Title
People vs Ang Tang Ho
Case
G.R. No. L-17122
Decision Date
Feb 27, 1922
Act No. 2868 authorized the Governor-General to fix rice prices, leading to Ang Tang Ho's conviction for overcharging; the Supreme Court ruled the Act unconstitutional, reversing his sentence.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17122)

Facts:

  • Enactment and Provisions of Act No. 2868
    • Section 1 authorizes the Governor-General, with Council of State consent, upon “any cause” resulting in an “extraordinary rise” in palay, rice, or corn prices to issue temporary emergency measures to:
      • Prevent monopoly, hoarding, speculation
      • Regulate or assume government control of distribution/sale
      • Fix acquisition quantities and maximum sale prices
    • Section 2 makes it unlawful to obstruct production/milling or hoard; Section 3 defines hoarding; Section 4 prescribes penalties (fine up to ₱5,000, imprisonment up to 2 years, or both); Section 7 permits proclamation to suspend inconsistent laws and to terminate measures.
  • Proclamation and Publication
    • July 30, 1919 – Act approved; August 1, 1919 – Governor-General issues Executive Order No. 53 fixing maximum prices (rice at ₱15/sack or ₱0.63/ganta).
    • Act first published August 13; Executive Order published August 20; underlying sale occurred August 6.
  • Arrest, Trial, and Appeal
    • August 6, 1919 – Ang Tang Ho sells one ganta of rice at ₱0.80 to Pedro Trinidad, exceeding fixed price.
    • Charged under Executive Order No. 53 and Sections 1, 2, 4 of Act No. 2868; convicted by lower court—5 months’ imprisonment and ₱500 fine.
    • Appeal argues: Executive Order lacked force; law was unpublished (ex post facto); unconstitutional delegation; vague standards.

Issues:

  • Whether Act No. 2868 and Executive Order No. 53 could validly take effect given their publication dates and ex post facto implications.
  • Whether Act No. 2868 unconstitutionally delegates legislative power to the Governor-General to fix prices and criminalize sales by proclamation.
  • Whether the statute and order provide an ascertainable standard (uniform price, grade distinctions, local vs. general law) sufficient for due process.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.