V.

Delegation to Administrative Bodies

Specialization in legislature is necessary and
because:

There are too many problems

attendant
upon
present-day
undertakings,
The legislature may not have the
competence, interest and time to
provide the direct and efficacious
solutions.

Board, Bureau of Customs, Maritime

Industry Authority, Local Waters Utilities
Administration,)
Scope of Subordinate Legislation

With these reasons, the legislative has found

it more necessary to entrust to
administrative agencies the power of
subordinate legislation.

Exception: unless declared null and

void
Example: Implementing rules on the
Labor Code (Department of Labor
and Employment)

What is Subordinate Legislation?

It refers to a legislative instrument

made by an entity under a power
delegated to the entity by the
Congress.

It can be necessary for legislative power to

be delegated for any of the following
reasons:

To
Congress time

The legislation is too

technical or detailed to be suitable for
the Congress consideration

To deal with rapidly changing

or uncertain situations

To allow for swift action in

the case of an emergency.

save

pressure

on

Note: Administrative bodies refer to

principal agencies tasked to execute laws in
their specialized fields (example: Land
Transportation Franchising Regulatory

Supplementary regulations- with this

power, the administrative bodies may
implement the broad policies laid down
in a statute by filling in the details
which the Congress may not have the
competence to provide
- These regulations have the force and
effect of law

Contingent Regulations- it is issued

pursuant to a delegation to determine
some fact or state of things upon
which enforcement of law depends.
They are allowed to ascertain the
existence of particular contingencies
and on the basis thereof enforce or
suspend the operation of a law.
It also has the force and effect of law.
Illustration:
1) Cruz vs Youngberg
-The law involved in this case
prohibits the entry of cattle into the
country of foreign cattle, which had
been determined by the Philippine
Legislature as the cause of an
epidemic that killed many of the
local livestock.
-The same law
Governor-General

authorized
to
lift

the
the

prohibition, with the consent of the

presiding officers of the law making
body, if he should ascertain after a
fact-finding investigation that there
was no longer any threat of
contagion from imported cattle.
Note: In this law, the conditions
were laid down (consent of the
legislature and the confirmation of a
fact-finding committee) before the
Governor-general can lift the
prohibition.
Validity of Administrative Regulation
1. It must be authorized by the
legislature;
2. It must be within the scope of
authority given by the legislature;
3. It must be promulgated in
accordance
with
prescribed
procedure and;
4. It must be reasonable

carried out or implemented by the

delegate.
Example of invalid delegation (in
connection with Completeness test)
-When the delegate has been given
opportunity to step into the shoes of
the legislature and to repair the gaps
in the law that will prevent its
enforcement unless they are first
filled.
Case:
1) United States v. Ang Tang Ho
Facts:

The Philippine Legislature (during

special session) passed and approved
Act No. 2868 entitled An Act
Penalizing the Monopoly and
Hoarding of Rice, Palay and Corn
that authorizes the Governor General
(GG),
during
extraordinary
circumstances, to issue the necessary
Rules and Regulations in regulating
the distribution of such products.

Pursuant to this Act, the GG

issued Executive Order No. 53 that
fixed the price at which rice should
be sold. On the other hand, Ang Tang
Ho, a rice dealer, sold a ganta of rice
to Pedro Trinidad at the price of
eighty centavos that was way higher
than that prescribed by the EO. He
was charged for violation of the said
EO.

He was found guilty as charged and

was sentenced to 5 months
imprisonment plus a P500.00 fine.

TESTS OF DELEGATION
There is still a question whether or not the
delegation has been validly made.
Requisites
of
Valid
Subordinate Legislation

Exercise

of

1. That the regulation be germane to the

objects and purposes of the law and;
2. The regulation should not be in
contradiction to, but in conformity
with, standards prescribed by law.
THE COMPLETENESS TEST

A law is complete when it sets forth

therein the policy to be executed,

authority by (1) defining the

legislative policy; (2) indicating
circumstance under which it is to
be pursued and effected and; (3)
specifies the public agency to
apply.
Purpose: To prevent a total
transference of legislative power
from the law making body to the
delegate.

He appealed the sentence countering

that there is an undue delegation of
power to the Governor General.

Issue:
Whether or not there is undue
delegation to the Governor General.
Held:

Anent the issue of undue delegation,

the said Act wholly fails to provide
definitely and clearly what the
standard policy should contain, that
it could be put in use as a uniform
policy required to take the place of
all others without the determination
of the insurance commissioner in
respect to matters involving the
exercise of a legislative discretion
that could not be delegated, and
without which the act could not
possibly be put in use.

The law did not provide the

parameters
of
extraordinary
circumstances
that
will
be
determined by the Governor General
and the necessary rules and
regulations that will be issued.

The law must be complete in all its

terms and provisions when it leaves
the legislative branch of the
government and nothing must be left
to the judgment of the electors or
other appointee or delegate of the
legislature.

Sufficient standard is usually indicated in

the law delegating legislative power.
Illustrations:

In People v Rosenthal, the Blue Sky

law required the National Treasurer
to cancel certificates for the sale of
the speculative securities whenever
necessary in the public interest

In Cervantes v. Auditor General,

under R.A. No. 51, the President of
the Philippines was authorized to
reorganize government-owned or
controlled corporations for the
purpose of promoting simplicity,
economy and efficiency in their
operations

Other accepted standards are:

justice and equity;

the sense and experience of men
and;
national security.

Cases:
THE SUFFICIENT STANDARD TEST
-

It is intended to map out the

boundaries
of
the
delegates

1) Hirabayashi v United States

Facts:

The petitioner challenged the

regulation establishing curfew hours
for Niseis (American Citizens of
Japanese ancestry), during World
War I. He claimed that the rule was
invalidly delegated legislative power,
there being no sufficient standard
mentioned in the pertinent law to
limit the delegates discretion.

administrative bodies endowed with

power to determine when the Act
shall take effect in their respective
provinces.

Held:
The U.S Supreme Court held that
national security served as the
sufficient standard of the assailed
rule. The proclamations themselves
followed a standard authorized by
the Executive Order for the necessity
of protecting military resources in
the
designated
areas
against
espionage and sabotage.

3) Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate court

Facts:

There had been an existing law

which prohibited the slaughtering of
carabaos (EO 626) and to strengthen
the law, President Marcos issued EO
626-A which not only banned the
movement of carabaos from province
to province but the movement of
carabeef as well

Ynot was caught transporting 6

carabaos from Masbate to Iloilo and
was then charged in violation of EO
626-A. He argued that the authority
provided by EO 626-A to confiscate
carabaos even without being heard
is unconstitutional. The lower court
ruled against Ynot ruling that the EO
is a valid exercise of police power in
order to promote general welfare so
as to curb down the indiscriminate
slaughter of carabaos.

2) People v. Vera

Supreme Court found the old

Probation Act unconstitutional being
violative of the equal protection
clause and an invalid delegation of
legislative power for lack of
sufficient standard because it was
made to depend upon an act to be
done by the provincial board of the
provinces to appropriate funds for
the salary of a probation officer.
If the provincial board makes the
appropriation, the Probation Act is
applicable in that province and if it
does not, the law is not applicable
therein. For purposes of the
Probation Act, the provincial boards
may
thus
be
regarded
as

However the law does not lay down

any rule or standard to guide the
provincial boards in the exercise of
their discretionary power. The
applicability and application of the
Probation Act are entirely placed in
the hands of the provincial boards
with no standard or rule to guide
them. This is virtual surrender of
legislative power to them.

Held (in
standard):

connection

with

The President may by

executive order define the
boundary
xxx
of
any
xxx municipality xxx and
may change
the seat
of
government
within
any
subdivision to such place
therein as the public welfare
may require xxx

sufficient

The law provides that the seized

property shall be distributed to
charitable institutions and other
similar institutions as the Chairman
of the National Meat Inspection
Commission may see fit (Emphasis
supplied).

The phrase may see fit can result

to ambiguity and can be seen as an
opportunity for partiality, abuse, and
even corruption.

The reasonable guidelines and

limitations of the officers are not
specified and their options are
apparently boundless. Then who
shall be the fortunate beneficiaries of
their generosity and by what criteria
shall they be chosen? Only the
officers named can supply the
answer, they and they alone may
choose the grantee as they see fit,
and in their own exclusive discretion.

The then Vice President Emmanuel

Pelaez, as a taxpayer, filed a
special civil action to prohibit the
auditor general from disbursing
funds to be appropriated for the said
municipalities claiming that the EOs
were
unconstitutional
because
Section 68 of the RAC had been
impliedly repealed by Section 3 of
RA 2370 which provides that barrios
may not be created or their
boundaries altered nor their names
changed except by Act of Congress.

Pelaez argues: If the President,

under this new law, cannot even
create a barrio, how can he create a
municipality which is composed of
several barrios, since barrios are
units of municipalities?

The Auditor General countered that

there was no repeal and that only
barrios were barred from being
created by the President and
municipalities are exempted from the
inhibition and therefore the President
can create a municipality and
furthermore, it was maintained
Congress has delegated such power
to create municipalities to the
President through Sec. 68 of the
RAC.

THE PELAEZ CASE (EMMANUEL

PELAEZ V. AUDITOR GENERAL)
Facts:

In 1964, President Ferdinand Marcos

issued executive orders creating 33
municipalities this was purportedly
pursuant to Section 68 of the Revised
Administrative Code which provides
in part:

Issue:

Whether or not Congress has

delegated the power to create barrios
to the President by virtue of Sec. 68
of the RAC.

welfare may require is present,

such will not replace the standard
needed for a proper delegation of
power.

In the first place, what the phrase as

the public welfare may require is
properly
interpreted
as
the
President may change the seat of
government within any subdivision
to such place therein as the public
welfare may require. Only the seat
of government may be changed by
the President when public welfare so
requires and NOT the creation of
municipality.

The Supreme Court declared that the

power to create municipalities is
legislative
in
character
not
administrative and not executive.

Held:

No, the Congress did not delegate

the power to create municipalities to
the President by virtue of Sec. 68 of
the RAC. Although Congress may
delegate to another branch of the
government the power to fill in the
details in the execution, enforcement
or administration of a law, it is
essential, to forestall a violation of
the principle of separation of powers,
that said law:
(a) be complete in itself it must
set forth therein the policy to be
executed,
carried
out
or
implemented by the delegate
and
(b) fix a standard the limits of
which are sufficiently determinate
or determinable to which the
delegate must conform in the
performance of his functions.
- In this case, Sec. 68 lacked any
such standard. Indeed, without a
statutory declaration of policy, and
without the aforementioned standard,
there would be no means to
determine, with reasonable certainty,
whether the delegate has acted
within or beyond the scope of his
authority.

Further, although Sec. 68 provides

the qualifying clause as the public
welfare may require which
would mean that the President may
exercise such power as the public

In this case, the Government invoked the

earlier case of Cardona v Binangonan
where the power of the Governor-General to
transfer from one municipality to another
was sustained. The Supreme Court upheld
Pelaez and ruled that the completeness test
and the sufficient standard test which had
been applied alternatively, must be applied
together or currently.
In connection with the Pelaez case, the
Supreme Court similarly ruled in Bureau of
Customs Employees Association v. Teves
that the two tests determine the validity of
the delegation.

These tests were fully satisfied by

R.A. No. 9335 (An Act To Improve
The
Revenue
Collection
Performance Of The Bureau Of

Internal Revenue (BIR) And The

Bureau Of Customs (BOC) Through
The Creation Of A Rewards And
Incentives Fund And Of A Revenue
Performance Evaluation Board And
For Other Purposes) as evident in
Sections 2, 4 and 7 thereof.
Section 2. Declaration of Policy. It is
the policy of the State to optimize the
revenue-generation
capability
and
collection of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs
(BOC) by providing for a system of
rewards and sanctions through the
creation of a Rewards and Incentives
Fund and a Revenue Performance
Evaluation Board in the above agencies
for the purpose of encouraging their
officials and employees to exceed their
revenue targets.
Section 4. Rewards and Incentives
Fund. A rewards and Incentives Fund,
hereinafter referred to as the Fund, is
hereby created, to be sourced from the
collection of the BIR and the BOC in
excess of their respective revenue targets
of the year, as determined by the
Development Budget and Coordinating
Committee (DBCC), in the following
percentages xxx

Section 7. Powers and Functions of the

Board. the Board in the agency shall
have the following powers and functions:
(a) To prescribe the rules and guidelines
for the allocation, distribution and release
of the fund due to the agency as provided
for in Sections 4 and 5 of this
Act: Provided, that the rewards under this
Act may also take the form of
nonmonetary benefits;
(b) To set the criteria and procedures for
removing from service officials and
employees whose revenue collection falls
short of the target by at least seven and a
half
percent
(7.5%),
with
due
consideration of all relevant factors
affecting the level of collection as
provided in the rules and regulations
promulgated under this Act, subject to
civil service laws, rules and regulations
and compliances with substantive and
procedural due process: Provided, That
the following exemptions shall apply xxxx

In sum, the court finds R.A no. 9335 as

complete in all essential terms and
conditions and that it contains sufficient
standards as to negate BOCEAs
supposition of undue delegation of
legislative power to the board.