Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Democracy, as a way of life enshrined in the Constitution, The condemnation of a small property in behalf of 10, 20 or 50
embraces as its necessary components freedom and along with these persons and their families does not inure to the benefit of the public to a
freedoms are included economic freedom and freedom of enterprise degree sufficient to give the use public character. The expropriation
within reasonable bounds and under proper control. In paving the way proceedings at bar have been instituted for the economic relief of a few
for the breaking up of existing large estates, trust in perpetuity, families devoid of any consideration of public health, public peace and
feudalism, and their concomitant evils, the Constitution did not propose order, or other public advantage. It suffices to say for the purpose of this
to destroy or undermine the property right or to advocate equal decision that the case under consideration is far wanting in those
distribution of wealth or to authorize of what is in excess of one's elements which make for public convenience or public use.
personal needs and the giving of it to another.
I. No. By a vote of five to four, the Supreme Court sustained G.R. No. L-34674 | October 26, 1931 | MAURICIO
CRUZ, petitioner-appellant, vs. STANTON YOUNGBERG, Director
the constitutionality of this section of the Administrative
of the Bureau of Animal Industry, respondent-appellee. |
Code. Under the doctrine of necessity, who else was in a OSTRAND, J.:
better position to determine whether or not to execute the
law but the provincial governor. It is optional for the FACTS:
provincial governor to execute the law as circumstances may Petitioner Mauricio Cruz brought a petition before the Court of
arise. It is necessary to give discretion to the provincial First Instance of Manila for the issuance of a writ of mandatory
injunction against the respondent Director of the Bureau of Animal not pass upon the constitutionality of statutes unless it is
Industry, Stanton Youngberg, requiring him to issue a permit for necessary to do so. Aside from the provisions of Act No.
the landing of ten large cattle imported by the petitioner and for 3052, Act 3155 is entirely valid. The latter was passed by
the slaughter thereof. Cruz attacked the constitutionality of Act No. the Legislature to protect the cattle industry of the country
3155, which at present prohibits the importation of cattle from and to prevent the introduction of cattle diseases through
foreign countries into the Philippine Islands. He also asserted that importation of foreign cattle. It is now generally recognized
the sole purpose of the enactment was to prevent the introduction that the promotion of industries affecting the public
of cattle diseases in the country. welfare and the development of the resources of the
country are objects within the scope of the police power.
The respondent asserted that the petition did not state facts The Government of the Philippine Islands has the right to
sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was based the exercise of the sovereign police power in the promotion
on two reasons: (1) that if Act No. 3155 was declared of the general welfare and the public interest. At the time
unconstitutional and void, the petitioner would not be entitled to the Act No. 3155 was promulgated there was reasonable
the relief demanded because Act No. 3052 would automatically necessity therefore and it cannot be said that the
become effective and would prohibit the respondent from giving Legislature exceeded its power in passing the Act.
the permit prayed for; and (2) that Act No. 3155 was
constitutional and, therefore, valid. The CFI dismissed the 2. No. The true distinction is between the delegation of power
complaint because of petitioner’s failure to file another complaint. to make the law, which necessarily involves discretion as to
The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. what it shall be, and conferring an authority or discretion
as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance
Youngberg contended that even if Act No. 3155 be declared of the law. The first cannot be done; to the latter no valid
unconstitutional by the fact alleged by the petitioner in his objection can be made. There is no unlawful delegation of
complaint, still the petitioner can not be allowed to import cattle legislative power in the case at bar.
from Australia for the reason that, while Act No. 3155 were
declared unconstitutional, Act No. 3052 would automatically 3. No. It is a complete statute in itself. It does not make any
become effective. reference to the Tariff Law. It does not permit the
importation of articles, whose importation is prohibited by
ISSUES: the Tariff Law. It is not an amendment but merely
1. WON Act No. 3155 is unconstitutional supplemental to Tariff Law.
2. WON the lower court erred in not holding that the power
given by Act No. 3155 to the Governor-General to suspend
or not, at his discretion, the prohibition provided in the act
constitutes an unlawful delegation of the legislative powers
3. WON Act No. 3155 amended the Tariff Law
RULING:
1. No. An unconstitutional statute can have no effect to repeal
former laws or parts of laws by implication. The court will
ABAKADA Guro Party List vs Executive Secretary Constitution. They further argue that VAT is a tax levied on the
Bills Must Originate EXCLUSIVELY from the House of sale or exchange of goods and services and cannot be included
Representatives; Undue Delegation of Legislative Power; Equal within the purview of tariffs under the exemption delegation since
Protection Clause this refers to customs duties, tolls or tribute payable upon
merchandise to the government and usually imposed on
ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY imported/exported goods. They also said that the President has
G.R. No. 168056 September 1, 2005 powers to cause, influence or create the conditions provided by
ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST (Formerly AASJAS) OFFICERS law to bring about the conditions precedent. Moreover, they allege
SAMSON S. ALCANTARA and ED VINCENT S. ALBANO, Petitioners, that no guiding standards are made by law as to how the Secretary
vs. of Finance will make the recommendation. They claim,
THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA; nonetheless, that any recommendation of the Secretary of Finance
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE can easily be brushed aside by the President since the former is a
CESAR PURISIMA; and HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF mere alter ego of the latter, such that, ultimately, it is the President
INTERNAL REVENUE GUILLERMO PARAYNO, JR., Respondent. who decides whether to impose the increased tax rate or not.
Issues:
1. Whether or not R.A. No. 9337 has violated the provisions in Article
Facts: VI, Section 24, and Article VI, Section 26 (2) of the Constitution.
Petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List challenged the 2. Whether or not there was an undue delegation of legislative power
constitutionality of R.A. No. 9337 particularly Sections 4, 5 and 6, in violation of Article VI Sec 28 Par 1 and 2 of the Constitution.
3. Whether or not there was a violation of the due process and equal
amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the National
protection under Article III Sec. 1 of the Constitution.
Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). These questioned provisions
contain a uniform proviso authorizing the President, upon
Discussions:
recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate
1. Basing from the ruling of Tolentino case, it is not the law, but the
to 12%, effective January 1, 2006, after any of the following revenue bill which is required by the Constitution to “originate
conditions have been satisfied, to wit: exclusively” in the House of Representatives, but Senate has the
. . . That the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary power not only to propose amendments, but also to propose its own
of Finance, shall, effective January 1, 2006, raise the rate of value- version even with respect to bills which are required by the
added tax to twelve percent (12%), after any of the following Constitution to originate in the House. the Constitution simply
conditions has been satisfied: means is that the initiative for filing revenue, tariff or tax bills, bills
(i) Value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic authorizing an increase of the public debt, private bills and bills of
Product (GDP) of the previous year exceeds two and four-fifth local application must come from the House of Representatives on
percent (2 4/5%); or the theory that, elected as they are from the districts, the members
of the House can be expected to be more sensitive to the local needs
(ii) National government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the
and problems. On the other hand, the senators, who are elected at
previous year exceeds one and one-half percent (1 ½%).
large, are expected to approach the same problems from the
Petitioners argue that the law is unconstitutional, as it constitutes national perspective. Both views are thereby made to bear on the
abandonment by Congress of its exclusive authority to fix the rate enactment of such laws.
of taxes under Article VI, Section 28(2) of the 1987 Philippine
2. In testing whether a statute constitutes an undue delegation of In November 1990, President Corazon Aquino issued Executive
legislative power or not, it is usual to inquire whether the statute Order No. 438 which imposed, in addition to any other duties,
was complete in all its terms and provisions when it left the hands taxes and charges imposed by law on all articles imported into the
of the legislature so that nothing was left to the judgment of any Philippines, an additional duty of 5% ad valorem tax. This
other appointee or delegate of the legislature.
additional duty was imposed across the board on all imported
3. The equal protection clause under the Constitution means that “no
articles, including crude oil and other oil products imported into
person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection
of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the the Philippines. In 1991, EO 443 increased the additional duty to
same place and in like circumstances.” 9%. In the same year, EO 475 was passed reinstating the previous
5% duty except that crude oil and other oil products continued to
Rulings: be taxed at 9%. Enrique Garcia, a representative from Bataan,
1. R.A. No. 9337 has not violated the provisions. The revenue bill avers that EO 475 and 478 are unconstitutional for they violate
exclusively originated in the House of Representatives, the Senate Section 24 of Article VI of the Constitution which provides:
was acting within its constitutional power to introduce
All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of
amendments to the House bill when it included provisions in Senate
Bill No. 1950 amending corporate income taxes, percentage, excise the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall
and franchise taxes. Verily, Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate
does not contain any prohibition or limitation on the extent of the may propose or concur with amendments.
amendments that may be introduced by the Senate to the House He contends that since the Constitution vests the authority to
revenue bill.
enact revenue bills in Congress, the President may not assume
2. There is no undue delegation of legislative power but only of the
discretion as to the execution of a law. This is constitutionally such power by issuing Executive Orders Nos. 475 and 478 which
permissible. Congress does not abdicate its functions or unduly are in the nature of revenue-generating measures.
delegate power when it describes what job must be done, who must ISSUE: Whether or not EO 475 and 478 are constitutional.
do it, and what is the scope of his authority; in our complex
economy that is frequently the only way in which the legislative HELD: Under Section 24, Article VI of the Constitution, the
process can go forward. enactment of appropriation, revenue and tariff bills, like all other
3. Supreme Court held no decision on this matter. The power of the bills is, of course, within the province of the Legislative rather than
State to make reasonable and natural classifications for the the Executive Department. It does not follow, however, that
purposes of taxation has long been established. Whether it relates therefore Executive Orders Nos. 475 and 478, assuming they may
to the subject of taxation, the kind of property, the rates to be levied, be characterized as revenue measures, are prohibited to be
or the amounts to be raised, the methods of assessment, valuation
exercised by the President, that they must be enacted instead by
and collection, the State’s power is entitled to presumption of
validity. As a rule, the judiciary will not interfere with such power the Congress of the Philippines.
absent a clear showing of unreasonableness, discrimination, or Section 28(2) of Article VI of the Constitution provides as follows:
arbitrariness.
