Article 6 PDF

ARTICLE 6: THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT Congress may legislate on any subject matter, subject only to
Constitutional limitations. The power of present and future

Section 1: The Legislative Power legislations must remain plenary. Congress may not pass
The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the irrepealable laws as this would curtail the plenary power of future
Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Congress.
Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the
provision of initiative and referendum. Examples of Constitutional limitations are:- A law passed by
Congress cannot violate the Constitution.- Congress cannot pass a
Legislative power is the authority to make laws and to alter or repeal law that amounts to a usurpation of executive or judicial
them. prerogatives.- Congress cannot pass a law that allows it to appoint
officials in the executive department.- The Senate cannot initiate
Bicameralism appropriation and tariff bills.
1. Allows for a body with national perspective to check the Non-delegability of Legislative Power
parochial tendency of representatives elected by district.
2. Allows for a more careful study of legislation Legislative power is generally non-delegable under the principle of
3. Legislature is less susceptible to control by the Executive4. delegata potestas non potest delegari. Legislative power must
Serves as training ground for national leaders remain where the people have lodged it. Congress, therefore,
cannot abdicate itself of this mandate by further delegating this
Unicameralism power to another body.
1. Simplicity of organization resulting in economy and efficiency This principle however admits several exceptions in our jurisdiction:
2. Facility in pinpointing responsibility for legislation 1. Delegation of legislative power to local governments2. Delegation
3. 3. Avoidance of duplication. of rule-making power (not legislative / law-making power) to
administrative bodies
Kinds of Legislative Power:
3. Constitutionally recognized exceptions Congress may, by law,
1. Original Legislative Power possessed by sovereign people2. grant the President necessary powers during times of war and
Derivative Legislative Power delegated by the sovereign people to national emergencies for a limited period and subject to restrictions
legislative bodies3. Constituent power to amend or revise the as it may prescribe. This grant of power may include legislative
Constitution4. Ordinary power to pass ordinary laws power. [Art. VI, Sec. 23(2)] The Congress may, by law, authorize the
President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations
Limits on Legislative Power1. Substantive limits / curtails the and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export
contents of a law2. Procedural limits / curtails the manner of quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts
passing laws within the framework of the national development program of the
Government. [Art. VI, Sec. 28(2)]
Legislative power of Congress is plenary
Grant of Quasi-Legislative Power to LGUs and Administrative
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

Albano, JLDA 1C 2021
Bodies agencies:
Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro (1919) It must be made clear that legislative power cannot be delegated to
administrative agencies. What is delegated is only rule-making power
Valid vs. Invalid delegation or law execution.
The true distinction, therefore, is between the delegation of power to They are allowed to: Fill up the details of an already complete
make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it statute throughimplementing rules and regulations; or Ascertain
shall be, and conferring authority or discretion as to its execution, to facts necessary to bring a contingent law into actual operation
be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be
done; to the latter no valid objection can be made. Tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of
legislative power:
Discretion may be committed by the legislature to an executive
department or official. The legislature may make decisions of 1. Completeness test the law must be complete in all its terms
executive departments or subordinate officials thereof, to whom it and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it
has committed the execution of certain acts, final on questions of reaches the delegate the only thing he will have to do is enforce it.
fact. The growing tendency in the decisions is to give prominence to
the necessity of the case. 2. Sufficient standard test there must be adequate guidelines or
limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegates
Legislative delegation to local authorities authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.
An exception to the general rule, sanctioned by immemorial practice, Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative
permits the central legislative body to delegate legislative powers to authority to delegate, who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the
local authorities. legislature and exercise a power essentially legislative (Eastern
Shipping Lines v. POEA)
Valid Delegation of Legislative Power
Elements of a Valid Delegation
Necessity of delegating subordinate legislation
1. Completeness:
The validity of delegating legislative power is now a quiet area in the - The law must be complete in itself It must set forth
constitutional landscape. In the face of the increasing complexity of therein the policy to be carried out or implemented by
the task of the government and the increasing inability of the the delegate.
legislature to cope directly with the many problems demanding its - What can be delegated is the discretion to determine
attention, resort to delegation of power, or entrusting to how the law may be enforced, not what the law shall be.
administrative agencies the power of subordinate legislation, has The ascertainment of the latter subject is a prerogative
become imperative, as here. (SJS v. DDB, 2008) of the legislature. This prerogative cannot be abdicated
or surrendered by the legislature to the delegate.
Requisites of a valid delegation of legislative power to administrative (Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA)

as that of the challenged legislation. (Chiongbian v. Orbos, 1995)
Contingent Legislation
2. The law must fix a sufficient standard
- Limits of which are sufficiently determinate or While the power to tax cannot be delegated to executive agencies,
determinable details as to the enforcement and administration of an exercise of
- Will guide the delegate in the performance of his such power may be left to them, including the power to determine the
functions existence of facts on which its operation depends, the rationale being
- The standards formulated need not be in precise that the preliminary ascertainment of facts as basis for the enactment
language rather it can be drawn from the declared policy
of the law and from the totality of the delegating statute of legislation is not of itself a legislative function but is simply
anciliary to legislation. (ABAKADA v. Ermita, 2005)
Sufficient standards of delegation of legislative power
Laws may be made effective on certain contingencies. The
Parenthetically, it is recalled that this Court has accepted as legislature may delegate a power not legislative which it may itself
sufficient standards public interest in People v. Rosenthal, rightfully exercise. The power to ascertain facts is such a power
justice and equity in Antamok Gold Fields v. CIR, public which may be delegated. There is nothing essentially legislative in
convenience and welfare in Calalang v. Williams, and simplicity, ascertaining the existence of facts or conditions as the basis of the
economy and efficiency in Cervantes v. Auditor General, to taking into effect of a law. (People v. Vera)
mention only a few cases. In the United States, the sense and
experience of men was accepted in Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Where the effectivity of the law is made dependent on the verification
Commission, and national security in Hirabayashi v. United by the executive of the existence of certain condition, it is not a
States. (Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA) delegation of legislative power. This is called contingent legislation.
Congress provides the conditions required before a law takes effect;
Public Interest as a standard the executive factually determines when those conditions exist.
(ABAKADA v. Ermita, 2005)
[T]he term public interest is not without a settled meaning.
Appellant insists that the delegation of authority to the Commission Filling in details
is invalid because the stated criterion is uncertain. That criterion is
the public interest. It is a mistaken assumption that this is a mere There is no undue delegation of legislative power when there is only
general reference to public welfare without any standard to guide a grant of the power to fill up or provide the details of legislation
determinations, The purpose of the Act, the requirement it imposes, because Congress did not have the facility to provide them.
and the context of the provision in question show the contrary.
(People v. Rosenthal, 1939) To a certain extent, matters of detail may be left to be filled in by
rules and regulations to be adopted or promulgated by executive
A legislative standard need not be expressed. It may simply be officers and administrative boards. As a rule, an act of the legislature
gathered or implied. Nor need it be found in the law challenged is incomplete and hence invalid if it does not lay down any rule or
because it may be embodied in other statutes on the same subject definite standard by which the administrative board may be guided in

the exercise of the discretionary powers delegated to it. (People v. provided by the statute itself3. The regulation must be published in
Vera, 1937) the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation
Undue Delegation - There should be designated limits of the penalty and it should not
be left to the discretion of the judge (penalty of imprisonment, in the
The legislature does seemingly on its own authority extend the discretion of the court is invalid because it is not for the court to fix
benefits of the Probation Act to the provinces but in reality leaves the the term of imprisonment where no points of reference have been
entire matter for the various provincial boards to determine. If provided by the legislature (People v. Dacuycuy).
provincial board does not wish to have the Act applied in its province,
all that it has to do is to decline to appropriate the needed amount for
the salary of a probation officer. This is a virtual surrender of GARCIA v. COMELEC
legislative power to the provincial boards. (People v. Vera) Petitioners: Enrique T. Garcia*
Respondent: COMELEC**
Legislative Veto of Implementing Rules and Regulations *as resident of Morong, Bataan
**because they were empowered to enforce and administer all laws
After the enactment of a law, congressional oversight is limited to and regulations relative to the conduct of an initiative and referendum,
scrutiny and investigation. Any action or step beyond that will as stated in Section 2(1) C, Art 9 of the Constitution
undermine the separation of powers guaranteed by the Constitution.
Facts:
Legislative veto is a statutory provision requiring the President or an In Pambansang Kapasyahan (Resolution) Blg. 10, Serye 1993, the
administrative agency to present the proposed implementing rules Sangguniang Bayan of Morong, Bataan agreed to the inclusion of
and regulations of a law to Congress which, by itself or through a Morong as part of the Subic Special Economic Zone (SSEZ) in
committee formed by it, retains a right or power to approve or accordance with RA 7227 (Bases Conversion and Development Act)
disapprove such regulations before they take effect. It is Petitioner filed a petition with the SB of Morong to annul said
unconstitutional. Congress, in the guise of assuming the role of an resolution, and change it into one that only allows the inclusion of
overseer, may not pass upon the legality of IRRs by subjecting them Morong as part of the SSEZ if certain conditions are followed
to its stamp of approval without disturbing the calculated balance of (separating certain parts of the SSEZ and giving it back to Bataan,
powers established by the Constitution. The discretion to approve or establishment of own SEZs in Morong, Hermosa, and Dinalupihan,
disapprove Rules and Regulations is a judicial power. (Abakada v. etc.)
Purisima) Municipality of Morong did not take any action within 30 days after
the submission of such petition
Rules and Regulations by Administrative Agencies may have the Petitioners resorted to their power of initiative under the Local
force of penal laws if: Government Code of 1991.
Signatures were solicited to cause the repeal of said resolution.
1. The delegating statute itself must specifically authorize the Hon. Edilberto M. De Leon, VM of the SB of Morong wrote a letter to
promulgation of penal regulations the Executive Director of COMELEC requesting the denial of the
petition for a local initiative and/or referendum because it would
2. The penalty must not be left to the administrative agency but promote divisiveness, counter-productivity, and futility.

