Consti 2; The Equal Protection Clause; Alienage (7/3) Yu Cong Eng v. Natividad No. 20479, 47 Phil.

385 February 6, 1925 Facts:Act No. 2972 (The Chinese Bookkeeping Law/The Act) took effect but its enforcement was suspended until the adjournment of the Legislature in February 1923. Act No. 2972 makes it unlawful to keep account books in any language other than English, Spanish, or any local dialect. Doing so results in a fine, imprisonment, or both. In March of 1923, agents of the Bureau of Internal Revenue inspected the books of account of Yu Cong Eng. It was found that Yu Cong Engs books were not kept in accordance with their understanding of Act No. 2972, the agents took possession of the books and referred the matter to the city fiscal, who instituted criminal proceedings against Yu. Issue(s): 1) Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the case. 2) What are the legal rights of the Chinese? 3) Whether Act No. 2972 is susceptible of a construction that can save it. Held: 1.) YES. It has concurrent jurisdiction with CFIs over inferior tribunals or persons. It has original jurisdiction over CFIs when they exercise functions without or in excess of their jurisdiction. This must be exercised rarely, so as not to usurp the powers of CFI judges. Generally, a question of constitutionality must be raised in the lower court so it is given a chance to answer that question before it can be presented to the appellate court for resolution. This case is an exception to the general rule as the property and personal rights of nearly 12,000 merchants are affected. Also, the Act is a new law not yet interpreted by the courts. 2.) 2) What are the legal rights of the Chinese? The treaty rights accorded them are those of the most favored nation. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, etc.: Their constitutional rights are those accorded all aliens, meaning that their life, liberty, or property cannot be taken without due process of law, and they are entitled to the equal protection of the laws, without regard to their race. The Philippine Code of Commerce, as well as Corporation Law permits foreigners and companies created in a foreign country to engage in business in the Philippine Islands. Their rights are neither greater nor lesser than those of American and Philippine citizens. Yick Wo v. Hopkins: Class legislation is discriminating against some and favoring others. This is prohibited. But legislation carrying out a public purpose, if limited in application, is valid if it affects alike all persons similarly situated. Examples of public purpose include the promotion of peace and order, as well as the prevention of fraud, deceit, cheating, and imposition. Yick Wo v. Hopkins: If an act invades no fundamental rights, impairs no personal privilege, is neither discriminatory nor unreasonable in its operation, applies to all without distinction, does not privilege, discriminate, nor make distinction, applies equally and uniformly to all engaged, then it is valid. King v. Lau Kiu: An Act cannot be sustained as an exercise of the police power if it has no relation to the health, comfort, safety, or welfare of the public. 3) Whether Act No. 2972 is susceptible of a construction that can save it: YES.