(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within
ENRIQUE GARCIA VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (1992) specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it
may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and
211 SCRA 219 – Political Law – Congress Authorizing the President wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of
to Tax the national development program of the Government.
There is thus explicit constitutional permission to Congress to The police power is thus a dynamic agency, suitably vague and far
authorize the President “subject to such limitations and from precisely defined, rooted in the conception that men in
restrictions as [Congress] may impose” to fix “within specific organizing the state and imposing upon its government limitations
limits” “tariff rates . . . and other duties or imposts . . . .” In this case, to safeguard constitutional rights did not intend thereby to enable
it is the Tariff and Customs Code which authorized the President an individual citizen or a group of citizens to obstruct
ot issue the said EOs. unreasonably the enactment of such salutary measures calculated
to insure communal peace, safety, good order, and welfare.
EDU VS ERICTA
The same lack of success marks the effort of respondent Galo to
Posted by kaye lee on 2:56 PM impugn the validity of Administrative Order No. 2 issued by
petitioner in his official capacity, duly approved by the Secretary
G.R. No. L-32096 October 24, 1970 En Banc [Non-delegation of of Public Works and Communications, for being contrary to the
power; police power] principle of non-delegation of legislative power. Such
administrative order, which took effect on April 17, 1970, has a
FACTS: provision on reflectors in effect reproducing what was set forth in
Judge Ericta and Teddy C. Galo filed suit for certiorari and the Act.
prohibition with preliminary injunction assailing the validity of
enactment of the Reflector as well as Admin Order No. 2 It is a fundamental principle flowing from the doctrine of
implementing it, as an invalid exercise of the police power for separation of powers that Congress may not delegate its legislative
being violative of the due process clause. Galo followed with a power to the two other branches of the government, subject to the
manifestation that in the event that Judge would uphold said exception that local governments may over local affairs participate
statute constitutional, A.O. No. 2 of the Land Transportation in its exercise. What cannot be delegated is the authority under the
Commissioner, implementing such legislation be nullified as an Constitution to make laws and to alter and repeal them; the test is
undue exercise of legislative power. the completeness of the statute in all its term and provisions when
it leaves the hands of the legislature. To determine whether or not
ISSUE: there is an undue delegation of legislative power the inquiry must
Whether Reflector Law and Administrative Order is constitutional be directed to the scope and definiteness of the measure enacted.
and valid. The legislature does not abdicate its functions when it describes
what job must be done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of his
RULING: authority.
Yes. Reflector Law is enacted under the police power in order to
promote public safety and order. It bears repeating that the Reflector Law construed together with
the Land Transportation Code. Republic Act No. 4136, of which it
Justice Laurel identified police power with state authority to enact is an amendment, leaves no doubt as to the stress and emphasis on
legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in public safety which is the prime consideration in statutes of this
order to promote the general welfare. Persons and property could character. There is likewise a categorical affirmation Of the power
thus "be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order of petitioner as Land Transportation Commissioner to promulgate
to secure the general comfort, health and prosperity of the state." rules and regulations to give life to and translate into actuality
such fundamental purpose. His power is clear. There has been no appointed, thereby infringing the constitutional power of the
abuse. His Administrative Order No. 2 can easily survive the President to make appointments.
attack, far-from-formidable, launched against it by respondent
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 3137 bypassed the appointing power of
Galo.
the president.
CECILIO RAFAEL VS EMBROIDERY AND APPAREL CONTROL & HELD: No. The Supreme Court noted that indeed “the appointing
INSPECTION BOARD power is the exclusive prerogative of the President, upon which
no limitations maybe imposed by Congress, except those resulting
21 SCRA 336 – Political Law – Appointments – When Not Bypassed from the need of securing the concurrence of the Commission on
by a Law Appointments and from the exercise of the limited power to
In 1961, Republic Act No. 3137 was passed. This law created the prescribe the qualifications to the given appointive office.”
Embroidery and Apparel Control and Inspection Board (EACIB). In the case at bar, the representatives in the EACIB are not
Section 2 thereof also provided that the Board shall be composed appointed by the Department Heads. They are merely going to
of: be designated hence whoever was designated was merely sitting
(1) a representative from the Bureau of Customs to act as as an ex officio member. It must also be noted that Congress took
Chairman, to be designated by the Secretary of Finance; care to specify that the representatives should come from the
Bureau of Customs, Central Bank, Department of Commerce and
(2) a representative from the Central Bank to be designated by its Industry and the National Economic Council. The obvious reason
Governor; must be because these departments and/or bureaus perform
(3) a representative from the Department of Commerce and functions which have a direct relation to the importation of raw
Industry to be designated by the Secretary of Commerce and materials, the manufacture thereof into embroidery and apparel
Industry; products and their subsequent exportation abroad. There is no
attempt in RA 3137 to deprive the President of his power to make
(4) a representative from the National Economic Council to be appointments. The law is not unconstitutional.
designated by its Chairman; and
(5) a representative from the private sector coming from the
Association of Embroidery and Apparel Exporters of the ALEJA SIBAYAN VDA. DE PINEDA v. TEODORO PENA, GR No.
