44A Villegas V HIU CHIONG TSAI PAO HO PDF
44A Villegas V HIU CHIONG TSAI PAO HO PDF
44A Villegas V HIU CHIONG TSAI PAO HO PDF
HIU
CHIONG TSAI PAO HO and JUDGE
FRANCISCO ARCA
DOCTRINES
EQUAL PROTECTION
FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision dated September 17, 1968 of
respondent Judge Arca of the Court of First Instance of Manila, declaring
Ordinance No. 6537 of the City of Manila null and void.
Ordinance No. 6537 was passed by the Municipal Board of Manila and signed
petitioner Mayor Antonio J. Villegas of Manila
Entitled:
"AN ORDINANCE MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON
NOT A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES TO BE EMPLOYED IN
ANY PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT OR TO BE ENGAGED IN ANY
KIND OF TRADE, BUSINESS OR OCCUPATION WITHIN THE
CITY OF MANILA WITHOUT FIRST SECURING AN
EMPLOYMENT PERMIT FROM THE MAYOR OF MANILA; AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES."
Section 1 prohibits aliens from being employed or to engage or participate in any
position or occupation or business enumerated therein, whether permanent,
temporary or casual, without first securing an employment permit from the Mayor
of Manila and paying the permit fee of P50.00 except persons employed in the
diplomatic or consular missions of foreign countries… XXX c
ISSUE:
1. W/N the ordinance violated THE CARDINAL RULE OF
UNIFORMITY OF TAXATION and PRINCIPLE AGAINST
UNDUE DESIGNATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.
2. W/N the ordinance VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS AND
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION
HELD:
Petitioner Mayor Villegas argues that Ordinance cannot be declared null and void
on the ground that it violated the rule on uniformity of taxation because the rule on
uniformity of taxation applies only to purely tax or revenue measures and that
Ordinance is not a tax or revenue measure but is an exercise of the police power of
the state, it being principally a regulatory measure in nature. cdll
SC says no merit.
- TRUE that the first part which requires that the alien shall secure an employment
permit from the Mayor involves the exercise of discretion and judgment in the
processing and approval or disapproval of applications for employment permits
and therefore is regulatory in character, the second part which requires the
payment of P50.00 as employee's fee is not regulatory but a revenue measure.
There is no logic or justification in exacting P50.00 from aliens who have been
cleared for employment. It is obvious that the purpose of the ordinance is to
raise money under the guise of regulation.
The P50.00 fee is unreasonable not only because it is excessive but because it
fails to consider valid substantial differences in situation among individual
aliens who are required to pay it. Although the equal protection clause of the
Constitution does not forbid classification, it is imperative that the classification,
should be based on real and substantial differences having a reasonable
relation to the subject of the particular legislation. The same amount of
P50.00 is being collected from every employed alien, whether he is casual or
permanent, part time or full time or whether he is a lowly employee or a
highly paid executive.
The ordinance does not lay down any criterion or standard to guide the Mayor in
the exercise of his discretion. It has been held that where an ordinance of a
municipality 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 per se lawful.
The ordinance is void because it does not contain or suggest any standard or
criterion to guide the mayor in the exercise of the power which has been granted to
him by the ordinance.
The ordinance in question violates the due process of law and equal
protection rule of the Constitution.
Requiring a person before he can be employed to get a permit from the City
Mayor who may withhold or refuse it at will is tantamount to denying him the
basic right of the people to engage in a means of livelihood. While it is true that
the Philippines as a State is not obliged to admit aliens within its territory, once an
alien is admitted, he cannot be deprived of life without due process of law.
This guarantee includes the means of livelihood. The shelter of protection under
the due process and equal protection clause is given to all persons, both aliens
and citizens.
The trial court did not commit the errors assigned. L