Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9K views

    Villegas Vs Hiu Chiong Tsai

    Uploaded by

    Eleonor Toledo
    Ordinance No. 6537 prohibited aliens from certain occupations without an employment permit from the Mayor of Manila. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho, an alien employed in Manila, challenged the ordinance. The court held the ordinance was void because it did not contain standards to guide the mayor's discretion in issuing permits. Prior cases established that ordinances conferring unrestricted power on a mayor without standards for granting or denying permits are invalid as undefined delegations of power. As Ordinance No. 6537 lacked criteria for the mayor, it violated the principle against non-delegation of legislative powers.

    Copyright:

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

    Villegas Vs Hiu Chiong Tsai

    Uploaded by

    Eleonor Toledo
    9K views1 page
    Ordinance No. 6537 prohibited aliens from certain occupations without an employment permit from the Mayor of Manila. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho, an alien employed in Manila, challenged the ordinance. The court held the ordinance was void because it did not contain standards to guide the mayor's discretion in issuing permits. Prior cases established that ordinances conferring unrestricted power on a mayor without standards for granting or denying permits are invalid as undefined delegations of power. As Ordinance No. 6537 lacked criteria for the mayor, it violated the principle against non-delegation of legislative powers.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    Villegas vs Hiu Chiong Tsai

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ordinance No. 6537 prohibited aliens from certain occupations without an employment permit from the Mayor of Manila. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho, an alien employed in Manila, challenged the ordinance. The court held the ordinance was void because it did not contain standards to guide the mayor's discretion in issuing permits. Prior cases established that ordinances conferring unrestricted power on a mayor without standards for granting or denying permits are invalid as undefined delegations of power. As Ordinance No. 6537 lacked criteria for the mayor, it violated the principle against non-delegation of legislative powers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    9K views1 page

    Villegas Vs Hiu Chiong Tsai

    Uploaded by

    Eleonor Toledo
    Ordinance No. 6537 prohibited aliens from certain occupations without an employment permit from the Mayor of Manila. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho, an alien employed in Manila, challenged the ordinance. The court held the ordinance was void because it did not contain standards to guide the mayor's discretion in issuing permits. Prior cases established that ordinances conferring unrestricted power on a mayor without standards for granting or denying permits are invalid as undefined delegations of power. As Ordinance No. 6537 lacked criteria for the mayor, it violated the principle against non-delegation of legislative powers.

    Copyright:

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

    VILLEGAS vs.

    HIU CHIONG TSAI PAO HO


    G.R. No. L-29646, November 10, 1978
    FERNANDEZ, J.:
    DOCTRINE:
    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.
    FACTS: Ordinance No. 6537 was passed by the Municipal Board of Manila and signed
    by the herein petitioner Mayor Antonio J. Villegas. Section 1 of said Ordinance No. 6537
    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, or in the technical assistance programs of both the Philippine
    Government and any foreign government, and those working in their respective
    households, and members of religious orders or congregations, sect or denomination,
    who are not paid monetarily or in kind. Private respondent Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho who
    was employed in Manila, filed a petition with the CFI of Manila praying for the issuance
    of the writ of preliminary injunction and restraining order to stop the enforcement of
    Ordinance No. 6537 as well as for a judgment declaring said ordinance null and void.
    Respondent alleged, among others, that as a police power measure, the ordinance
    makes no distinction between useful and non-useful occupations, imposing a fixed
    P50.00 employment permit, which is out of proportion to the cost of registration and that
    it fails to prescribe any standard to guide and/or limit the action of the Mayor, thus,
    violating the fundamental principle on illegal delegation of legislative powers.
    ISSUE: Whether or not Ordinance No. 6537 violated the principle against non
    delegation of the power to tax.
    HELD: Yes. Ordinance No. 6537 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 in the ordinance. Ordinance No. 6537 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.

    You might also like