Philippines. 57665, 1990-07-02
Later, in the performance of its duties, the EACIB made certain Facts: The "Ped" mining claim was located by Pedro Sibayan in
assessments against Cecilio Rafael but the latter refused to comply. January, 1932. After Sibayan's death, his heirs Miguela and Aleja
Rafael sued EACIB and he averred that RA 3137 is unconstitutional Sibayan executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement... wherein
for while Congress may create an office it cannot specify who shall they waived their rights and interest over the "Ped" claim, among
be appointed therein; that the members of the EACIB can only be others, in favor of co-heir Feliza Sibayan. Feliza then transferred
appointed by the President in accordance with Article 7, Sec. 10 2 said claims to Sofia Reyes.
of the Constitution; that since the Act prescribes that the chairman
and members of the EACIB should come from specified offices, it is
equivalent to a declaration by Congress as to who should be
The "Ullmann" mining claim was located by Elvira Carmelo in Thus, the Court of First Instance rendered a decision on November
February, 1932, and was subsequently transferred to Joseph 11, 1974 ordering the parties to comply with the above settlement
Palengaoan. [Decision of the Minister of Natural Resources, p. 4; Annex "E" to
the Petition; Rollo, p. 52.]
In 1962, Reyes, Palengaoan and several others formed the KM. 21
Mining Association, later converted into the KM. 21 Exploration On July 20, 1974, petitioners filed with the Bureau of Mines a
Corporation, to which the members conveyed their respective letter-complaint (Mines Administrative Case No. V-784) against
mining claims, including the "Ped" and private respondents for alleged overlapping and encroachment of
the "Ullmann" claim over the "Ped" claim.
"Ullmann" claims. Ultimately, the claims were assigned to the
Baguio Gold Mining Company for operation. On January 10, 1977, the Director of Mines rendered a decision
declaring that there was no conflict between the "Ped" and
During this time, an amended declaration of location for the "Ullmann" claims
"Ullmann" claim was registered.
Issues:
On November 23, 1972, petitioners instituted Civil Case No. Q-
17136 against Feliza Sibayan, Sofia Reyes, KM. 21 Mining On the issue of jurisdiction, petitioners contend that public
Exploration Corporation, et. al., with the Court of First respondents may not validly and legally take cognizance of an
issue not raised in the complaint, i.e., the issue of the validity of the
Instance, Quezon City, Branch IX. Petitioners claimed that the "Ped" mining claim.
Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement from which private respondents
derived their... ownership and possession over the "Ped" claim Having resolved the question of jurisdiction, the Court shall next
was maliciously falsified [Annex "I" to the Petition; Rollo, pp. 78- determine if public respondents acted within their jurisdiction, or
79] and prayed for annulment of all subsequent transfers if they committed grave abuse of discretion which would warrant
involving the mining claims. the issuance of the writs prayed for.
During the pre-trial of Civil Case No. Q-17136, the parties entered Private respondents argue that the documents were not filed at
into an amicable settlement, agreeing that: (1) private the proper time since they were not formally offered in evidence
respondents will return to petitioners the disputed mining claims, when the case was still before the respondent Director, and were
including the "Ped" claim; (2)... petitioners will reimburse private only submitted on appeal.
respondents all expenses, like assessment taxes, incurred in the
preservation of the claims; and (3) private respondents shall Ruling:
execute the necessary documents to reconvey the mining claims to
petitioners [Annex "I" to the This assertion is mistaken. Petitioners had filed the protest case
pursuant to Pres. Decree No. 463 which vests the Bureau of Mines
Petition, pp. 4-5; Rollo, p. 78-79.] with jurisdiction over protests involving mining claims [Section
48, Pres. Decree No. 463.]
Under the same Decree, Section 90 confers upon the Secretary of The contention is clearly untenable. Petitioners precisely were
Natural Resources, upon recommendation of the Director of unaware that the validity of the "Ped" claim would be passed upon
Mines, the authority to issue rules, regulations and orders in the protest case since such was not raised as an issue. Hence it
necessary to carry out the provisions and purposes of the Decree. was only after the decision... in the protest case was rendered that
In... accordance with the statutory grant of rule-making power, the petitioners found the need to present evidence on appeal relating
Department Secretary on May 17, 1975 issued the Consolidated to the validity of the "Ped" claim.
Mines Administrative Order Implementing Pres. Decree No. 463,
which was published in the Official Gazette on June 16, 1975. Clearly, respondent Minister gravely abused his discretion when
he disregarded the rebuttal evidence submitted by petitioners
One such implementing rule is Section 128, which respondent which otherwise would have had the effect of reversing
Minister of Natural Resources relied upon in his decision to respondent Director's finding.
dispose of the jurisdictional issue raised by petitioners.
As to petitioners' supposed failure to perform annual work
Section 128 merely prescribes a procedural rule to implement the obligations on the "Ped" claim since 1952, the conclusion is only
general provisions of the enabling... law. It does not amend or partly correct. Annual work obligations, consisting of payment of
extend the provisions of the statute [People v. Maceren, G.R. No. L- assessment and taxes, had in fact been paid up to the... year 1975,
32166, October 18, 1977, 79 SCRA 450, citing University of Santo although not by petitioners.
