5.PELAEZ VS.

AUDITOR GENERAL

FACTS: Pursuant to Sec. 68 of Revised Administrative Code the President issued executive orders creating 33 municipa ities. Petitioner as !ice" President and a taxpa#er fi ed a specia civi action in prohi$iting the respondent Auditor %enera and his representatives and agents from passing an# audit and expenditures of pu$ ic funds or an# dis$ursement to said municipa ities. Petitioner a eged that said executive orders are nu and void on the ground that said Sec. 68 has $een repea ed $# RA &o. '3() and constitutes an undue de egation of egis ative po*er. +hen said a* *as in effect, $arrios ma# not $e created or their $oundaries $e a tered nor their name change except $# act of congress or of corresponding provincia $oard upon petition of a ma-orit# of the voters in the areas affected and recommendation of the counci of the municipa it# of municipa ities in *hich the proposed $arrio is situated. Petitioner argues that if the President under the ne* a* cannot create a $arrio, can he create a municipa it# *hich is composed of severa $arrios, since $arrios are units of municipa it#. Respondent ans*ered in affirmative, upon the theor# that a ne* municipa it# can $e created *ithout creating ne* $arrios. Such as $# p acing o d $arrios under the -urisdiction of the ne* municipa it#. The said respondent find the argument of the petitioner has no force $ecause such po*er of the president cannot $e off"set except $# a c ear manifestation of the intent of the congress to the contrar# $# the su$se/uent passage of RA '3(0.

1SS23: +4& Sec. 68 of the Revised Administrative Code and issuance of 3xecutive 4rders sha $e considered as undue de egation of egis ative po*er.

5367: A though Congress ma# de egate to another $ranch of the %overnment

the po*er to fi in the detai s in the execution, enforcement or administration of a a*, it is essentia to foresta a vio ation of the princip e of separation of po*ers, that said a* a.8 $e comp ete in itse f, it must set forth therein the po ic# to $e executed, carried out or imp emented $# the de egate and $.8 fix a standard , the imits of *hich are sufficient # determinate or determina$ e to *hich the de egate must conform in the performance of his functions. 1ndeed *ithout a statutor# dec aration of po ic#, the de egate *ou d in effect ma9e or formu ate such po ic#, *hich is the essence of ever# a* and *ithout the aforementioned standard, there *ou d $e no means to determine *ith reasona$ e certaint# *hether the de egate has acted *ithin or $e#ond the scope of his authorit#. Sec. 68 of RAC does not meet these *e sett ed re/uirement for a va id de egation of the po*er to fix the detai s in the enforcement of a a*. 1t does not enunciate an# po ic# to $e carried out or imp emented $# the president. &either does it give a standard sufficient # precise to avoid evi effects a$oved referred to.