Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSUES (HELD)
1) W/N the ordinance violated the rule of uniformity of taxation (YES)
2) W/N the ordinance was an undue delegation of legislative power (YES)
3) W/N the ordinance violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the
Constitution (YES)
RATIO
1) The ordinance is a revenue measure, and one which violates the rule of uniformity of
taxation.
Hiu Chiong: Ordinance is discriminatory and violates the rule of uniformity of taxation.
Mayor Villegas: The uniformity rule applies only to purely revenue-generating
measures. The ordinance is primarily an exercise of the police power and was designed
to regulate the employment of aliens.
SC: The permit requirement is regulatory, but the permit fee is revenue-generating.
There is no logic in exacting 50 pesos from foreigners who have already been cleared
for employment other than revenue generation.
2) The ordinance constitutes an undue delegation of the Municipal Boards legislative power.
Hiu Chiong: Ordinance fails to prescribe any standard or guideline to limit the Mayors
discretion; therefore it is an undue delegation of the legislative power.
SC: The contention must be upheld. Ordinance No. 6537 does not lay down any criteria
for the exercise of the permit-granting power. It is a blanket authority to impose fees on
all aliens who want to work in the City of Manila.
o People v. Fajardo: Where a municipal ordinance fails to state any policy or to
set up any standard to guide or limit the mayor's action, expresses no purpose to
be attained by requiring a permit, enumerates no conditions for its grant or
refusal, and entirely lacks standard, thus conferring upon the Mayor arbitrary and
unrestricted power to grant or deny the issuance of building permits, such
ordinance is invalid, being an undefined and unlimited delegation of power to
allow or prevent an activity which is lawful per se.
o Chinese Flour Importers Association v. Price Stabilization Board: A law granting
an agency the power to determine wheat flour import allocations was held invalid
as it gives the agency an arbitrary discretion without any guiding policy, rule or
standard.
o Primicias v. Fugoso: The power conferred upon the Mayor of Manila to grant or
refuse permits of all classes is not uncontrolled and must be exercised within the
bounds of the law granting such power the Revised Charter of Manila.
3) The ordinance fails to consider substantial differences within the class of all aliens employed
in the City of Manila, thus violating the equal protection clause.
Hiu Chiong: The ordinance fails to make a distinction between useful and non-useful
occupations and imposes a fixed permit fee which is not proportional to the cost of
registration. Furthermore, its application solely to aliens is arbitrary, oppressive, and
unreasonable.
SC: The constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws is not violated when the
classification is based on real and substantial differences which are reasonably related
to the purpose of the law.
o
o
CASE AT BAR: The same amount is collected from any alien, regardless of
whether his employment is permanent or casual, whether he is a lowly employee
or a highly paid executive. The ordinance did not consider these substantial
differences.
Placing the employment of aliens at the mercy of the Mayor of Manilas
unqualified permit-granting power is tantamount to a denial of the basic right to
engage in a means of livelihood.
While it is true that the Philippine State is not obliged to admit aliens into its
territory, aliens admitted into the Philippines are also entitled to the same
protections under the due process and equal protection clauses which are given
to Filipino citizens.