Tomas... v. Board of Tax Appeals, 93 Phil. 376 (1953).]
Considering the foregoing, the Court holds that public respondents
In this case, petitioners were afforded the... opportunity to be had the authority to ascertain the validity of the "Ped" claim.
heard on the validity of the "Ped" mining claim when they Nevertheless, in affirming that portion of the decision of the
submitted rebuttal evidence on appeal. Director of Mines declaring petitioners to have
Section 128, being a valid implementing rule, has the force and "abandoned and lost their rights" over the "Ped" claim, respondent
effect of law. Thus, public respondents were duly empowered to Minister committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
inquire into the validity of the mining claims involved in the jurisdiction.
protest case, even if not raised in issue.
Principles:
The petition is impressed with merit.
It is established in jurisprudence that Congress may validly
The certification issued by the Mines Regional Officer of Baguio delegate to administrative agencies the authority to promulgate
City cannot prevail over the documents clearly evidencing the rules and regulations to implement a given legislation and
petitioners' filing the application. Not only was the application effectuate its policies [People v. Exconde, 101 Phil 1125 (1957);
filed within the prescriptive period, it was also... duly filed with the Director of
Bureau of Mines Office in Manila, the venue specified under
Section 176 of the implementing rules. Forestry v. Munoz G.R. No. L-24796, June 28, 1968, 23 SCRA
1183.] In order to be valid, the administrative regulation must be
germane to the objects and purposes of the law, conform to the
standards that the law... prescribes [People v. Exconde, supra, be sold. On the other hand, Ang Tang Ho, a rice dealer, sold a ganta
citing Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil 727 (1940); Pangasinan of rice to Pedro Trinidad at the price of eighty centavos. The said
Transportation v. Public Service Commission, 70 Phil 221 (1940),] amount was way higher than that prescribed by the EO. The sale
and must relate solely to carrying into effect the general
was done on the 6th of August 1919. On August 8, 1919, he was
provisions... of the law [U.S. v. Tupasi Molina, 29 Phil 119
(1914).]... it is axiomatic in administrative law that what the law charged for violation of the said EO. He was found guilty as
prohibits is not the absence of previous notice, but the absolute charged and was sentenced to 5 months imprisonment plus a
absence thereof and lack of opportunity to... be heard [Catura v. P500.00 fine. He appealed the sentence countering that there is an
Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. L-27392, January 30, 1971, undue delegation of power to the Governor General.
37 SCRA 303, citing De Borja v. Tan, 93 Phil. 167 (1953).] ISSUE: Whether or not there is undue delegation to the Governor
General.
As a rule, the courts will not interfere with purely administrative
HELD: First of, Ang Tang Ho’s conviction must be reversed
matters involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, and
findings of fact, of the administrative agency. The exception is because he committed the act prior to the publication of the EO.
when there is a clear showing that the agency... acted arbitrarily or Hence, he cannot be ex post facto charged of the crime. Further,
with grave abuse of discretion or when it acted in a capricious one cannot be convicted of a violation of a law or of an order
manner such that its action may amount to an excess or lack of issued pursuant to the law when both the law and the order fail to
jurisdiction [Pajo v. Ago, 108 Phil. 905 (1960); Ganitano v. set up an ascertainable standard of guilt.
Secretary of Agriculture, G.R. No. L-21167,... March 31, 1966, 16 Anent the issue of undue delegation, the said Act wholly fails to
SCRA 543; Beautifont, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 50141,
provide definitely and clearly what the standard policy should
January 29, 1988, 157 SCRA 481.]
contain, so that it could be put in use as a uniform policy required
to take the place of all others without the determination of the
UNITED STATES VS ANG TANG HO insurance commissioner in respect to matters involving the
December 18, 2011 exercise of a legislative discretion that could not be delegated, and
without which the act could not possibly be put in use. The law
43 Phil. 1 – Political Law – Delegation of Power – Administrative must be complete in all its terms and provisions when it leaves the
Bodies legislative branch of the government and nothing must be left to
In July 1919, the Philippine Legislature (during special session) the judgment of the electors or other appointee or delegate of the
passed and approved Act No. 2868 entitled An Act Penalizing the legislature, so that, in form and substance, it is a law in all its
Monopoly and Hoarding of Rice, Palay and Corn. The said act, under details in presenti, but which may be left to take effect in
extraordinary circumstances, authorizes the Governor General future, if necessary, upon the ascertainment of any prescribed fact
(GG) to issue the necessary Rules and Regulations in regulating the or event.
distribution of such products. Pursuant to this Act, in August 1919,
the GG issued Executive Order No. 53 which was published on ‘
August 20, 1919. The said EO fixed the price at which rice should
EMMANUEL PELAEZ VS AUDITOR GENERAL ISSUE: Whether or not Congress has delegated the power to create
barrios to the President by virtue of Sec. 68 of the RAC.