According to the letter, the SB of Morong already accommodated the to ordinances alone. The provision cited by the respondents
clamor of the petitioners in accordance with its limited powers over merely defined what a local initiative is (a legal process)
the issues. They cannot afford to wait for amendments because it Sec 124 of the same code states that initiatives shall extend to
would delay the development of Morong. subjects or matters which are within the legal powers of the
COMELEC denied the petition for local initiative because it was Sanggunian to enact.
based on a resolution and not an ordinance. Court noted that resolutions are used by the legislature to express
an opinion with a temporary effect, while an ordinance
Issue: permanently direct and control matters applying to persons or
W/N a resolution could be the subject of a local initiative things in general.
The PK Blg 10 affects the people of Morong permanently, hence,
Held: their say is important.
YES.
Original legislative power is possessed by the sovereign people. Petition is GRANTED, COMELEC Resolution ANNULLED and SET
Through the 1987 Constitution, the Filipinos were vested with the ASIDE.
power to amend the Constitution itself, or to enact or reject any act
or law by congress or the local legislative body through an initiative. EASTERN SHIPPING LINES v. PHILIPPINES OVERSEAS
Respondents relied on the definition of a Local Initiative in the LGC EMPLOYMENT AUTHORITY (POEA)
of 1991 which stated that it is a legal process where registered
voters may directly propose, enact, or amend any ordinance. Facts:
Court rejects the literal reading of such provision. Vitaliano Saco was the Chief Officer of the MV Eastern Polaris
The constitution includes not only ordinances, but resolutions as when he was killed in an accident in Tokyo, Japan.
appropriate subjects of a local initiative. His widow sued for damages under EO 797 (Charter for
This is found in Art 6, Sec 32 that states The Congress shall POEA) and Memorandum Circular No. 2 issued by POEA.
provide for a system of initiative and referendum whereby the Petitioner argued that the complaint was under the jurisdiction
people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any of the Social Security System, and should have been filed
act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local legislative against the State Insurance Fund.
body POEA assumed jurisdiction and ruled in favor of Saco.
Black defines act as an expression of will or purpose and that it (Entitled to P180k for death benefits, and P12k for burial
may denote something done as a legislature, including expenses. Basis for such decision was the Memorandum
resolves (resolutions) Circular 2 that prescribed a standard contract to be adopted
Therefore a resolution is considered an act by both foreign and domestic shipping companies in hiring
Court held that a law must be in harmony with the Constitution. Filipino seamen for overseas employment.
If the RA 7160 (The Local Govt Code) is unclear or ambiguous, the Petitioner claims that they did not enter such contract.
interpretation that will avoid the effect of unconstitutionality Court said that they nonetheless should have because it was
must be adopted/ in the Memorandum.
RA 6735 (Sec 3a) explicitly states the inclusion of resolutions as a Petitioner questions the validity of the memorandum and
subject of an initiative. claimed that it was violative of the principle of non-delegation
Court also held that the LGC does not limit the subject of initiatives of legislative power because it had no authority (under its

charter) to promulgate such regulation, and even with such its terms and conditions, therefore leaving the
authorization, the re regulation represents an exercise of delegate with the duty to merely enforce it.
legislative discretion which is not subject to delegation. ii. Sufficient Standard Test- there must be
In its charter, POEA has "original and exclusive jurisdiction adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to
over all cases, including money claims, involving employee- map out the boundaries of the delegates
employer relations arising out of or by virtue of any law or authority.
contract involving Filipino contract workers, including - Both tests intended to prevent total transference of
seamen." legislative authority to the delegate.
Issue: - Specialization in legislation necessary because of the
1. W/N Saco was an overseas worker increasing complexity of the task of government.
2. W/N Memorandum Circular No. 2 is violative of the principle - Legislature may not have the competence to provide the
of non-delegation of legislative power required direct and specific solutions.
- This is left in the hands of supposed experts in the specific
Held: field assigned to them; therefore authority to issue rules
1. YES. The court took into consideration 2 acts that showed to carry out the general provisions of the statute is
how petitioner acknowledged Saco as an overseas worker: delegated to them. (With the guidance of such standards)
a. Submission of shipping articles to POEA for processing, - Administrative bodies vested with the power to merely
formalization, and approval in the exercise of its implement the policies laid out by the statute by filling in
regulatory power over overseas employment under EO the details the Congress may not have the competence to
797. provide.
b. Payment of the contributions mandated by law and - The power of POEA in requiring the model contract is
regulations to the Welfare Fund for Overseas Workers not unlimited as there is a sufficient standard guiding
(PD 1694 for the purpose of providing social and welfare the delegate in exercise of such authority (As stated in
services to Filipino overseas workers) EO 797, where POEA is mandated to protect the rights of
- Court also took note of the fact that the receipt prepared overseas Filipino workers to fair and equitable
for Mrs. Sacos signature described Mr. Saco as employment practices)
overseas contract worker Saco
2. NO. Court held that: Petition is DISMISSED, with costs against PETITIONER.
a. Authority to issue the said regulation is provided in Sec 4
of EO 797. shall promulgate necessary rules and TABLARIN v. GUTIERREZ
regulations to govern the exercise of the adjudicatory Petitioners: in behalf of applicants for admission into Medical Colleges
functions of POEA. during SY 1987-1988 & future applicants who have not taken or
b. Court took into consideration that only the discretion to successfully hurdled the NMAT
determine how the law may be enforced may be Respondent: RTC Judge
delegated, and not what the law shall be.
- Court stated 2 accepted tests to determine W/N there was Facts:
valid delegation of (subordinate) legislative powers: Petitioners pray for a TRO to enjoin the Board of Medical
i. Completeness Test- law must be complete in all Education & Center for Educational Measurement:

