Scribd
Upload
660 views3 pages

Us Vs Ang Tang Ho Case Digest

The case involved Ang Tang Ho, a rice dealer who was charged with selling rice above the maximum price set by an executive order from the Governor General. Ang Tang Ho argued this was an undue delegation of power. The court agreed, finding the law passed by the legislature granted too much discretion to the Governor General without clear standards or guidelines. It allowed him sole discretion to determine things like what constituted an "extraordinary rise" in prices and when to issue proclamations. As written, the law was incomplete and delegated legislative powers improperly. The court ruled in favor of Ang Tang Ho, finding an undue delegation of power.

Uploaded by

melbertgutzby vivas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
660 views3 pages

Us Vs Ang Tang Ho Case Digest

The case involved Ang Tang Ho, a rice dealer who was charged with selling rice above the maximum price set by an executive order from the Governor General. Ang Tang Ho argued this was an undue delegation of power. The court agreed, finding the law passed by the legislature granted too much discretion to the Governor General without clear standards or guidelines. It allowed him sole discretion to determine things like what constituted an "extraordinary rise" in prices and when to issue proclamations. As written, the law was incomplete and delegated legislative powers improperly. The court ruled in favor of Ang Tang Ho, finding an undue delegation of power.

Uploaded by

melbertgutzby vivas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

US vs Ang Tang Ho

undue delegation of power

US VS ANG TANG HO

G.R. No. 17122 43 Phil 1 February 27, 1922

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

ANG TANG HO, defendant-appellant.

Facts:

During a special session, the Philippine Legislature passed and approved Act No. 2868 entitled An Act
Penalizing the Monopoly and Hoarding of Rice, Palay and Corn. The said act under extraordinary
circumstances authorizes the Governor General to issue the necessary Rules and Regulations in
regulating the distribution of such products. Pursuant to this Act, the Governor General issued Executive
Order 53 fixing the price at which rice should be sold.

Ang Tang Ho, a rice dealer, voluntarily, criminally and illegally sold a ganta of rice to Pedro Trinidad at the
price of eighty centavos. The said amount was way higher than that prescribed by the Executive Order.
He was charged in violation of the said Executive Order and was found guilty as charged and was
sentenced to 5 months imprisonment plus a P500.00 fine. He appealed the sentence countering that
there was an undue delegation of power to the Governor General.

Issues:

Whether or not there was an undue delegation of power to the Governor General.

Discussions:

By the terms of the Organic Act, subject only to constitutional limitations, the power to legislate and
enact laws is vested exclusively in the Legislative, which is elected by a direct vote of the people of the
Philippine Islands. As to the question here involved, the authority of the Governor-General to fix the
maximum price at which palay, rice and corn may be sold in the manner power in violation of the organic
law.

Act No. 2868, as analysed by the Court, wholly fails to provide definitely and clearly what the standard
policy should contain, so that it could be put in use as a uniform policy required to take the place of all
others without the determination of the insurance commissioner in respect to matters involving the
exercise of a legislative discretion that could not be delegated, and without which the act could not
possibly be put in use. The law must be complete in all its terms and provisions when it leaves the
legislative branch of the government and nothing must be left to the judgment of the electors or other
appointee or delegate of the legislature, so that, in form and substance, it is a law in all its details in
presenti, but which may be left to take effect in future, if necessary, upon the ascertainment of any
prescribed fact or event.

Rulings:

Yes. When Act No. 2868 was 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 other
words, the Legislature left it to the sole discretion of the Governor-General to say what was and what
was not “any cause” for enforcing the act, and what was and what was not “an extraordinary rise in the
price of palay, rice or corn,” and under certain undefined conditions to fix the price at which rice should
be sold, without regard to grade or quality, also to say whether a proclamation should be issued, if so,
when, and whether or not the law should be enforced, how long it should be enforced, and when the
law should be suspended. The Legislature did not specify or define what was “any cause,” or what was
“an extraordinary rise in the price of rice, palay or corn,” Neither did it specify or define the conditions
upon which the proclamation should be issued. 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 act or proclamation does not say anything about the different grades or qualities of
rice, and the defendant is charged with the sale “of one ganta of rice at the price of eighty centavos
(P0.80) which is a price greater than that fixed by Executive order No. 53.”

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy