Chavez v Public Estate Authority GR No.

133250, July 9, 2002 Facts: On November 20, 1973, the government through the Commissioner of Public Highways signed a contract with the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP) to reclaim certain foreshore and offshore areas of Manila Bay. The contract also included the construction of Phases I and II of the ManilaCavite Coastal Road. CDCP obligated itself to carry out all the works in consideration of fifty percent of the total reclaimed land. On April 25, 1995 the PEA entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with AMARI to develop the Freedom Islands. This JVA was entered into through negotiation without public bidding. The Senate Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises, and the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, conducted a joint investigation. Among the conclusion are: that the reclaimed lands PEA seeks to transfer to AMARI under the JVA are lands of the public domain which the government has not classified as alienable lands and therefore PEA cannot alienate these lands, the certificates of the title covering the Freedom Islands are thus void, and the JVA itself is illegal. On December 5, 1997, President Ramos created a Legal Task Force to conduct a study on the legality of the JVA. The Task Force upheld the legality of the JVA, contrary to the conclusions of the Senate Committees. On April 27, 1998, Petitioner as taxpayer filed the instant petition for mandamus with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and TRO. Petitioner contends the government stands to lose billions of pesos in the sale by PEA of the reclaimed lands to AMARI. Petitioner prays that PEA publicly disclose the terms of any renegotiation of the JVA. Furthermore, petitioner assails the sale to AMARI of lands of the public domains as obvious violation of Sec 3, Art XII of the Constitution prohibiting the sale of alienable lands of the public domain to private corporations. Petitioner asserted that he seeks to enjoin the loss of billions of pesos in properties of the State that are of public dominion. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner has legal standing to bring the suit. Held: The petitioner has standing to bring the suit because the petition seeks to compel PEA to comply with its constitutional duties. These duties are particularly in answer of the right of citizens to information on matters of public concern, and of a constitutional provision intended to insure the equitable distribution of alienable lands of the public domain among Filipino citizens. Furthermore, the court considered that the petition raised matters of transcendental importance to the public. The mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right. Also, ordinary taxpayers have a right to initiate and prosecute actions questioning the validity of acts or orders of government agencies or instrumentalities if the issues raise are of paramount public interest and if they immediately affect the social, economic and moral well being of the people. The amended JVA does not make the issue moot and academic since this compels the court to insure the government itself does not violate a provision of the Constitution intended to safeguard the national patrimony. The content of the amended JVA seeks to transfer title and ownership of reclaimed lands to a single corporation. The court does not hesitate to resolve the legal or constitutional issues rose to formulate controlling principles to guide the bench, bar and the public. The instant case raises constitutional issues of transcendental importance to the public. Court can resolve this case without determining any factual issue related to the case. The instant case is a petition for mandamus which falls under the original jurisdiction of the Court. Furthermore, PEA was under a positive legal duty to disclose to the public the terms and conditions for the sale of its lands. The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply when the issue involved is purely legal or constitutional question. The right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations before a final agreement as required by the constitution. The Supreme Court granted the petition. PEA and Amari Coastal Bay Development Corporation are permanently enjoined from implementing the amended JVA which is hereby declared null and void ab initio. EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., vs. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENTADMINISTRATION (POEA) 166 SCRA 533, G.R. No. 76633, October 18, 1988 Petitioner: Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. Respondents: 1.Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)2.Minister of Labor and Employment3.Abdul Basar (Hearing Officer)4.Kathleen D. Saco Ponente:Cruz, J. Facts: Vitaliano Saco was Chief Officer of the M/V Eastern Polaris when he was killed in an accident in Tokyo, Japan on March 15, 1985. His widow sued for damages under Executive Order No. 797 and Memorandum Circular No. 2 of the POEA. The