o from enforcing Sec 5 of RA 2382 (Medical Act of requirements.
1959) and MECS Order no. 52, 2. Petitioners state that Section 5 (a) and (f) violate the
o from requiring the taking and passing of NMAT as a constitutional principle that forbids undue delegation of
condition for securing certificates of eligibility for legislative powers.
admisision
o from accepting NMAT applications FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION v. MINISTER OF LABOR
o from administering the NMAT on April 26, 1987 AND EMPLOYMENT
RTC denied said petition.
The said RA is an act which created the Board of Medical Facts:
Education for purposes of providing for the standardization The petitioners are asking to review the amendment caused
and regulation of medical education by, among others, (a) by BP Blg. 130 to Art. 264 of the Labor Code regarding strikes.
determining and prescribing requirements for admission into The provision grants the Minister of Labor and
a recognized college of medicine and (f) accepting Employment the power and/or discretion to assume
applications for certification for admission and collecting P25 jurisdiction regarding strikes and compulsory arbitration
from each applicant. to the National Labor Relations Commission.
MECS Order No. 52 is an order by the Minister of Education, The petitioners are concerned how the amendment may be
Culture and Sports establishing a uniform admission test contrary to the assurance of the State to workers right to self-
called the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) as an organization and collective bargaining.
additional requirement for issuance of a certificate of eligibility On September 14, 1981, there was a notice of strike filed
for admission into the medical schools of the Philippines. with the Ministry of Labor for unfair labor practices stating
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the abovementioned the grounds 1) Unilateral and arbitrary implementation of
acts and orders. Nonetheless, pursuant to the MECS Order, Code of Conduct 2) Illegal terminations and suspensions
the respondents conducted the NMAT for the school year of the employees officers and members as a result of the
1987-1988. Hence, petitioners instituted this present petition. Code of Conduct 3) Unconfirmation (sic) of sick leaves
treating the said leave as Absence Without Official Leave
Issue: of Absence (AWOL).
W/N RA 2383 is unconstitutional The petitioners want to revise the Code of Conduct so that it
will be fair to the ones concerned and that said Code should
Held: be suspended for the meantime. On September 25, 1981, the
NO. The court held that: NLRC certified the strike and the said issue is pursued under
1. When the petitioners invoked Art 2 Secs 11, 13, & 17 and the said agency for compulsory arbitration. The workers are
Art 14 Secs 1 & 5(3), they were not able to show how the also enjoined from strike in any private establishment.
law and the administrative order collided with the State Petitioners assail that BP Blg. 130 amends Article 264 of the
Policies and other provisions. Court stated that Section 1 Labor Code which delegates to the Honorable Minister of
and 5 of Article 14 should be read together as taking Labor and Employment the power and discretion to assume
appropriate steps to make medical education accessible jurisdiction and/or certify strikes for compulsory arbitration to
to all, all referring to those who meet the fair, the National Labor Relations Commission, and in effect make
reasonable, and equitable admission and academic or unmake the law on free collective bargaining. They believe

that there is an undue delegation of legislative powers. There complexities of government, the multiplication of subjects, and
is likewise the assertion that such conferment of authority difficulty of administering them (Justice Laurel). All that is required is
"may also ran contrary to the assurance of the State to the that the regulation should be germane to the objects and
workers' right to self-organization and collective bargaining. purposes of the law and should not contradict the standards of
the law prescribes.
Issue:
Whether BP Blg. 130 unduly delegates legislative power. Court reiterates that there is no ruling as to w/n such law is
unconstitutional, since the matter is not ripe for judicial determination.
Held: It is held, however, that the there is no undue delegation of legislative
NO. powers and that while the Minister upholds such duty, it must be free
from the taint of unconstitutionality and must be exercised in
The court first recognizes that the authority exercised by the minister accordance to the constitutional mandate of protection to the rights of
is executive and that the question is whether or not this is an the workers to self-organization, self-bargaining, security of tenure,
encroaching of the power of legislation. The Minister is an official of and just and humane work conditions.
the executive branch, hence, his actions are presumed to be that of
the President/Chief Executive Petitions DISMISSED for lack of Merit
The court said that there was no undue delegation of legislative power. CEBU OXYGEN & ACETYLENE CO., INC. v. DRILON (Dole Sec)
In Edu v. Ericta, it is said that What cannot be delegated is the power
to make laws and to alter and repeal them; the test is the Facts:
completeness of the statute in all its terms and provisions when it
leaves the hands of the legislature. Petitioner and the union of its rank and file employees, Cebu
Oxygen, Acetylene and Central Visayas Employees
The legislature designates who does a certain task and what Association (COAVEA) entered into a collective bargaining
should be done. It also entails the scope of power of the person agreement (CBA) covering the years 1986 to 1988. Pursuant
as well as the discretion to its execution in accordance with the thereto, the management gave salary increases wherein it
law. The executive also in pursuance of the guidelines provided by the was agreed that: on the first year of the AGREEMENT, each
law may promulgate supplemental rules and regulations. The case at employee will get a P200 increase. On the second year, each
hand shows that BP Blg. 130 is constitutional as it empowers the employee will get P200. On the third year, each employee will
Minister of Labor to assume jurisdiction over labor disputes causing or get P300. It was also stated that if the wage adjustment of
likely to cause adverse effects to national interests and thereafter allowance increases decreed by law, legislation or
decide it or certify the same the National Labor Relations Commission presidential edict in any particular year shall be higher
is not on its face value unconstitutional and contravenes self- than the foregoing increases in that particular year, then
organization and free collective bargaining. There is no unduie the company shall pay the difference.
delegation of powers because such law sets out the standards (what RA No. 6640 was passed increasing the minimum wage. The
job is done, who does it, and what are the limits of authority.) Secretary of Labor then issued the pertinent rules
implementing the provisions of RA No. 6640. Under Section 8
Principle of non-delegation has been made to adopt to the (Wage Increase Under Individual/Collective Agreements) of

