Case Digest: Villegas v. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho, 86 SCRA 270, November 10, 1978
Taxation | Constitutional Limitation: Due Process of Law
Facts:
The Manila Municipal Board passed Ordinance No. 6537 in 1968, signed by Mayor Antonio Villegas.
The ordinance required aliens working or engaging in business in Manila to secure an employment permit from the Mayor and pay a ₱50 fee, with penalties for violations.
Respondent Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho, an alien employed in Manila, challenged the ordinance, claiming it was discriminatory, violated uniformity in taxation, delegated uncontrolled power to the Mayor, and infringed due process and equal protection.
The trial court declared the ordinance null and void, making the injunction permanent. Mayor Villegas appealed.
Issue:
Whether Ordinance No. 6537 is valid as an exercise of police power or taxation, considering constitutional limitations such as uniformity of taxation, non-delegation of legislative power, and due process/equal protection.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, declaring Ordinance No. 6537 null and void.
The Court held that while the ordinance had a regulatory aspect, the ₱50 fee was essentially a revenue measure disguised as regulation.
The fee was unreasonable, discriminatory, and violated the rule of uniformity in taxation, an inherent limitation on the taxing power.
The ordinance also failed to provide clear standards, granting the Mayor arbitrary discretion, and violated due process and equal protection rights of aliens lawfully admitted into the country.
Justice Teehankee’s concurrence emphasized that regulation of alien employment is a matter of national policy, not within the authority of local governments.
First part of ordinance (employment permit application) is regulatory: involves mayor’s discretion.
Second part (payment of P50 fee) is revenue in nature, not regulatory.
Purpose of the fee is raising money under the guise of regulation, making it unreasonable.
Fee same for all aliens, regardless of employment type or income level.
Violates equal protection clause: classification must be based on real and substantial differences with reasonable relation to the law’s objective.
Fee is excessive and arbitrary.
Ordinance does not provide any criteria or standard to guide mayor’s decision.
Arbitrary delegation of power to grant/refuse permits is invalid.
Ordinance violates due process and equal protection.
Requiring a permit before employment, with mayor having uncontrolled power to withhold, effectively denies right to livelihood.
Protection under due process and equal protection applies to all persons, citizens and aliens alike.
The City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 6537 requiring aliens to secure employment permits and pay a ₱50 fee, which was challenged as discriminatory and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance, ruling that the fee was a revenue measure violating the inherent limitation of uniformity in taxation and that the ordinance unlawfully delegated power and infringed due process and equal protection.
FERNANDEZ, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision dated September 17, 1968 of respondent Judge Francisco Arca of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch I, in Civil Case No. 72797, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioner and against the respondents, declaring Ordinance No. 6537 of the City of Manila null and void. The preliminary injunction is hereby made permanent. No pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED.
Manila, Philippines, September 17, 1968.
(SGD.) FRANCISCO ARCA
Judge"
The controverted Ordinance No. 6537 was passed by the Municipal Board of Manila on February 22, 1968 and signed by the herein petitioner Mayor Antonio J. Villegas of Manila on March 27, 1968.
City Ordinance No. 6537 is 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 of said Ordinance No. 65374 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.
Violations of this ordinance is punishable by an imprisonment of not less than three (3) months to six (6) months or fine of not less than P100.00 but not more than P200.00 or both such fine and imprisonment, upon conviction.
On May 4, 1968, private respondent Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho, who was employed in Manila, filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch I, denominated as Civil Case No. 72797, 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 No. 6537 null and void.
In this petition, Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho assigned the following as his grounds for wanting the ordinance declared null and void:
As a revenue measure imposed on aliens employed in the City of Manila, Ordinance No. 6537 is discriminatory and violative of the rule of the uniformity in taxation;
As a police power measure, it 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;
It is arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable, being applied only to aliens who are thus, deprived of their rights to life, liberty and property and therefore, violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution.
On May 24, 1968, respondent Judge issued the writ of preliminary injunction and on September 17, 1968 rendered judgment declaring Ordinance No. 6537 null and void and making permanent the writ of preliminary injunction.8
Contesting the aforecited decision of respondent Judge, then Mayor Antonio J. Villegas filed the present petition on March 27, 1969. Petitioner assigned the following as errors allegedly committed by respondent Judge in the latter's decision of September 17, 1968:
"I
THE RESPONDENT JUDGE COMMITTED A SERIOUS AND PATENT ERROR OF LAW IN RULING THAT ORDINANCE NO. 6537 VIOLATED THE CARDINAL RULE OF UNIFORMITY OF TAXATION.
II
RESPONDENT JUDGE LIKEWISE COMMITTED A GRAVE AND PATENT ERROR OF LAW IN RULING THAT ORDINANCE NO. 6537 VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLE AGAINST UNDUE DESIGNATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.
III
RESPONDENT JUDGE FURTHER COMMITTED A SERIOUS AND PATENT ERROR OF LAW IN RULING THAT ORDINANCE NO. 6537 VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION."
Petitioner Mayor Villegas argues that Ordinance No. 6537 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 No. 6537 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.
The contention that Ordinance No. 6537 is not a purely tax or revenue measure because its principal purpose is regulatory in nature has no merit.
While it is 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.
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.
In Chinese Flour Importers Association vs. Price Stabilization Board, where a law granted a government agency power to determine the allocation of wheat flour among importers, the Supreme Court ruled against the interpretation of uncontrolled power as it vested in the administrative officer an arbitrary discretion to be exercised without a policy, rule, or standard from which it can be measured or controlled.
It was also held in Primicias vs. Fugoso that the authority and discretion to grant and refuse permits of all classes conferred upon the Mayor of Manila by the Revised Charter of Manila is not uncontrolled discretion but legal discretion to be exercised within the limits of the law.
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 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 of Manila who may withhold or refuse it at will is tantamount to denying him the basic right 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.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.