KWONG SING, vs.

THE CITY OF MANILA Facts: Kwong Sing, in his own behalf and of other Chinese laundrymen who has general and the same interest, questioned the validity of city of Manila Ordinance No. 532. Ordinance No. 532 requires that the receipts issued by laundry companies be in duplicate, in English and Spanish duly signed showing the kind and number of articles delivered. A preliminary injunction was issued by the trial court but a permanent injunction was denied. The appellants claim is that Ordinance No. 532 savors of class legislation; putting in mind that they are Chinese nationals. It unjustly discriminates between persons in similar circumstances; and that it constitutes an arbitrary infringement of property rights. Plaintiff's contention is also that the ordinance is invalid, because it is arbitrary, unreasonable, and not justified under the police power of the city. Issues: (1) WON the enforcement of Ordinance no. 532 is an act beyond the scope of police power. (2) WON Ordinance no. 532 unjustly discriminates between persons in similar circumstances and that it constitutes an arbitrary infringement of property rights. Held: The government of the city of Manila had the power to enact Ordinance No. 532 and that as said ordinance is found not to be oppressive, nor unequal, nor unjust, it is valid. Judgement is affirmed and the petition for preliminary injunction is denied. Ratio: Reasonable restraints of a lawful business for such purposes are permissible under the police power. Section 2444, paragraphs (l) and (ee) of the Administrative Code authorizes the municipal board of the city of Manila to enact ordinances regarding this.
(l) To regulate and fix the amount of the license fees for the following: xxx laundries xxx. (ee) To enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and proper for the sanitation and safety, the furtherance of the prosperity, and the promotion of the morality, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants.

Using the 2 provisions cited, the Municipal Board is empowered to regulate (power to control, to govern and to restrain) businesses using the proper police regulations in the interest of public health, safety, morals, peace good order, comfort, convenience, prosperity and the general welfare. The main purpose of the ordinance is to avoid disputes between laundrymen and the patrons and to protect the customers from being defrauded. In whether the ordinance unjustly discriminates between persons in similar circumstances and that it constitutes an arbitrary infringement of property rights, the court held that the ordinance invades no fundamental right, and impairs no personal privilege. The ordinance is neither discriminatory nor unreasonable. It applies to all public laundries without distinction. All must comply with the ordinance. Although, an additional burden will be imposed on the laundry establishments it is not sufficient to declare an ordinance invalid. The very foundation of the police power is the control of private interests for public welfare.

Yu Cong Eng vs. Trinidad (US SUPREME COURT DECISION) Facts: ACT No. 2972 (Chinese Bookkeeping Act) was passed by the Philippine Legislature penalizing the use of any other language other than English, Spanish or any local dialect in accounting books of any person, company, partnership or corporation. Using this law, information was filed against Yu Cong Eng, a Chinese merchant engaged in wholesale lumber and Co Liam, a Chinese business man in manila for using the Chinese language in their books of account. Yu Cong Eng filed for him and in behalf of all other Chinese merchants in the Philippines a petition against the fiscal of Manila and the Collector of Internal Revenue. The petitioners aver that the Act will deprive 12,000 Chinese merchants of their liberty and property without due process and deny them equal protection. The Fiscal entered a general denial, stating that it is only the exercise of proper legislative power. The Philippine Supreme Court held that if the Act was construed literally, it would have been invalid, but by giving it an interpretation (3rd interpretation, see below) different from the usual meaning of the words, it could stand.
Literal interpretation unlawful to keep Chinese account books (Broadly Prohibitory) 2nd interpretation permits Chinese account books, but requires English/Spanish/local dialect 3rd Interpretation requires books for tax purposes to be in English/Spanish/local dialect (Mandatory)

Attempts to amend the Act using the interpretation of the SC of the Philippines were made, but none succeeded. *side notes 1. the case states that without the Chinese merchants, there would be no other system of distribution (GOODS) for the Philippines. 2. There have always been complaints against the avoidance of taxes by the Chinese. Issues: (1) WON the Philippine Supreme Courts decision was valid for amending the Act. (2) WON it is within the ambit of the legislatures police power to promulgate Act No. 2972. Held: (1) The decision of the Philippine Supreme Court was an amendment and is invalid. (2) It is not within the police power of the Philippine Legislature, because it would be oppressive and arbitrary, to prohibit all Chinese merchants from maintaining a set of books in the Chinese language Ratio: It would seem to the court, from the history of the legislation and the efforts for its repeal or amendment that the Philippine Legislature knew the meaning of the words it used, and intended that the Act as passed should be prohibitory, and should forbid the Chinese merchants from keeping the account books of their business in Chinese. The Court held that it is the duty of a court in considering the validity of an act to give it such reasonable construction as can be reached to bring it within the fundamental law. But it is very clear that amendment may not be substituted for construction, and that a court may not exercise legislative functions to save the law from conflict with constitutional limitation. Such strained construction, in order to make a law conform to the constitution cannot be sustained. Amending the law to make it mandatory is therefore invalid. The proper recourse is to amend the Act.

The Court held the law to be invalid because it deprives Chinese persons situated as they are, with their extensive and important business long established, of their liberty and property without due process of law, and denies them the equal protection of the laws. The Philippine government may make every reasonable requirement of its taxpayers to keep proper records of their business transactions in English or Spanish or Filipino dialect. But the court held that it is not within the police power of the Philippine Legislature, because it would be oppressive and arbitrary, to prohibit all Chinese merchants from maintaining a set of books in the Chinese language, and in the Chinese characters, and thus prevent them from keeping advised of the status of their business and directing its conduct. In Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 152 U. S. 137, the Court said: In interposing its authority, it must appear that the interests of the public generally require such interference and that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. The legislature may not, under the guise of protecting the public interests, arbitrarily interfere with private business or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations. In other words, its determination as to what is a proper exercise of its police powers is not final or conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the courts." Act No. 2972, which deprives the Chinese merchants of something indispensable to the carrying on of their business, and is obviously intended chiefly to affect them, as distinguished from the rest of the community, is a denial to them of the equal protection of the laws.