the implementing rule, it prohibits the employer from Employment (DOLE) can provide for a prohibition not contemplated
crediting anniversary wage increases negotiated under a by the law it seeks to implement.
collective bargaining agreement against such wage
increases mandated by RA No. 6640. Held:
Accordingly, petitioner credited the first year increase of
P200.00 under the CBA and added the difference of P61.66 No. The provisions of Republic Act No. 6640, do not prohibit the
(rounded to P62.00) and P31.00 to the monthly salary and the crediting of CBA anniversary wage increases for purposes of
13th month pay, respectively, of its employees from the compliance with Republic Act No. 6640. The implementing rules
effectivity of RA No. 6640 on December 14, 1987 to February cannot provide for such a prohibition not contemplated by the law.
15, 1988. Administrative regulations adopted under legislative authority by a
A Labor and Employment Development Officer, pursuant to particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of the
his Inspection Authority, commenced a routine inspection of law, and should be for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its
petitioner's establishment. He found out that based on general provisions. The law itself cannot be expanded by such
payrolls and other records petitioner committed violations of regulations. An administrative agency cannot amend an act of
the law by under paying his employees under RA No. 6640 Congress.
covering the period of two (2) months representing 208
employees who are not receiving wages above P100/day prior
to the effectivity of R.A. No. 6640 and under payment of 13th Thus petitioner's contention that the salary increases granted by it
month pay for the year 1987, representing 208 employees pursuant to the existing CBA including anniversary wage increases
who are not receiving wages above P 100/day prior to the should be considered in determining compliance with the wage
effectivity of R.A. No. 6640. increase mandated by Republic Act No. 6640, is correct.
Petitioner contends that the anniversary wage increases
under the CBA can be credited against the wage increase Petitioner therefor correctly credited its employees P62.00 for the
mandated by Republic Act No. 6640. Hence, petition differential of two (2) months increase and P31.00 each for the
contended that inasmuch as it had credited the first year differential in 13th month pay, after deducting the P200.00 anniversary
increase negotiated under the CBA, it was liable only for wage increase for 1987 under the CBA. Indeed, it is stipulated in the
salary differential of P 62.00 and a 13th month pay differential CBA that in case any wage adjustment or allowance increase decreed
of P31.00. Petitioner argued that the payment of the by law, legislation or presidential edict in any particular year shall be
differentials constitutes full compliance with Republic Act No. higher than the foregoing increase in that particular year, then the
6640. Petitioner also believes that Section 8 of the rules company (petitioner) shall pay the difference.
implementing the provisions of Republic Act No. 6640
particularly the provision excluding anniversary wage TATAD v SEC of DEPARTMENT of ENERGY
increases from being credited to the wage increase
provided by said law is null and void on the ground that Facts:
the same unduly expands the provisions of the said law.
In 1984, President Marcos through Section 8 of Presidential
Issue: Decree No. 1956, created the Oil Price Stabilization Fund
Whether the Implementing Order of the Secretary of Labor and (OPSF) to cushion the effects of frequent changes in the price

of oil caused by exchange rate adjustments or increase in the Branch in determining when to implement the full deregulation
world market prices of crude oil and imported petroleum of the downstream oil industry. Petitioners contend that the
products. The fund is used (1) to reimburse the oil companies law does not define when it is practicable for the Secretary of
for cost increases in crude oil and imported petroleum Energy to recommend to the President the full deregulation of
products resulting from exchange rate adjustment and/or the downstream oil industry or when the President may
increase in world market prices of crude oil, and (2) to consider it practicable to declare full deregulation. Also, the
reimburse oil companies for cost underrecovery incurred as a law does not provide any specific standard to determine when
result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum the prices of crude oil in the world market are considered to
products. be declining nor when the exchange rate of the peso to the
The OPSF is sourced from (1) tax or customs duty imposed US dollar is considered stable.
on petroleum products; (2) tax collection as a result of the Sec. 15. Implementation of Full Deregulation Pursuant to
lifting of tax exemptions of government corporations; (3) any section 5(e) of Republic Act No. 7638, the DOE shall, upon
additional amount gathered from companies importing, approval of the President, implement the full deregulation of
manufacturing and/or marketing petroleum products; or (4) the downstream oil industry not later than March 1997. As far
any resulting peso costs differentials in case the actual peso as practicable, the DOE shall time the full deregulation when
costs paid by oil companies in the importation of crude oil and the prices of crude oil and petroleum products in the world
petroleum products is less than the peso costs computed market are declining and when the exchange rate of the peso
using the reference foreign exchange rate as fixed by the in relation to the US dollar is stable
Board of Energy. On February 8, 1997, the President implemented the full
Congress on the other hand enacted RA 8180 that provides deregulation of the Downstream Oil Industry through EO
for the full deregulation of the downstream oil industry (Oil 372.
Deregulation Law). The deregulation process has two phases:
the transition phase and the full deregulation phase.
During the transition phase, controls of the non-pricing Issues:
aspects of the oil industry were to be lifted. The following were
to be accomplished: (1) liberalization of oil importation, 1. W/N Section 15 of RA 8180 is unconstitutional
exportation, manufacturing, marketing and distribution, (2) 2. W/N EO 392 misapplied RA 8180
implementation of an automatic pricing mechanism, (3)
implementation of an automatic formula to set margins of Held:
dealers and rates of haulers, water transport operators and
pipeline concessionaires, and (4) restructuring of oil taxes. 1. NO. (IN TERMS OF DELEGATION)
Upon full deregulation, controls on the price of oil and the - It has been held in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. VS.
foreign exchange cover were to be lifted and the OPSF was POEA that there are two accepted tests to determine
to be abolished. whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative
Petitioner contend that Section 15 of E.O. 392 constitutes an power, viz: the completeness test and the sufficient
undue delegation of legislative power to the President and the standard test.
Secretary of Energy because it does not provide a - Given the groove of the Court's rulings, the attempt of
determinate or determinable standard to guide the Executive petitioners to strike down section 15 on the ground of

