Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 68 views

    US v. Ang Tang Ho 43 Phil 1

    Uploaded by

    Ja Ru
    1) In 1919, the Philippine Legislature passed an act authorizing the Governor General to issue rules regulating the distribution of rice, palay, and corn during times of shortage. 2) Pursuant to this act, the Governor General issued an executive order fixing rice prices. However, Ang Tang Ho sold rice above the fixed price and was charged with violating the order. 3) The court found Ang Tang Ho not guilty, as the executive order was not published until after he sold the rice. The court also found the law delegated legislative powers too broadly to the Governor General without clear standards.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    US v. Ang Tang Ho 43 Phil 1

    Uploaded by

    Ja Ru
    68 views1 page
    1) In 1919, the Philippine Legislature passed an act authorizing the Governor General to issue rules regulating the distribution of rice, palay, and corn during times of shortage. 2) Pursuant to this act, the Governor General issued an executive order fixing rice prices. However, Ang Tang Ho sold rice above the fixed price and was charged with violating the order. 3) The court found Ang Tang Ho not guilty, as the executive order was not published until after he sold the rice. The court also found the law delegated legislative powers too broadly to the Governor General without clear standards.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) In 1919, the Philippine Legislature passed an act authorizing the Governor General to issue rules regulating the distribution of rice, palay, and corn during times of shortage. 2) Pursuant to this act, the Governor General issued an executive order fixing rice prices. However, Ang Tang Ho sold rice above the fixed price and was charged with violating the order. 3) The court found Ang Tang Ho not guilty, as the executive order was not published until after he sold the rice. The court also found the law delegated legislative powers too broadly to the Governor General without clear standards.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    68 views1 page

    US v. Ang Tang Ho 43 Phil 1

    Uploaded by

    Ja Ru
    1) In 1919, the Philippine Legislature passed an act authorizing the Governor General to issue rules regulating the distribution of rice, palay, and corn during times of shortage. 2) Pursuant to this act, the Governor General issued an executive order fixing rice prices. However, Ang Tang Ho sold rice above the fixed price and was charged with violating the order. 3) The court found Ang Tang Ho not guilty, as the executive order was not published until after he sold the rice. The court also found the law delegated legislative powers too broadly to the Governor General without clear standards.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    US v.

    Ang Tang Ho 43 Phil 1

    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 GG 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. 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. He was found guilty as charged and was sentenced to 5
    months imprisonment plus a P500.00 fine. He appealed the sentence countering that there is an undue delegation of power to
    the Governor General.

    ISSUE: Whether or not there is undue delegation to the Governor General.

    HELD: First of, Ang Tang Ho’s conviction must be reversed because he committed the act prior to the publication of the EO.
    Hence, he cannot be ex post facto charged of the crime. Further, one cannot be convicted of a violation of a law or of an order
    issued pursuant to the law when both the law and the order fail to set up an ascertainable standard of guilt.

    Anent the issue of undue delegation, the said Act 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.

    You might also like