Gutierrez v DBM
others, of this bank trans fund ?? now the
Before the provisions of the IRR as well as the NCC may
be given effect, acknowledged here, there is a purpose
for the delegation of legislative powers to administrative
bodies. As a general rule, dili nimo na sya pwede
mahatag because it is already delegated to the Congress,
and the Congress cannot further delegate it, but
considering that constructions (?) whatever, have been
modernized, the Court recognize that it has become a
necessity in modern governments because of the
increasing propensity and variety of public functions. So
it acknowledged that pwede ni buhaton sa isa ka agency,
to clarify, the law provides as long a there is a
clarification in the IRR or any issuances consistent with
the provisions of the law, but the power to promulgate
the IRR is limited with what the law provides. It cannot
extend the law or expand its privilege, it cannot amend
the law or add to it because the power to do that
belongs to the legislature.
Now the Court said here that the NCC was validly
promulgated, it is consistent with the provisions of the
law particularly Sc. 12. there is no need also for the
publication of the IRR in this case.
Now what about the argument na dili sya katong sa mga
enumerated by the DBM? The Court said here that until
and unless the DBM issue such rules, tama lang na
katong mga compensation na wala na-enumerate sa law
as excluded, they are deemed included. Among those is
the COLA, it was not among the items that were
excluded so they are deemed included. COLA here is
already incorporated in the Standardized Salary Law
under the general rule of integration.
So here the Court said that the NCC did not go beyond
the law, so it is valid.
COCOFED V REPUBLIC
RA 6263 was enacted and it created the Coconut
Investment Fund, the fund will be sourced from a levy
of .55 cents from sale of every 100kgs of copra. Who
administers this fund? The PCA. It was tasked to collect
and administer the funds. The procedure was that
cocofund receipts were to be issued by every copra seller
and there was an issue here as to who should be the
recipient.
So we have PD 755, through this they were able to
determine kung sino ang pwede mahatagan ug stock
certificates in exchange of the benefit under this fund.
The purpose of this fund is to alleviate daw the lives of
our coconut farmers. Now it was discovered that the
party controlling the fund here was a crony of the
Marcoses. So when the EDSA happened, gihimo ning
PCGG to determine the corruptibility of the Marcoses
and it was found out that PCA and the bank na involved
diri, UCPB were cronies of the Marcoses. So nagfile ug
case before the Sandiganbayan for the recovery of
ill-gotten wealth because of the mismanagement, among
Sandiganbayan declared unconstitutional the Sec 1 of PD
755. it argued that this section constitute an undue
delegation of legislative power because it authorizes the
PCA to promulgate rules and regulations in the
distribution of UCPB shares to coconut farmers. It was
argued that mali ang ruling sa Sandiganbayan because
according to them, the UCPB and the cronies, the
provision was complete itself and it also has sufficient
standards.
So is Sec 1 of PD 755 an invalid delegation of power? The
court said that it is. Why? Again as a general rule the
Congress cannot delegate its legislative power but it can
do so under certain circumstances. Among others, if
permitted by the constitution and administrative bodies
issuing IRRs to implement the law. Now, what are the
tests that have to be met in order to determine whether
there is a valid delegation of power? We have the
sufficient standards test and the completeness test.
Before you can delegate legislative power, the law itself
must be complete and it must lay down a specific
standard so that the entity to produce the IRR or
whatever guideline will be guided, will be limited by the
law itself. So a law is complete when it sets forth a policy
to be executed, to be carried out, to be implemented
and it lays down a sufficient standard when it provides
adequate guidelines, limitation in the law, to map out
the boundaries on how it delegates its authority and
prevent the delegation from running riot.
The court said that Sec 1 of PD 755 did not succeed on
both tests. PD 755 does not even state who are to be
considered as coconut farmers. The definition of a
coconut farmer on the basis of the number of shares he
is entitled to receive for free are important variables to
be determined by the law, it cant be that of the
implementing agency. So the law here does not define
ho a o o ut fa e is…. so that ala pa aka lay do
ang limitation. Also, PD 755 did not identify any clear
condition as to how the distribution of UCPB shares or
the conversion into private ownership will redound to
the advancement of the national policy declared under it.
The court reminded those cronies here that the purpose
of the law is to help the coconut industry. But here, it
was found out that this law, instead of doing that, it
actually gave away public funds to private individuals. So
the priv individuals who own the UCPB shares of transfer
are free to dispose of them by sale and any other mode.
In other words, there is no control kung kinsa makakuha
sa shares and kung kinsa man mamakuha, free nila
ibaligya so nawala tong purpose sa law which is to help
the coconut industry.
PD 755 did not provided for any guideline, standard or
condition by which the share is given to the coconut
farmers as to ensure the acceleration of the
development of the coconut industry. So this law
because wala syay standard, it granted the PCA cart
blanche authority to distribute the farmers’ UCPB shares
at a level it may determine. So wala sya kabalo, wala
syay guideline from the law itself kung asa maadto ang
funds. And because this provision gave rise to certain
administrative orders and resolutions, those are also
considered with no effect because they lack the clear
mandate or instruction under the law.
Any delegation of power to implement that provision is
an undue delegation of legislative power.
COMM V HYPERMIX
Comm issued CN 27-2003 and this CN classified wheat
as… the CN as halle ged e ause it as a gued that it
was issued without the required publication under the
Revised Administrative Code. And also, among others, it
violates the non-delegation of legislative power.
Th RTC here declared the CN as void because the basic
requirement of publication was not complied with. There
is a requirement under the RAC that certain circulars,
administrative rules to be published and for them to take
effect. Here, it was not followed said the trial court.
So is the order or the issuance here valid?
It is invalid. The requirement of publication, the court
discussed here, since the regulation affects substantive
rights, it follows that the issuance should have followed
the requirements under the RAC, among others, the
filing of this issuance with the UP Law Center. Aside from
that, kailangan nimo ipublish and circulate the notice in
order to give the (interested parties?) the opportunity to
submit their views prior to the adoption of the rules. So
these requirements are required by the RAC, particularly
here because it involves substantive rights.
Now what about interpretative administrative rules? The
court said that insofar interpretative administrative rules
are concerned (which do not affect substantive rights),
there is no need for the filing and publication for their
validity. However, if the administrative rules goes
beyond merely providing for the means and facility or at
least render cumbersome (??) implementation of the law,
or it increases substantially the burden, then it has to
follow the requirements under the RAC.
Since here, the administrative law belongs to the second
category, katong naay involved na substantive rights,
and wala nafollow ang requirements under the RAC, the
same is considered to be with no effect and the
delegation must be struck down.
How did this violate the undue delegation of legislative
power? Under the tariffs and customs law, the
commissioner of customs is mandated, he has the duty
to determine whether the package is consigned or
designated for examination, etc. Now this issuance, on
the other hand, that provision of the law mandates the
customs officer, must first assess and determine the
classification of the article before tariffs may be imposed.
Unfortunately here, the issuance has already classified
the article even before the customs officer had the
chance to examine them. So it went beyond law, it
prevented the officer to do his work kay naa na syay
instant classification. In other words, it diminished the
powers given by the tariffs and customs law.
So in order to be valid, again, the regulations must
include the parameters of the law, but here the issuance,
it went beyond that.
VIVAS V MONETARY BOARD
There is a close now-pay later policy made by the Central
Bank Monetary Board. Here, the Rural bank was
mismanaged and so it was placed under receivership.
And eventually, it was found out by the monetary board
that this bank should be prohibited doing business in the
Philippines, because its assets, it appears, are under
receivership, etc. Now this bank went to the court in
order to enjoin the resolution by the Central Bank,
because according to them niclose na sila before pa sila
gihatagan chance to recover. So here the court clarified
that this close now-pay later policy is a valid policy for
banks. The board has the power to take over banks
without need of a prior hearing. So there’s a practical
basis for that, because kung hatagan nimog time ang
bank to explain their side, it would give them the time to
sell all its asset and prejudice its depositors. And the MB
is clearly given power by law, under RA 7653 to do
exactly that. This MB has been vested with more power
to…a a k u de e ei e ship fo i sol e y e ause the
bank’s continuance in business would probably result to
a loss for depositors or creditors.
Now it is argued daw that the provision, Sec. 30 of RA
7653 is unconstitutional because it is an invalid
delegation of legislative powers. It granted the MB a
broad and unrestrained power to place a financially
troubled bank under receivership. The court said that
this is wrong. First of all, this a mere collateral attack to
the unconstitutionality of a law. According to the court,
there is no undue delegation of legislative powers here
because the provision giving the MB the power for the
close now-pay later passes the completeness test and
the sufficient standard test. To address the ongoing
concern in the banking industry, the legislature has
sufficiently empowered the MB to effectively supervise
banks and financial institutions and when circumstances
warrant forbid them do business, to take over their
management or to place them under receivership, and
this power is spelled out clearly under the law. Therefore
the MB is given wide discretion as to how the law should
be implemented in order to attain its objective to
protect the interest of the public.
BELGICA V OCHOA
Why does the PDAF violate the non-delegation of
legislative power? Again, legislative power is lodged in
the Congress as a body, not in the individual legislators.
The court enumerated here certain exceptions to the
rule on non-delegation:
1. delegation to local governments; it is specifically
stated in the Constitution
2. Sanction by jurisprudence, the practice of
administrative bodies to promulgate their own rules and
regulations.
3. subordinate legislation for administrative regulations
in order to promote the public interest because of the
growing complexity of life
Here, the PDAF, the 2013 PDAF article violates the
non-delegation of legislative power because it confers
post-enactment identification authority to legislators
because these legislators were allowed to individually
exercise the power of appropriation, this power of
appropriation is lodged in the Congress, not in the
individual congressmen
So is appropriation anyway? The power of appropriation
involves the setting apart, by law, of certain sum of
public revenue and for a specified purpose. what did the
2013 PDAF do? It gave individual legislators personal
lump-sum fund from which they are able to determine
how much from the fund which will go to specific
projects or beneficiaries thereof. So in other words, the
individual legislators will be exercising the power of
appropriation, which is can only be done by the Congress
as a whole.
DISINI V DOJ
This involves the Cybercrime Act. There is an argument
here that certain provisions of the law are
unconstitutional because it invalidly delegated legislative
power to the cybercrime investigation and coordination
center because it has given the power to formulate a
national cyber security plan, and the provision under the
law, walay sufficient standard and parameters for this
coordinating center to follow. Are they correct? The
Court said that the law passes the 2 tests. The court said
here that the cybercrime law is complete in itself and it
directed this coordinating center to formulate and
implement a national cyber security plan. The law also
gives sufficient standard for the said center to follow, it
provided for the definition of cyber security.
What are the exceptions to the non-delegation doctrine?
We have those specifically stated in the Constitution.
There is a valid delegation to the President under Art. 6,
Sec. 23 par. 2 and Sec. 28 par. 2. in Section 23, this
involves the power of the Pres, in times of war and other
emergencies, the Congress may, by law, authorize the
Pres for a limited period and subject to certain
restrictions, to exercise power necessary to carry out the
declared national policy. It can be withdrawn by a
resolution of the Congress, such power shall cease upon
the next adjournment of the Congress.
In Sec 28, taxation. Congress may, by law, authorize the
Pres, fixed with specified limits and subject to the
limitations a d est i tio s as ay e i posed … so take
note the tariffs and customs law.
Another exception, there is delegation to pass to the
people, consistent with the power of initiative in Sec 32,
Art. 6. The Congress shall, as soons as possible, provide
for a system of initiative and referendum where the
people can directly propose and enact laws, or approve
or reject ay act or law passed by the Congress or a local
legislative body. So we are empowered, provided that
we comply with rthe law passed by Congress, law is RA
6736 (Initiative and Referendum Act).
What is the difference between an initiative and a
referendum?
An initiative is the power of the people to propose bills
and laws, and to enact or reject them, independent of
the Congress. It is the rightful rule (??) of the citizen to
introduce a matter of the legislation either to the
legislature or directly to the voters.
A referendum on the other hand is the right of the
people to adopt or reject an act or means which has
been passed by a legislative body. And in most cases,
hi h ould e … o the pa t of the ele to s e o es
the law.
Finally, the exception for LGUs provided for under the
Constitution. The power to create, divide, abolish, merge
or substatially alter boundaries of provinces, cities and
municipalities or barangays are essentially legislative in
nature but the Constitution allow the delegation of such
power under Art 10, Sec 10, as long as the criteria
prescribed in the Local Government Code in the abolition,
etc. of boundaries is approved by a majority of votes in a
plebiscite held for that purpose.
UMALI V COMELEC
There was a Sangguniang Panlungsod resolution passed
by Cabanatuan City requesting the Pres to declare a
portion of Cabanatuan City, the component city of the
province of Nueva Ecija to be a highly urbanized City. So
gusto niya to get out of the province and be independent.
In response, the Pres issued a presidential proclamation
to subject that proposal to a ratificationin in a plebiscite
by the ualified voters therein. So this was acted upon by
the COMELEC and they conducted a plebiscite, but the
COMELEC limited it to the registered residents of
Cabanatuan City. Of course the province of Nueva Ecija,
through its Governor, contested this because dili man
lang Cabanatuan City ang maapektohan but also th
neighboring provinces. It directly affects the mother
province of Nueva Ecija so you do not limit the plebiscite
to the city but also to the localities which would be
affected.
The court said here that the governor is correct. Here,
there is a valid delegation of power because it is stated
in the Constitution. And we also have a provision under
the LGC.
So what was wrong here was the interpretation of the
term political units affected . it was determined that
the plebiscite should not have been limited to the city of
Cabanatuan because dili man lang kamo ang affected.