undue delegation of legislative power cannot prosper. provisions mentioned by the petitioners are the
Section 15 can hurdle both the completeness test and core of the RA, the whole RA must be struck
the sufficient standard test. It will be noted that down as unconstitutional.
Congress expressly provided in R.A. No. 8180 that
full deregulation will start at the end of March 1997, 2. YES.
regardless of the occurrence of any event. Full - E.O. 392 sourced its power from RA 8180 but claimed
deregulation at the end of March 1997 is mandatory that the President can consider the depletion of the
and the Executive has no discretion to postpone it for OPSF fund as a factor in fully deregulating the
any purported reason. downstream oil industry last February 1997.
- Thus, the law is complete on the question of the final - A perusal of section 15 of R.A. No. 8180 will readily
date of full deregulation. The discretion given to the reveal that it only enumerated two factors to be
President is to advance the date of full deregulation considered by the Department of Energy and the
before the end of March 1997. Section 15 lays down Office of the President, viz.: (1) the time when the
the standard to guide the judgment of the President prices of crude oil and petroleum products in the world
he is to time it as far as practicable when the prices market are declining, and (2) the time when the
of crude oil and petroleum products in the world exchange rate of the peso in relation to the US dollar
market are declining and when the exchange rate of is stable. Section 15 did not mention the depletion of
the peso in relation to the US dollar is stable. the OPSF fund as a factor to be given weight by the
- Petitioners contend that as far as practicable," Executive before ordering full deregulation.
"declining" and "stable" should have been defined in - We therefore hold that the Executive department
R.A. No. 8180 as they do not set determinate or failed to follow faithfully the standards set by R.A. No.
determinable standards. The stubborn submission 8180 when it considered the extraneous factor of
deserves scant consideration. The dictionary depletion of the OPSF fund. The misappreciation of
meanings of these words are well settled and cannot this extra factor cannot be justified on the ground that
confuse men of reasonable intelligence. Webster the Executive department considered anyway the
defines "practicable" as meaning possible to practice stability of the prices of crude oil in the world market
or perform, "decline" as meaning to take a downward and the stability of the exchange rate of the peso to
direction, and "stable" as meaning firmly established. the dollar. By considering another factor to hasten
full deregulation, the Executive department
YES (IN TERMS OF TARRIFS) rewrote the standards set forth in R.A. 8180. The
Executive is bereft of any right to alter either by
- Petitioners argue that Section 5(b) (regarding subtraction or addition the standards set in R.A. No.
tariff duty) and Section 9(b) (prohibits selling of 8180 for it has no power to make laws.
such products below industry average) are - In the cases at bar, the Executive co-mingled the
unconstitutional because it allows monopolies factor of depletion of the OPSF fund with the factors
(Shell, Caltex, Petron) contrary to Article 12 of decline of the price of crude oil in the world market
Section 19 that requires the state to and the stability of the peso to the US dollar. On the
regulate/prohibit monopolies. Since the basis of the text of E.O. No. 392, it is impossible to