petitioner, as owner of the vessel, argued that the complaint was cognizable not by the POEA but by the Social Security System and should have been filed against the State Fund Insurance. The POEA nevertheless assumed jurisdiction and after considering the position papers of the parties ruled in favor of the complainant. Issue: 1. Whether or not the POEA had jurisdiction over the case as the husband was not an overseasworker.2. Whether or not the validity of Memorandum Circular No. 2 itself as violative of the principle of non-delegation of legislative power Held: 1. Yes. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration was created under Executive Order No. 797, promulgated on May 1, 1982, to promote and monitor the overseas employment of Filipinos and to protect their rights. It replaced the National Seamen Board created earlier under Article 20 of the Labor Code in 1974. Under Section 4(a) of the said executive order, the POEA is vested with "original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases, including money claims, involving employeeemployer relations arising out of or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino contract workers, including seamen." These cases, according to the 1985Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment issued by the POEA, include, claims for death, disability and other benefits arising out of such employment. The award of P180,000.00 for death benefits and P12,000.00 for burial expenses was made by the POEA pursuant to its Memorandum Circular No. 2, which became effective on February 1,1984. This circular prescribed a standard contract to be adopted by both foreign and domestic shipping companies in the hiring of Filipino seamen for overseas employment.2. No. Memorandum Circular No. 2 is an administrative regulation. The model contract prescribed thereby has been applied in a significant number of the cases without challenge by the employer. The power of the POEA (and before it the National Seamen Board) in requiring the model contract is not unlimited as there is a sufficient standard guiding the delegate in the exercise of the said authority. That standard is discoverable in the executive order itself which, in creating the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, mandated it to protect the rights of overseas Filipino workers to "fair and equitable employment practices."GENERAL RULE: Non-delegation of powers; exception. It is true that legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be delegated. What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may be enforced, not what the law shall be. The ascertainment of the latter subject is a prerogative of the legislature. This prerogative cannot be abdicated or surrendered by the legislature to the delegate. There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative power, the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. Under the first test, the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate the only thing he will have to do is to enforce it. Under the sufficient standard test, there must be adequate guidelines or stations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegates authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authority to the delegate, who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and exercise a power essentially legislative. The delegation of legislative power has become the rule and its non-delegation the exception. Rationale for Delegation of Legislative Power-The reason is the increasing complexity of the task of government and the growing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the myriad problems demanding its attention. The growth of society has ramified its activities and created peculiar and sophisticated problems that the legislature cannot be expected to reasonably comprehend. Specialization even in legislation has become necessary. Too many of the problems attendant upon present-day undertakings, the legislature may not have the competence to provide the required direct and efficacious, not to say, specific solutions. These solutions may, however, be expected from its delegates, who are supposed to be experts in the particular fields. Power of Subordinate Legislation- The reasons given above for the delegation of legislative powers in general are particularly applicable to administrative bodies. With the proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant peculiar problems, the national legislature has found it more and more necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the authority to issue rules to carry out the general provisions of the statute. This is called the power of subordinate legislation. With this power, administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid down in statute by filling in the details which the Congress may not have the opportunity or competence to provide. Memorandum Circular No. 2 is one such administrative regulation. Administrative agencies are vested with two basic powers, the quasi-legislative and quasijudicial. The first enables them to promulgate implementing rules and regulations, and the second enables them to interpret and apply such regulations.

GARCIA V. COMELEC Sept. 30, 1994 FACTS: On May 24, 1993, petitioners filed a petition with the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong to annul

Pambansang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993 which includes the Municipality of Morong as part of the Subic Special Economic Zone in accord with the RA No. 7227. The municipality did not take any action on the petition within 30 days after its submission; so, they resorted to their power of initiative under the Local Government Code of 1991. They solicited the required number of signatures to repeal the said resolution. However, the Vice Mayor, Hon. Edilberto de Leon, and the Presiding Office of the Sangguniang Bayan ng Morong wrote a letter dated June 11, 1993 to deny the petition for local initiative and/or referendum.On July 6, 1993, the Comelec denied the petition for local initiative because its subject is merely a resolution and not an ordinance. ISSUE: w/n the Pambansang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993 is the proper subject of an initiative? Sub-issue: w/n the decision of the Comelec to deny the petition be set aside? HELD: The petition is granted and the decision of the Comelec on July 6, 1993 is annulled and set aside. RULING: The 1987 Constitution installed back the power to the people regarding legislation because of the event in February 1986. The new Constitution became less trusting of public officials. Through initiative, the people were given the power to amend the Constitution under Sec. 2 Art. 17 which provides amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least 12% of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the registered voter therein. The Comelec was also empowered to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an initiative and referendum. On Aug. 4, 1989, the Congress approved RA No. 6735 entitled An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum and Appropriating Funds Therefor. YES. Sec. 32 of Art. 6 provides the Congress shall provide for a system of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions there from, whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local legislative body. Under Sec. 32(a) of RA No. 6735 it provided the 3 systems of initiative, namely: 1. Initiative on the Constitution petition to amend the Constitution 2. Initiative on statutes petition proposing to enact a national legislation 3. Initiative on local legislation petition proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, or barangay law, resolution or ordinance Under its Sec.16(a), it provided the limitations on local initiatives, which is the power of local initiative shall not be exercised more than once a year.