Subject: Constitutional Law1

Topic: Separation of Powers

Title: Pangasinan Transport Co. vs. Public Service Commission
Citation: GR NO. 47065, June 26, 1940

FACTS:
The petitioner has been engaged for the past twenty years in the business of transporting
passengers in the Province of Pangasinan and Tarlac and, to a certain extent, in the
Province of Nueva Ecija and Zambales, by means of motor vehicles commonly known as
TPU buses, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the certificates of public
convenience issued in its favor by the former Public Utility Commission, the petitioner
filed with the Public Service Commission an application for authorization to operate ten
additional new Brockway trucks (case No. 56641), on the ground that they were needed
to comply with the terms and conditions of its existing certificates and as a result of the
application of the Eight Hour Labor Law.
Not being agreeable to the two new conditions thus incorporated in its existing
certificates, the petitioner filed on October 9, 1939 a motion for reconsideration which
was denied by the Public Service Commission on November 14, 1939. Whereupon, on
November 20, 1939, the present petition for a writ of certiorari was instituted in this court
praying that an order be issued directing the secretary of the Public Service Commission
to certify forthwith to this court the records of all proceedings in case No. 56641; that this
court, after hearing, render a decision declaring section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 454
unconstitutional and void; that, if this court should be of the opinion that section 1 of
Commonwealth Act No. 454 is constitutional, a decision be rendered declaring that the
provisions thereof are not applicable to valid and subsisting certificates issued prior to
June 8, 1939.
Pantranco filed with the Public Service Commission (PSC) an application to operate 10
additional buses. PSC granted the application with 2 additional conditions which was
made to apply also on their existing business. Pantranco filed a motion for
reconsideration with the Public Service Commission. Since it was denied, Pantranco then
filed a petition/ writ of certiorari.

ISSUES:
Whether the legislative power granted to Public Service Commission:
- is unconstitutional and void because it is without limitation
- constitutes undue delegation of powers

HELD: SC held that there was valid delegation of powers.

The theory of the separation of powers is designed by its originators to secure action at
the same time forestall overaction which necessarily results from undue concentration of
powers and thereby obtain efficiency and prevent deposition. But due to the growing
complexity of modern life, the multiplication of subjects of governmental regulation and
the increased difficulty of administering laws, there is a constantly growing tendency
toward the delegation of greater powers by the legislature, giving rise to the adoption,
within certain limits, of the principle of subordinate legislation.
All that has been delegated to the Commission is the administrative function, involving
the use of discretion to carry out the will of the National Assembly having in view, in
addition, the promotion of public interests in a proper and suitable manner.

The challenged provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 454 are valid and constitutional
because it is a proper delegation of legislative power, so called Subordinate
Legislation. It is a valid delegation because of the growing complexities of modern
government, the complexities or multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulation
and the increased difficulty of administering the laws. All that has been delegated to the
Commission is the administrative function, involving the use of discretion to carry out the
will of the National Assembly having in view, in addition, the promotion of public
interests in a proper and suitable manner.

The Certificate of Public Convenience is neither a franchise nor contract, confers no

property rights and is a mere license or privilege, subject to governmental control for the
good of the public. PSC has the power, upon notice and hearing, to amend, modify, or
revoked at any time any certificate issued, whenever the facts and circumstances so
warranted. The limitation of 25 years was never heard, so the case was remanded to PSC
for further proceedings.

In addition, the Court ruled that, the liberty and property of the citizens should be
protected by the rudimentary requirements of fair play. Not only must the party be given
an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights
that he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. When private
property is affected with a public interest, it ceased to be juris privati or private use only.