determine the weight given by the Executive any act to defeat any of the provisions of this Act shall, upon
department to the depletion of the OPSF fund. It could conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred
well be the principal consideration for the early pesos nor more than one thousand pesos, or by imprisonment,
deregulation. It could have been accorded an equal in the discretion of the court. (Emphasis supplied).
significance. Or its importance could be nil. In light of They claim that Section 32 constitutes an undue delegation of
this uncertainty, we rule that the early deregulation legislative power, the duration of the penalty of imprisonment
under E.O. No. 392 constitutes a MISAPPLICATION being solely left to the discretion of the court as if the latter were
of R.A. No. 8180. the legislative department of the Government.
Respondent judge Dacuycuy in his decision ruled that RA No.
Petiotion GRANTED; RA 8180 declared UNCONSTI, EO 329 declared 4670 is valid and constitutional. He claims that: principle of
VOID. separation of powers is not violated by vesting incourts discretion
as to the length of sentence or amount of fine between designated
MELO; DISSENTING limits in sentencing persons onvicted of crime. In such instance,
the exercise of judicial discretion by the courts is not an attempt to
Melo stated that there is no undue delegation of legislative powers in use legislative power or to prescribe and create a law"
RA 8180 or EO 329. He states that both the RA and the Eo passes
the completeness test and the sufficient standards test. All the Issue:
executive has to do, as a delegate, is implement it. The EO simply W/N RA 4670 is unconstitutional.
showed how the Chief Executive exercised his delegated authority to
ascertain and recognize events that prompted him to advance the Held:
deregulation to a date earlier that March 1997. RA did not prohibit him
from doing so, as long as the standards were met. NO. (In terms of cruel and unusual punishments because of the
indefinite penalty of imprisonment)
PEOPLE v. DACUYCUY (Judge)
- Court held that in the constitutional provision that
Facts: directs that excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor
cruel and unusual punishment inflicted looks at the
Private respondents Celestino S. Matondo, Segundino A. Caval form or character of the punishment, and not its
and Cirilo M. Zanoria, public school officials of Leyte, were severity.
charged before the Municipal Court of Hindang, Leyte for violation - Laws are not declared unconstitutional for excessive
of RA No. 4670 (Magna Carta for Public School Teachers). After penalties, however, courts are advised to recommend
their motion to dismiss was quashed by the municipal court, they clemency or reduction of penalty to the chief
filed for a reconsideration alleging that Section 32 of RA No. 4670 executive.
is null and void for being unconstitutional. RA No. 4670 Section 32
provides: (In terms of undue delegation of legislative powers)
Sec. 32. Penal Provision. A person who shall wilfully interfere
with, restrain or coerce any teacher in the exercise of his rights - Two alternative and distinct penalties are
guaranteed by this Act or who shall in any other manner commit consequently imposed under Section 32 of RA 4670

to wit: (a) a fine ranging from P100.00 to P1,000.00; Pursuant to the Constitution, Congress passed R.A 6734, the
or (b) imprisonment. It is apparent that the law has no Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
prescribed period or term for the imposable penalty of calling for a plebiscite to create an autonomous region.
imprisonment. While a minimum and maximum The provinces of Lanao Del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi-
amount for the penalty of fine is specified, there is no Tawi, which voted for the creation of such region were later
equivalent provision for the penalty of imprisonment, on known as the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.
although both appear to be qualified by the phrase "in Consistent with the authority granted by Article XIX, Section 13 of
the discretion of the court. RA 6734 which authorizes the President to merge the
- In the case under consideration, the respondent judge existing regions, President Corazon Aquino issued E.O
erronneously assumed that since the penalty of No. 429 providing for the Reorganization of the Administrative
imprisonment has been provided for by the Regions in Mindanao.
legislature, the court is endowed with the discretion to Petitioners contend that Art. XIX, Section 13 of R.A. No.
ascertain the term or period of imprisonment. We 6734 is unconstitutional because it unduly
cannot agree with this postulate. It is not for the courts delegates legislative power to the President by authorizing him
to fix the term of imprisonment where no points of to merge by administrative determination the existing regions or
reference have been provided by the legislature. at any rate provides no standard for the exercise of the
What valid delegation presupposes and sanctions is power delegated and that the power granted is
an exercise of discretion to fix the length of service of not expressed in the title of the law.
a term of imprisonment which must be encompassed They also challenge the validity of E.O. No. 429 on the ground that
within specific or designated limits provided by law, the power granted by RA 6734 to the President is only to merge
the absence of which designated limits well constitute regions IX and XII but not to reorganize the entire administrative
such exercise as an undue delegation, if not-an regions in Mindanao and certainly not to transfer the regional
outright intrusion into or assumption, of legislative center of Region IX from Zamboanga City to Pagadian City.
power.
- Section 32 of Republic Act No. 4670 provides for an Issue:
indeterminable period of imprisonment, with neither a Whether or not the R.A 6734 is invalid because it contains no standard
minimum nor a maximum duration having been set by to guide the Presidents discretion.
the legislative authority. The courts are thus given a
wide latitude of discretion to fix the term of Held:
imprisonment, without even the benefit of any NO. In conferring on the President the power to merge by
sufficient standard. administrative determination the existing regions following the
establishment of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao,
CHIONGBIAN (Congressmen) v. ORBOS Congress merely followed the pattern set in previous legislation dating
back to the initial organization of administrative regions in 1972.
Facts:
The choice of the President as delegate is logical because the division
of the country into regions is intended to facilitate not only the

