YU CONG ENG Et al.

vs
TRINIDAD, Collector of Internal Revenue et al.
(271 US 500, June 7, 1926)

FACTS:

This case is a writ of certiorari to review a decision of the Supreme

Court of the Philippine Islands denying an original petition for prohibition
against the enforcement by criminal prosecution of Act No. 2972 of the
Philippine Legislature, known as the Chinese Bookkeeping Act, on the
ground of its invalidity.

Act No. 2972 (An act to provide in what languages account books
shall be kept, and to establish penalties for its violation), also known as
the “Chinese Bookkeeping Act,” was passed by the Philippine Legislature
and approved in 1921. It provides:

Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, company, or partnership or

corporation engaged in commerce, industry or any other activity for the
purpose of profit in the Philippine Islands, in accordance with existing
law, to keep its account books in any language other than English,
Spanish, or any local dialect.
Section 2. Any person violating the provisions of this act shall, upon
conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than ten thousand pesos, or
by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.
Yu Cong Eng, a Chinese merchant, keeps the books of account of
his lumber business in Chinese, as he cannot read, write nor understand
English, Spanish, or any local dialect. He was arrested for violating Act
No. 2972, and his books were seized.
PRODECURAL HISTORY:
 Yu Cong Eng, was charged by information in the court of first
instance of Manila for violating Act 2972.

 Before the trial was about to proceed, Yu Cong Eng and another
petitioner, Co Liam (on behalf of all the other Chinese merchants in
the Philippines) filed a petition for prohibition against the
enforcement of the criminal proceedings of the said Act with the
Supreme Court of the Philippines on the grounds of its invalidity-
GR No. L-20479. (Petitioners lost)

 Yu Cong Eng et al. filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the US
Supreme Court-271 US 500. (Petitioner won)

ISSUES:
A. WON the PH SC made a valid construction of Act No. 2972.
B. WON Act No. 2972 is unconstitutional.
HOLDING:

A. NO. 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. However, a court may not exercise
legislative functions to save the law from conflict with
constitutional limitation.

B. YES. The law is invalid because it deprives Chinese persons of

their liberty and property without due process of law, and denies
them the equal protection of the laws.

JUDGEMENT: JUDGMENT REVERSED. ACT NO. 2972 IS INVALID.

REASONING:
A. What the court did was to change a penal prohibitive law to a
mandatory law of great indefiniteness to conform to what the court
assumes was, or ought to have been, the purpose of the legislature,
and which in the change would avoid a conflict with constitutional
restriction. Such strained construction, in order to make a law
conform to a constitutional limitation, cannot be sustained.

“It would certainly be dangerous if the legislature could set a net

large enough to catch all possible offenders, and leave it to the
courts to step inside and say who could be rightfully detained and
who should be set at large. This would, to some extent, substitute
the judicial for the legislative department of the government.” (US
v. Reese)

B. The Philippine Bill of Rights provides that:

'No law shall be enacted in said Islands which shall deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or
deny to any person therein the equal protection of the laws.'
It that guaranties equivalent to the due process and equal
protection of the law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the
twice in jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the
substantial guaranties of the Sixth Amendment, exclusive of the
right to trial by jury, were extended to the Philippine Islands. It is
further settled that the guaranties which Congress has extended to
the Philippine Islands are to be interpreted as meaning what the
like provisions meant at the time when Congress made them
applicable to the Philippine Islands.
 PH government may make every reasonable requirement of
its taxpayers to keep records of their transactions. However, it is
NOT within the police power of the legislature to prohibit Chinese
merchants from maintaining a set of books in Chinese.

To justify the state in interposing its authority in behalf of the

public, 1) the interests of the public require such interference and
2) the means are necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose,
and not oppressive upon individuals. The determination as to what
is a proper exercise of the legislature’s police power is subject to
the courts’ supervision. (Lawton v. Steel)

We are likely thus to trespass on the provision of the Bill of

Rights that the accused is entitled to demand the nature and cause
of the accusation against him, and to violate the principle that a
statute which requires the doing of an act so indefinitely described
that men must guess at its meaning violates due process of law.

Act No. 2972 deprives the Chinese merchants of something

indispensable to the carrying on of their business, and is obviously
intended to affect them (as distinguished from the rest of the
community) is a denial of the equal protection of the laws.