15 SCRA 569 – Political Law – Sufficient Standard Test and
Completeness Test HELD: No. There was no delegation here. Although Congress may
delegate to another branch of the government the power to fill in
In 1964, President Ferdinand Marcos issued executive orders
the details in the execution, enforcement or administration of a
creating 33 municipalities – this was purportedly pursuant to
law, it is essential, to forestall a violation of the principle of
Section 68 of the Revised Administrative Code which provides in
separation of powers, that said law: (a) be complete in itself — it
part: must set forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out or
The President may by executive order define the boundary… of implemented by the delegate — and (b) fix a standard — the
any… municipality… and may change the seat of government within limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable — to
any subdivision to such place therein as the public welfare may which the delegate must conform in the performance of his
require… functions. In this case, Sec. 68 lacked any such standard. Indeed,
without a statutory declaration of policy, the delegate would, in
The then Vice President, Emmanuel Pelaez, as a taxpayer, filed a effect, make or formulate such policy, which is the essence of every
special civil action to prohibit the auditor general from disbursing law; and, without the aforementioned standard, there would be no
funds to be appropriated for the said municipalities. Pelaez claims means to determine, with reasonable certainty, whether the
that the EOs were unconstitutional. He said that Section 68 of the delegate has acted within or beyond the scope of his authority.
RAC had been impliedly repealed by Section 3 of RA 2370 which
provides that barrios may “not be created or their boundaries Further, although Sec. 68 provides the qualifying clause “as the
altered nor their names changed” except by Act of Congress. public welfare may require” – which would mean that the
Pelaez argues: “If the President, under this new law, cannot even President may exercise such power as the public welfare may
create a barrio, how can he create a municipality which is require – is present, still, such will not replace the standard
composed of several barrios, since barrios are units of needed for a proper delegation of power. In the first place, what
municipalities?” the phrase “as the public welfare may require” qualifies is the text
which immediately precedes hence, the proper interpretation is
The Auditor General countered that there was no repeal and that “the President may change the seat of government within any
only barrios were barred from being created by the President. subdivision to such place therein as the public welfare may
Municipalities are exempt from the bar and that a municipality can require.” Only the seat of government may be changed by the
be created without creating barrios. He further maintains that President when public welfare so requires and NOT the creation of
through Sec. 68 of the RAC, Congress has delegated such power to municipality.
create municipalities to the President.
The Supreme Court declared that the power to create and the legality of the acts of Ople. Because of their failure to
municipalities is essentially and eminently legislative in character submit their nominees, Ople did not accredit them.
not administrative (not executive).
ISSUE: Whether or not there is undue delegation of power to the
TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED SERVICES Minister of Labor by BP 697.
VS BLAS OPLE
HELD: No. The lack of merit of the contention that there is an
137 SCRA 117 – Political Law – Delegation of Power – unlawful delegation of legislative power is quite obvious.
Administrative Bodies – Manner of Election and Selection of Appointment to office is intrinsically an executive act involving the
Representatives exercise of discretion. What is involved then is not a legislative
power but the exercise of competence intrinsically executive.
The Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS)
What is more, the official who could make the recommendation is
and the National Federation of Labor Unions (NFLU) are unions
the Minister of Labor, an alter ego of the President. The argument,
representing the agricultural and industrial sectors. They alleged
therefore, that there is an unlawful delegation of legislative power
they represent over a million workers all over the country. On the
is bereft of any persuasive force.
other hand, Batas Pambansa Blg. 697 is the implementing law of
the constitutional provision which states that 3 sectors are to be To further test the validity of the said BP, and to avoid the taint of
represented (youth, agricultural labor, industrial labor). unlawful delegation, there must be a standard, which implies at
the very least that the legislature itself determines matters of
Each sector must have four representatives, 2 from Luzon, one
principle and lays down fundamental policy. Otherwise, the charge
each from Visayas and Mindanao respectively. These sectors can
of complete abdication may be hard to repel. A standard thus
submit their nominees to the President for approval/appointment
defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries
through the Minister of Labor. TUPAS however questions the
and specifies the public agency to apply it. The standard does not
constitutionality of the said BP because it allegedly lacks duly
even have to be spelled out. It could be implied from the policy and
published rules on accreditation, nomination and appointment of
purpose of the act considered as a whole. Such standard is set
industrial labor representatives. Being so, TUPAS questioned the
forth with clarity in Article III, Section 6 of Batas Pambansa Blg.
acts of BlasOple, then Minister of Labor, in accrediting certain
697 which provides in full the limits and scope of the functions of
nominations provided by other industrial labor groups. TUPAS
the Minister of Labor in carrying out the said provisions.
claims that since there are no rules clearly stated in the BP on how
the nominations must be handled, the said law has provided TUPAS and NFLU were free to submit their nominations to the
undue delegation to the Minister of Labor and has left him with President by merely writing a letter coursed through respondent,
absolute discretion in carrying out the duty of accrediting such and their nominees should have been submitted to the President.
nominations. TUPAS did not submit their nomination within the They did not do so. In fact, as of May 30, 1984, which was still
given 20 day period of nominating their representation; they within the 20-day period, they wrote a letter to Ople which in
instead proceeded to question the constitutionality of the said BP effect stated that they were not submitting any nomination and
informing him that they were questioning the validity of Sections that “said Treasurer shall furthermore have authority, when ever
4, 5, and 6 of BP 697. Hence, if petitioners were not able to submit in his judgment it is in the public interest, to cancel said certificate
any nominee they had no one to blame but themselves. And the or permit”, and that “an appeal from the decision of the Insular
law cannot be declared unconstitutional on such ground. Treasurer may be had within the period of thirty days to the
Secretary of Finance.”
