Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • Villegas Vs Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho

    Загружено:

    leslansangan
    50 просмотров1 страница
    The case involved Ordinance No. 6537 passed by Manila requiring non-citizens to obtain an employment permit from the Mayor and pay a 50 peso fee. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho, a non-citizen employed in Manila, challenged the ordinance. The court found that while requiring a permit could be regulatory, the fee was simply revenue generating. As the ordinance did not provide standards for permit approval and denied livelihoods, it violated due process and equal protection guarantees. The court ruled the ordinance unconstitutional.

    Исходное описание:

    Оригинальное название

    Villegas vs Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho

    Авторское право

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Доступные форматы

    DOCX, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    The case involved Ordinance No. 6537 passed by Manila requiring non-citizens to obtain an employment permit from the Mayor and pay a 50 peso fee. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho, a non-citizen employed in Manila, challenged the ordinance. The court found that while requiring a permit could be regulatory, the fee was simply revenue generating. As the ordinance did not provide standards for permit approval and denied livelihoods, it violated due process and equal protection guarantees. The court ruled the ordinance unconstitutional.

    Авторское право:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Скачайте в формате DOCX, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    50 просмотров1 страница

    Villegas Vs Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho

    Загружено:

    leslansangan
    The case involved Ordinance No. 6537 passed by Manila requiring non-citizens to obtain an employment permit from the Mayor and pay a 50 peso fee. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho, a non-citizen employed in Manila, challenged the ordinance. The court found that while requiring a permit could be regulatory, the fee was simply revenue generating. As the ordinance did not provide standards for permit approval and denied livelihoods, it violated due process and equal protection guarantees. The court ruled the ordinance unconstitutional.

    Авторское право:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Скачайте в формате DOCX, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 1

    Villegas vs hiu chiong tsai pao ho Facts:

    The controverted Ordinance no. 6537 was passed by theMunicipal Board of Manila on February 22, 1968 and signed by Mayor Villegas. It is an ordinance making it unlawful for any person not a citizen of the Philippines to be employed in any place of employmentor to be engaged in any kind of trade business or occupation within the city of Manila without securing an employment permit from the Mayor of Manila and for other purposes. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho, who was employed in Manila filed a petition praying for the writ of preliminary injunction and restraining order to stop the enforcement of said ordinance.

    Issue:

    Whether or Not Ordinance no.6537 violates the due processand equal

    protection clauses of the Constitution.

    Held:

    It is a revenue measure. The city ordinance which imposes a fee of 50.00

    pesos to enable aliens generally to be employed in the city of Manila is not only for the purpose of regulation. While it is true that the first part which requires the alien to secure anemployment permit from the Mayor involves the exercise of discretion and judgment in processing and approval or disapproval of applicationis regulatory in character, the second part which requires the paymentof a sum of 50.00 pesos is not a regulatory but a revenue measure. Ordinance no. 6537 is void and unconstitutional. This is tantamount to denial of the basic human right of the people in the Philippines to engaged in a means of livelihood. While it is true that the Philippinesas a state is not obliged to admit aliens within it's territory, once an alien is admitted he cannot be deprived of life without due process of law. This guarantee includes the means of livelihood. Also it does notlay down any standard to guide the City Mayor in the issuance or denial of an alien employment permit fee.

    Вам также может понравиться