The e Cou t said he e that the … y the ualified ote s
therein made the LGC to meet the qualified voters not
only in the city proposed to be converted into highly
urbanized city but also the political units directly affected
by that conversion (I rly cant undertsand what he said
here, sorry :(). and so dapat giinclude ang mga
neighboring localities sa plebiscite kung musugot ba sila
sa conversion.
We also discussed before that though the Congress has
plenary powers to enact laws, there are limitations, the
procedural and the substantive. And substantive
limitations may be implicit or explicit. Explicit limitations
are found in the constitution, there are also implied
substantive limitations. One of that is the passage of
irrepealable laws. Why is it prohibited? It deprives
succeeding legislatures of the fundamental vast senses
(??) in enacting laws appropriate for the .. belief. In other
words it diminished the power of subsequent congresses
because it limits the way a law can be repealed or
amended or modified. So it cannot be done, it cannot be
limited by its own enactment. It cannot bind future
legislature to a particular mode of repeal. It cannot
declare the vast intent of subsequent legislatures, or
effect subsequent legislations upon existing statutes.
We also have procedural limitations. These explicit
limitations are stated in Sec 26 to 27 of Art 6. there is a
procedure to be observed before a law can be passed.
Sec 26, every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace
only one subject as expressed in the title. This is the one
subject-one title rule. Dapat dili sya saksak sinagol.
In sec 26 par 2, no bill passed by either house shall
become a law unless it has passed 3 readings on
separate days (3 reading requirement), and printed
copies thereof in its final form shall be distributed among
its members 3 days before its passage except when the
Pres certifies the necessity of its immediate enactment
for a public emergency or calamity. And on the last
reading, no amendment shall be allowed and the vote
thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter.
Second provsion which provides for the procedure is if
the bill has already been passed by the congress, before
it becomes a law it shall be presented to the Pres (in Sec
27). If he approves the same, he shall sign it, otherwise
he shall veto it and return the same with his objections
to the house where it originated. The veto can be
overriden, if after such reconsideration, 2/3 of all the
members of such house (where it originate) shall agree
to pass the bill. It shall be sent together with the
objections to the other house, and if approved by 2/3 of
all the members of that house, it shall become a law.
Insofar as revenue, appropriation or tariff bills are
concerned, the Pres can veto particular items, not like an
ordinary law where he either rejects it or approves it, if it
involves appropriation, etc. Pwede nya I-item ang veto. It
is in Sec 27, par 2, the Pres shall have the power to veto
any particular item/s in an appropriation or tariff bill and
the veto shall not affect the other item/s he does not
object. Why is that the policy? Because for example, in
an appropriation bill, it is important, kailangan ug kwarta
so the govt could run and if the Pres, if ang iyaha lang
power is to reject it or not, then malisdan run ang govt
(whut). take note that this item veto is limited only to
revenue, tariff and appropriation bills.
ARROYO V DE VENECIA
There were amendments to the Natl Internal Revenue
Code by the passage of RA 8240 (?). in order to reconcile
the differences, there was a bicameral conference
committee and it reconciled the provisions of both
houses and after that a form was passed and subject to
deliberations and then there was a violation daw of
rules of parliamentary practice kay nagsabay silag storya
and the objection was not recognized. The law was
passed and signed by the Pres.
What was violated in this case? The court said it was the
internal rules of procedure of the house rather than the
constitutional requirment in the enactment of a law
particularly those enumerated in Sec 26 and 27. the
court said that the nature of internal rules, as a general
rule, does ot affect the validity of the law. These rules
are subject to revocation by a petition or waiver,
therefore mere failure to conform to parliamentary
usage will not invalidate an action taken by the
deliberative body. However there is an exception to this
rule, if it affect persons other than the members of the
legislative body, then the question becomes judicial in
character and this can be questioned because private
rights are now involved. In this case, wala may allegation
na ing ana, what was violated was merely internal rules
of the house so the court said that it does not affect the
validity of the law.
ABAKADA V PURISIMA
Law was challenged for being incomplete and for not
laying down sufficient standards for its implementation.
Section 7. there was a Board created here, a
performance evaluation board, to determine kung kinsa
sa mga employees sa BIR and POC ang dili makameet sa
ilang quota requirements. This law provides for
incentives and rewards as well. If you exceed your quota,
tagaan kag rewards, but if you do not reach the specific
standard you are ought to meet, pwede ka matanggal
from service. The purpose of the law is to optimize daw
the generation capability and collection of these
employees. Ginachallenge niya ang employees to exceed
their target quotas. The Board is empowered to set the
criteria and procedures from removing from service
offi ials a d e ployees … y at least 7 a d half pe e t,
with due consideration however of factors affecting the
level of collection.
