#6 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.”

#7
January 20, 2017

GR No. 127685. July 23, 1998

FACTS:

This is a petition raised by Senator Blas Ople to invalidate the Administrative Order No. 308 or the
Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System issued by President Fidel V.
Ramos.

The petitioner contends that the implementation of the said A.O. will violate the rights of the citizens
of privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution.

ISSUE:

Whether or not A.O. No. 308 violates the right of privacy.

HELD:

Yes.

The right to privacy as such is accorded recognition independently of its identification with liberty; in
itself, it is fully deserving of constitutional protection.

The right of privacy is guaranteed in several provisions of the Constitution:

"Sections 3 (1), 1, 2, 6, 8 and 17 of the Bill of Rights

"Sec. 3. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order
of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law."
"Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the laws."
"Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally
by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."
"Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be
impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in
the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law."
"Sec. 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form
unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged."

"Sec. 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."

The right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, hence, it is the burden of
government to show that A.O. No. 308 is justified by some compelling state interest and that it is
narrowly drawn. A.O. No. 308 is predicated on two considerations: (1) the need to provide our citizens
and foreigners with the facility to conveniently transact business with basic service and social security
providers and other government instrumentalities and (2) the need to reduce, if not totally eradicate,
fraudulent transactions and misrepresentations by persons seeking basic services. It is debatable
whether these interests are compelling enough to warrant the issuance of A.O. No. 308.

But what is not arguable is the broadness, the vagueness, the overbreadth of A.O. No. 308 which if
implemented will put our people's right to privacy in clear and present danger. The possibilities of abuse
and misuse of the PRN, biometrics and computer technology are accentuated when we consider that the
individual lacks control over what can be read or placed on his ID, much less verify the correctness of
the data encoded. They threaten the very abuses that the Bill of Rights seeks to prevent.

The petition is granted and declared the Administrative Order No. 308 entitled "Adoption of a National
Computerized Identification Reference System" null and void for being unconstitutional.

#8
MARCOS VS MANGLAPUS
Posted by kaye lee on 1:16 PM
G.R. No. 88211 September 15 1989

FACTS:
Former President Marcos, after his and his family spent three year exile in Hawaii, USA, sought
to return to the Philippines. The call is about to request of Marcos family to order the
respondents to issue travel order to them and to enjoin the petition of the President's decision
to bar their return to the Philippines.

ISSUE:
Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the President may
prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.

RULING:
Yes
According to Section 1, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution: "The executive power shall be
vested in the President of the Philippines." The phrase, however, does not define what is meant
by executive power although the same article tackles on exercises of certain powers by the
President such as appointing power during recess of the Congress (S.16), control of all the
executive departments, bureaus, and offices (Section 17), power to grant reprieves,
commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final
judgment (Section 19), treaty making power (Section 21), borrowing power (Section
20), budgetary power (Section 22), informing power (Section 23).
The Constitution may have grant powers to the President, it cannot be said to be limited only
to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. Whatever power inherent in the
government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive.

#9

YNOT VS. IAC [148 SCRA 659; G.R. NO. 74457; 20 MAR
1987]
Sunday, February 01, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts: Executive Order No. 626-A prohibited the transportation of carabaos

and carabeef from one province to another. The carabaos of petitioner were
confiscated for violation of Executive Order No 626-A while he was
transporting them from Masbate to Iloilo. Petitioner challenged the
constitutionality of Executive Order No. 626-A. The government argued
that Executive Order No. 626-A was issued in the exercise of police power
to conserve the carabaos that were still fit for farm work or breeding.

Issue: Whether or Not EO No. 626-A is a violation of Substantive Due

Process.

Held: The challenged measure is an invalid exercise of police power,

because it is not reasonably necessary for the purpose of the law and is unduly
oppressive. It is difficult to see how prohibiting the transfer of carabaos from
one province to another can prevent their indiscriminate killing. Retaining the
carabaos in one province will not prevent their slaughter there. Prohibiting the
transfer of carabeef, after the slaughter of the carabaos, will not prevent the
slaughter either.