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS JACOB ROSENTHAL
Rosenthal argued that Act 2581 is unconstitutional because no
68 Phil. 328 – Political Law – Delegation of Power – Administrative
standard or rule is fixed in the Act which can guide said official in
Bodies – Public Interest as Sufficient Test determining the cases in which a certificate or permit ought to be
Jacob Rosenthal and Nicasio Osmeña were founders and issued, thereby making his opinion the sole criterion in the matter
shareholders of the ORO Oil Company. Later, Rosenthal and of its issuance, with the result that, legislative powers being
Osmeña were found guilty of selling their shares to individuals unduly delegated to the Insular Treasurer.
without actual tangible assets. Their shares were merely based on
ISSUE: Whether or not there is undue delegation of power to the
speculations and future gains. This is in violation of Sections 2 and
Internal Treasurer.
5 of Act No. 2581.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court ruled that the Act furnishes a
Section 2 provides that every person, partnership, association, or
sufficient standard for the Insular Treasurer to follow in reaching
corporation attempting to offer to sell in the Philippines
a decision regarding the issuance or cancellation of a certificate or
speculative securities of any kind or character whatsoever, is
permit. The certificate or permit to be issued under the Act must
under obligation to file previously with the Insular Treasurer the
recite that the person, partnership, association or corporation
various documents and papers enumerated therein and to pay the
applying therefor “has complied with the provisions of this Act”,
required tax of twenty-pesos.
and this requirement, construed in relation to the other provisions
Section 5, on the other hand, provides that “whenever the said of the law, means that a certificate or permit shall be issued by the
Treasurer of the Philippine Islands is satisfied, either with or Insular Treasurer when the provisions of Act No. 2581 have been
without the examination herein provided, that any person, complied with. Upon the other hand, the authority of the Insular
partnership, association or corporation is entitled to the right to Treasurer to cancel a certificate or permit is expressly conditioned
offer its securities as above defined and provided for sale in the upon a finding that such cancellation “is in the public interest.”
Philippine Islands, he shall issue to such person, partnership,
In view of the intention and purpose of Act No. 2581 — to protect
association or corporation a certificate or permit reciting that such
the public against “speculative schemes which have no more basis
person, partnership, association or corporation has complied with
than so many feet of blue sky” and against the “sale of stock in fly-
the provisions of this act, and that such person, partnership,
by-night concerns, visionary oil wells, distant gold mines, and
association or corporation, its brokers or agents are entitled to
other like fraudulent exploitations”, — the SC held that “public
order the securities named in said certificate or permit for sale”;
interest” in this case is a sufficient standard to guide the Insular
Treasurer in reaching a decision on a matter pertaining to the LAUREL, J.:
issuance or cancellation of certificates or permits.
Facts:
Rosenthal insists that the delegation of authority to the
Commission is invalid because the stated criterion is uncertain.
That criterion is the public interest. It is a mistaken assumption The National Traffic Commission, in its resolution of July 17, 1940,
that this is a mere general reference to public welfare without any resolved to recommend to the Director of the Public Works and to
standard to guide determinations. The purpose of the Act, the the Secretary of Public Works and Communications that animal-
requirement it imposes, and the context of the provision in drawn vehicles be prohibited from passing along the following for
question show the contrary. . . ” a period of one year from the date of the opening of the Colgante
Bridge to traffic:
Street from 7:30Am to 12:30 pm and from 1:30 pm to 530 pm; and
2. COULD THE RESPONDENT SPEAKER AND/OR THE Under the questioned provision, when an elective official covered
RESPONDENT SECRETARY, 'BY ADMINISTRATIVE ACT', EXCLUDE thereby files a certificate of candidacy for another office, an overt,
THE PETITIONER FROM THE ROLLS OF THE HOUSE OF concrete act of voluntary renunciation of the elective office
REPRESENTATIVES, THEREBY PREVENTING HIM FROM presently being held, he is deemed to have voluntarily cut short
EXERCISING HIS FUNCTIONS AS CONGRESSMAN, AND DEPRIVING his tenure, not his term. Forfeiture (is) automatic and permanently
effective upon the filing of the certificate of candidacy for another imposing the duty. The reason for this is obvious. It might
office. Only the moment and act of filing are considered. Once the seriously hinder the transaction of public business if these officers
certificate is filed, the seat is forever forfeited and nothing save a were to be permitted in all cases to question the constitutionality
new election or appointment can restore the ousted official. The of statutes and ordinances imposing duties upon them and which
law does not make the forfeiture dependent upon future have not judicially been declared unconstitutional. Officers of the
contingencies, unforeseen and unforeseeable. government from the highest to the lowest are creatures of the law
and are bound to obey it.