So mao ni ang ginachallenge, the board may also
terminate the personnel accdg to the criteria adopted in
its paragraph b. So it is argued that the Board is given
this power but wala syay parameters, the law is not
complete and it has no sufficient standard to guide the
board kung kinsa man ang pangtanggalon from public
service.
The court said that that law is complete and also passes
the sufficient standard test. It may .. sufficient grounds
for removal and that is if the the revenue production fall
short of the target 7.5% and there is also due
consideration of all relevant factors affecting the level of
collection for that particular employee. Dili sya arbitrary
because you are given poortunity to explain yourself.
This po e of the oa d to e o e is … i effi ie y a d
competence in the performance of official duties. Same
grounds for disciplinary action. The court held that the
provision is valid. However, that certain provision which
empowers a certain committee of Congress to approve
the IRR of this law was struck down as unconstitutional
e ause it is a … legislatio . Na alik sa Congress ang
implentation of the law and it goes beyond the power of
Congress which is only limited to mere oversight. The
fact na ginahatag sa congress ang power to approve or
disapprove the IRR which has been passed by the
Executive brach, that cannot be done. It violates the
doctrine of separation of powers and the rule on
presentment.
Take note of the procedure of the passage of law in this
case, first muagi pa ang law sa Congress and second, it
will go to the Pres.
-----
Provisions in Art 6 which empowers the Congress to
conduct investigations.
Art 6 Sec 21- legislative investigation in Aid of legislation
Art 6, Sec 22- Question Hour
Sec 22, Question hour. Heads of depts may, upon the ..
intiative, with the consent of the Pres or upon request of
either house, appear before and be heard by such house
on any matter pertaining to their departments. Purpose
is to obtain info in pursuit of Congress’ oversight
function
-only dept heads may appear
-subject matter is related only to the dept
-appearance is only discretionary
Sec 21. inquiry in aid of legislation. The aim of which is to
elicit information which may be used in aid of legislation
-it must always be done for the purpose of legislation
-any person may appear before the committees, as long
as the subject matter is for the purpose of legislation
-appearance is mandatory (cant be excused, otherwise
you’ll be cited in contempt)
SENATE V ERMITA
An EO was issued by the Pres which requires certain
officials in the Exec, including the AFP, to secure the
consent of the Pres before they undergo any hearing or
legislative investigation.
Senate issued invitations to various exec heads in order
to enlighten them as to the Northrail Project anomalies.
Many officials of the exec were invited as well as AFP
officials. But because of this EO 464, issued by then Pres
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, it enabled this officials to not
attend the inquiry if they do not secure the onsent of the
Pres.
Sec 1 provides that all heads of the departments of the
execbranch of the govt shall secure the consent of the
Pres prior to appearing to either house of the Congress.
Because of this, many of those who were invited did not
obey the invitation of the Senate because they allege
that they were not able to secure the consent of the
Pres.
However, there were officials of the AFP who went to
the hearing, and after they went there, they were
relieved of their duties by the Pres. The Senate question
this EO because it diminishes its power to conduct
legislative inquiries.
The court ruled here that only specific provisions of the
issuance are void; Sction 2b and 3.
Sec 2b provides for kung kinsa tong covered sa issuance.
Section 3 provides that only those enumerated in Sec 2b
shall secure prior consent from the Pres prior to
appearing from either house of Congress.
The court struck these provisions as unconstitutional
because these provision are too broad, it no longer
invloves question hour but this involves already the
power of the congress to conduct inquiry in aid of
legislation.
Sec 2b in particular expands the concept of executive
privilege. Gives more importance to the position of the
person invoking it, not the info concerned.
Why does the congress even need to conduct these
hearings? Because the legislative body cannot legislate
wisely if it does not have information for which the
legislation is intended to effect or change. And it can be
done through these hearings. And the power of inquiry
extends to exec officials.
As a GR, an exec official cannot disobey the subpoena by
the Congress. But, as an exemption, under the claim of
executive privilige.
Why is this privilige extended to exec officials? Because
these officials must assisst the Pres in shaping policies
and making decisions and to do so in a way, many are
unwilling to express except privately. So there are
matters which can only be between the Pres and these
exec officals because of the sacredness and
confidentiality of the matter.
But of course, there must be a valid claim for this
privilege.
Executive privilege is only recognized in certain types of
information of a sensitive character. The privilege
attaches on the information, not on the official.
Sec. 1 is valid for it provides for a question hour and
appearance is not even mandatory.