Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2


POEA FACTS: The private respondent in this case was awarded the sum of P192,000.00 by the Philippine Overseas Employment dministration !POE " for the death of her husband. The decision is challen#ed by the petitioner on the principal #round that the POE had no $urisdiction over the case as the husband was not an overseas wor%er. &italiano 'aco was (hief Officer of the )*& Eastern Polaris when he was %illed in an accident in To%yo, +apan. ,is widow sued for dama#es under E-ecutive Order .o. /9/ and )emorandum (ircular .o. 2 of the POE . The petitioner, as owner of the vessel, ar#ued that the complaint was co#ni0able not by the POE but by the 'ocial 'ecurity 'ystem and should have been filed a#ainst the 'tate 1nsurance 2und. The POE nevertheless assumed $urisdiction and after considerin# the position papers of the parties ruled in favor of the complainant. The award consisted of P130,000.00 as death benefits and P12,000.00 for burial e-penses. The petitioner immediately came to this (ourt, promptin# the 'olicitor 4eneral to move for dismissal on the #round of non5e-haustion of administrative remedies. The award of P130,000.00 for death benefits and P12,000.00 for burial e-penses was made by the POE pursuant to its )emorandum (ircular .o. 2, which became effective on 2ebruary 1, 1936. This circular prescribed a standard contract to be adopted by both forei#n and domestic shippin# companies in the hirin# of 2ilipino seamen for overseas employment. similar contract had earlier been re7uired by the .ational 'eamen 8oard and had been sustained in a number of cases by this (ourt. The petitioner claims that it had never entered into such a contract with the deceased 'aco, but that is hardly a serious ar#ument. 1n the first place, it should have done so as re7uired by the circular, which specifically declared that 9all parties to the employment of any 2ilipino seamen on board any ocean5#oin# vessel are advised to adopt and use this employment contract effective 01 2ebruary 1936 and to desist from usin# any other format of employment contract effective that date.9 1n the second place, even if it had not done so, the provisions of the said circular are nevertheless deemed written into the contract with 'aco as a postulate of the police power of the 'tate. Petitioner 7uestions the validity of )emorandum (ircular .o. 2 itself as violative of the principle of non5dele#ation of le#islative power. 1t contends that no authority had been #iven the POE to promul#ate the said re#ulation: and even with such authori0ation, the re#ulation represents an e-ercise of le#islative discretion which, under the principle, is not sub$ect to dele#ation. ISSUE: ;hether or not POE has $urisdiction over the case. HELD: The authority to issue the said re#ulation is clearly provided in 'ection 6!a" of E-ecutive Order .o. /9/, readin# as follows< ... The #overnin# 8oard of the dministration !POE ", as hereunder provided shall promul#ate the necessary rules and re#ulations to #overn the e-ercise of the ad$udicatory functions of the dministration !POE ". 'imilar authori0ation had been #ranted the .ational 'eamen 8oard, which, as earlier observed, had itself prescribed a standard shippin# contract substantially the same as the format adopted by the POE . The second challen#e is more serious as it is true that le#islative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be dele#ated. ;hat can be dele#ated is the discretion to determine how the

law may be enforced, not what the law shall be. The ascertainment of the latter sub$ect is a prero#ative of the le#islature. This prero#ative cannot be abdicated or surrendered by the le#islature to the dele#ate. There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid dele#ation of le#islative power, vi0, the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. =nder the first test, the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the le#islature such that when it reaches the dele#ate the only thin# he will have to do is enforce it. 1> =nder the sufficient standard test, there must be ade7uate #uidelines or stations in the law to map out the boundaries of the dele#ate?s authority and prevent the dele#ation from runnin# riot. 8oth tests are intended to prevent a total transference of le#islative authority to the dele#ate, who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the le#islature and e-ercise a power essentially le#islative. The principle of non5dele#ation of powers is applicable to all the three ma$or powers of the 4overnment but is especially important in the case of the le#islative power because of the many instances when its dele#ation is permitted. The occasions are rare when e-ecutive or $udicial powers have to be dele#ated by the authorities to which they le#ally certain. 1n the case of the le#islative power, however, such occasions have become more and more fre7uent, if not necessary. This had led to the observation that the dele#ation of le#islative power has become the rule and its non5dele#ation the e-ception. ;ith the proliferation of speciali0ed activities and their attendant peculiar problems, the national le#islature has found it more and more necessary to entrust to administrative a#encies the authority to issue rules to carry out the #eneral provisions of the statute. This is called the 9power of subordinate le#islation.9 ;ith this power, administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid down in a statute by 9fillin# in? the details which the (on#ress may not have the opportunity or competence to provide. This is effected by their promul#ation of what are %nown as supplementary re#ulations, such as the implementin# rules issued by the @epartment of Aabor on the new Aabor (ode. These re#ulations have the force and effect of law. )emorandum (ircular .o. 2 is one such administrative re#ulation. The model contract prescribed thereby has been applied in a si#nificant number of the cases without challen#e by the employer. The power of the POE !and before it the .ational 'eamen 8oard" in re7uirin# the model contract is not unlimited as there is a sufficient standard #uidin# the dele#ate in the e-ercise of the said authority. That standard is discoverable in the e-ecutive order itself which, in creatin# the Philippine Overseas Employment dministration, mandated it to protect the ri#hts of overseas 2ilipino wor%ers to 9fair and e7uitable employment practices.9 One last challen#e of the petitioner must be dealt with to close t case. 1ts ar#ument that it has been denied due process because the same POE that issued )emorandum (ircular .o. 2 has also sustained and applied it is an uninformed criticism of administrative law itself. dministrative a#encies are vested with two basic powers, the 7uasi5le#islative and the 7uasi5$udicial. The first enables them to promul#ate implementin# rules and re#ulations, and the second enables them to interpret and apply such re#ulations. E-amples abound< the 8ureau of 1nternal Bevenue ad$udicates on its own revenue re#ulations, the (entral 8an% on its own circulars, the 'ecurities and E-chan#e (ommission on its own rules, as so too do the Philippine Patent Office and the &ideo#ram Be#ulatory 8oard and the (ivil eronautics dministration and the @epartment of .atural Besources and so on ad infinitum on their respective administrative re#ulations. 'uch an arran#ement has been accepted as a fact of life of modern #overnments and cannot be considered violative of due process as lon# as the cardinal ri#hts laid down by +ustice Aaurel in the landmar% case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations are observed.Thus, petition is dismissed, with costs a#ainst the petitioner.