That the ground cited in Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 is not
mentioned in the Constitution itself as a mode of shortening the In conclusion, We reiterate the basic concept that a public office is
tenure of office of members of Congress, does not preclude its a public trust. It is created for the interest and benefit of the
application to present members of Congress. Section 2 of Article XI people. As such, the holder thereof is subject to such regulations
provides that "(t)he President, the Vice-President, the Members of and conditions as the law may impose and he cannot complain of
the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional any restrictions which public policy may dictate on his office.
Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office,
on impeachment … All other public officers and employees may be NOTES: In theorizing that the provision under consideration cuts
removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment. short the term of office of a Member of Congress, petitioner seems
Such constitutional expression clearly recognizes that the four (4) to confuse "term" with "tenure" of office: The term of office
grounds found in Article VI of the Constitution by which the tenure prescribed by the Constitution may not be extended or shortened
of a Congressman may be shortened are not exclusive. The by the legislature (22 R.C.L.), but the period during which an
expression in the constitution of the circumstances which shall officer actually holds the office (tenure) may be affected by
bring about a vacancy does not preclude the legislature from circumstances within or beyond the power of said officer. Tenure
prescribing other grounds may be shorter than the term or it may not exist at all. These
situations will not change the duration of the term of office (see
Additionally, this Court has enunciated the presumption in favor of Topacio Nueno vs. Angeles, 76 Phil 12).
constitutionality of legislative enactment. To justify the
nullification of a law, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach - 4 grounds found in Article VI of the Constitution by which the
of the Constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative implication. tenure of a Congressman may be shortened:
A doubt, even if well-founded, does not suffice.
2. As administrative officers, both the Speaker and House a) Section 13, Article VI: Forfeiture of his seat by holding any other
Secretary-General perform ministerial functions; It was their duty office or employment in the government or any subdivision,
to remove petitioner's name from the Roll considering the agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned
unequivocal tenor of Section 67, Article IX, B.P. Blg. 881. When the or controlled corporations or subsidiaries;
COMELEC communicated to the House of Representatives that b) Section 16 (3): Expulsion as a disciplinary action for disorderly
petitioner had filed his certificate of candidacy for regional behavior;
governor of Muslim Mindanao, respondents had no choice but to c) Section 17: Disqualification as determined by resolution of the
abide by the clear and unmistakable legal effect of Section 67, Electoral Tribunal in an election contest; and,
Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881. These officers cannot refuse to perform d) Section 7, par. 2: Voluntary renunciation of office.
their duty on the ground of an alleged invalidity of the statute
employees from engaging in any electioneering or partisan
political campaign.
| GR No. 189698 | Quinto and Tolentino vs COMELEC
FACTS: The court declared as unconstitutional the second The intention to impose a strict limitation on the participation of
provisio in the third paragraph of sec 13 of RA 9369, Sec 66 of the civil service officers and employees in partisan political campaign
Omnibus Election Code and Sec 4 of the COMELEC Resolution is unmistakable.
8679 that they violate the equal protection clause of the
Constitution. The equal protection of the law clause in the constitution is not
absolute, but is subject to reasonable classification if the groupings
BACKGROUND: are characterized by substantial distinctions that make real
differences, one class may be treated and regulated different from
Dec 1, 2009 The Court declared the second provisio in the third the other.
paragraph of sec 13 of RA 9369, Sec 66 of the Omnibus Election
Code and Sec 4 of the COMELEC Resolution 8679 as The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and
unconstitutional. individual or class privelege, as well as hostile discrimination or
the oppression of inequality. It is not intended to prohibit
Dec 14, 2009 COMELEC filed the motion for reconsideration. legislation which is limited either in the object to which it is
directed or by territory within which it is to operate. It does not
The second provisio in the third paragraph of sec 13 of RA 9369, demand absolute equality among residents; it merely requires that
Sec 66 of the Omnibus Election Code and Sec 4 of the COMELEC all persons shall be treated alike under like circumstances and
Resolution 8679: “Any person holding a public appointive office or conditions both as to priveleges conferred and liabilities enforced.
position, including active members of the Armed Forces of the The equal protection clause is not enfringed by legislation which
Philippines, and officers and employees in GOCCs shall be applies only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it
considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon filling of his applies alike to all persons within such class and reasonable
certificate of candidacy“ ground exists for making a distinction between those who fall
within such class and those who do not.
ISSUE: Whether or not the second provisio in the third paragraph
of sec 13 of RA 9369, Sec 66 of the Omnibus Election Code and Sec Substantial distinctions clearly exists between elective officials
4 of the COMELEC Resolution 8679, violate the equal protection and appointive officials. Elective officials occupy their office by
clause of the constitution. virtue of the mandate of the electorate. Appointive officials hold
their office by virtue of their designation by an appointing
HELD: The Court reversed their previous decision and declared authority.
the second provisio in the third paragraph of sec 13 of RA 9369,
Sec 66 of the Omnibus Election Code and Sec 4 of the COMELEC
Resolution 8679 as constitutional.