If this law should be sustained, upon the same principle and for the same reason, the
Legislature could authorize the Governor-General to fix the price of every product or commodity in the
Philippine Islands, and empower him to make it a crime to sell any product at any other or different
price.