TOPIC: DELEGATION OF POWERS

Title: ​United States vs Ang Tang Ho (​G.R. No. L-17122, [February 27, 1922], 43 PHIL

1-19)

· Action:​ ​A motion to analyze the constitutionality of ACT NO. 2868

· Court Level:​ Court of Appeals (En Banc)

· Petitioner:​ The United States

· Respondent/s:​ Ang Tang Ho

· Ponencia:​ ​Johns,​ J ​|||

Facts:

In July 1919, the Philippine Legislature (during special session) 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 (GG) to issue the necessary Rules and Regulations in regulating the

distribution of such products. Pursuant to this Act, in August 1919, the Governor

General issued Executive Order No. 53 which was published on August 20, 1919. The

said EO fixed the price at which rice should be sold. On the other hand, Ang Tang Ho, a

rice dealer, sold a ganta of rice to Pedro Trinidad at the price of eighty centavos (P

0.80). The said amount was way higher than that prescribed by the EO. The sale was

done on the 6th of August 1919. On August 8, 1919, he was charged for violation of the
said EO and was found guilty as charged and was sentenced to 5 months imprisonment

and a fine of P 500.00. He appealed the sentence countering that there is an undue

delegation of power to the Governor General.

Issue: ​WON there is undue Delegation of Power to the Governor General.

Ruling: ​Yes, there was undue delegation of powers.

Rationale:

Upon analysis of Act No. 2868, it is the violation of the proclamation of the

Governor-General which constitutes the Ang Tang Ho’s alleged crime. Without the

proclamation, there 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. Also,

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 (P 0.80) which

is a price greater than that fixed by Executive order No. 53.”