administration of local governments but also the direction of executive NCR-01-1 only called for the increase of minimum wage in
departments which the law requires should have regional offices. NCR by 17 pesos daily but NCR-01-1-A which amended it to
17 pesos daily only for minimum wages rates up to 125 pesos
While the power to merge administrative regions is not per day which made effectively determined salary ceilings.
expressly provided for in the Constitution, it is a power which has ECOP appealed to the National Wages and Productivity
traditionally been lodged with the President to facilitate the exercise of Commission but was dismissed for lack of merit and was
the power of general supervision over local governments. denied reconsideration, thus the petition.
(Abbas v. COMELEC)
Issue:
The regions themselves are not territorial and political divisions W/N the National Wages and Productivity Commission
like provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays but are "mere committed an unlawful act of legislation through wage-fixing
groupings of contiguous provinces for administrative purposes. The
power conferred on the President is similar to the power to adjust Holding:
municipal boundaries which has been described as "administrative in No. In the Courts opinion, if RA 6727 intended the boards alone
nature. (Pelaez v. Auditor General) to set floor wages, the Act would have no need for a board but an
accountant to keep track of the latest consumer price index, or better,
Thus, the regrouping is done only on paper. It involves no more than would have Congress done it as the need arises, as the legislature
are definition or redrawing of the lines separating administrative prior to the Act, has done for years. Congress has delegated the power
regions for the purpose of facilitating the administrative supervision of to fix rates, provided that sufficient standards are established. Art. 124
local government units by the President and insuring the efficient of the Act provides Standards/Criteria for Minimum Wage Fixing. The
delivery of essential services Congress is not by, any means, passing the buck but merely leaves
the question of wages to the expertise of the experts. As Justice Cruz
observed with the proliferation of specialized activities and their
Petitions DISMISSED. attendant peculiar problems, the national legislature has found it more
necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the power of
EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION OF THE PH v. NATIONAL subordinate legislation as it is called.
WAGES AND PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION
The concept of minimum wage is also different from wage. It
Facts: is more than setting a floor wage to upgrade existing wages as ECOP
Employers Confederation of the Philippines questioned the thinks. It underlies the effort of the State to promote productivity-
validity of Wage Order No. NCR-01-1-A dated October 23, improvement and gain-sharing measures to ensure a decent standard
1990 pursuant to RA 6727 or the Wage Rationalization Act. It of living for the workers and their families, etc. The state is concerned
provides, among other things, for various Regional Tripartite with the even distribution of wages.
Wages and Productivity Boards in charge of prescribing the
minimum wage rates for all workers in the various regions and Furthermore, the concept of salary-ceiling method is not new as it has
for a National Wages and Productivity Commission to been used in eleven issuances mandating the grant of cost-of-living
review, among other functions, wage levels determined by the allowances and there has been a shift to this method since there are
boards. labor disputes arising from wage distortions. While collective

bargaining and grievance procedures are appropriate, the
Commission observed that bargaining has helped very little in Issue:
correcting wage distortions. Does section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 constitute an
unlawful delegation of legislative power by the Philippine Legislature
Petition DENIED. to a provincial official and a department head, therefore making it
unconstitutional?
RUBI v PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO
Held:
Facts: NO. The Philippine Legislature has here conferred authority upon the
Province of Mindoro, to be exercised by the provincial governor and
The case is an application for habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and the provincial board.
other Manguianes of the Province of Mindoro. It is alleged that the In determining whether the delegation of legislative power is valid or
Maguianes are being illegally deprived of their liberty by the not, the distinction is between the delegation of power to make the law,
provincial officials of that province. Rubi and his companions are which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and
said to be held on the reservation established at Tigbao, Mindoro, conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised
against their will, and one Dabalos is said to be held under the under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done; to the
custody of the provincial sheriff in the prison at Calapan for having later no valid objection can be made. Discretion may be committed by
run away from the reservation. the Legislature to an executive department or official. The Legislature
The provincial governor of Mindoro and the provincial board may make decisions of executive departments of subordinate official
thereof directed the Manguianes in question to take up their thereof, to whom it has committed the execution of certain acts, final
habitation in Tigbao, a site on the shore of Lake Naujan, selected on questions of fact. The growing tendency in the decision is to give
by the provincial governor and approved by the provincial board. prominence to the "necessity" of the case.
The action was taken in accordance with section 2145 of the
Administrative Code of 1917, and was duly approved by the Normally the power to legislate is conferred in the legislature but it can
Secretary of the Interior as required by said action. Section 2145 permit local administers to pass administrative legislation in their area
of the Administrative Code of 1917 reads as follows: esp. for the purpose of maintaining law and order that will protect the
citizens in their area.
SEC. 2145. Establishment of non-Christian upon sites
selected by provincial governor. With the prior approval of The court cited Judge Ranney saying that the delegation of law is
the Department Head, the provincial governor of any province constitutional in the case at hand since it is a conferring of power rather
in which non-Christian inhabitants are found is authorized, than the capacity of determining what is shall be (Difference of
when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of executive on the former with legislative on the latter). The executive
law and order, to direct such inhabitants to take up their branch in the guise of LGU is not determining a law but enforcing it.
habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands to be selected
by him an approved by the provincial board. In enacting the said provision of the Administrative Code, the
Legislature merely conferred upon the provincial governor, with the
Petitioners, however, challenge the validity of this section of the approval of the provincial board and the Department Head,
Administrative Code. discretionary authority as to the execution of the law. This is necessary

since the provincial governor and the provincial board, as the official violated the Rules of Material Facts and Sections 30 and 36 of
representatives of the province, are better qualified to judge when Revised Securities Act. There is also an allegation that GHB and
such as course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order. that some of its directors, respondents herein, heavily traded IRC
As officials charged with the administration of the province and the shares utilizing this material insider information. The respondents
protection of its inhabitants, they are better fitted to select sites which filed an Omnibus Motion that the SEC had not authority to
have the conditions most favorable for improving the people who have investigate since the power is within the Prosecution and
the misfortune of being in a backward state. Enforcement Department of SEC. The SEC continued to create
special panel to investigate the case despite the issuance of
In the case of Rubi et al, such delegation is allowed given that the local respondent of injunction. The injunction was soon granted by the
government acted in good faith when they mentioned in the records Court of Appeals. The SEC filed a motion for leave to quash SEC
that the LGU previously attempted to help Rubi et al. but all efforts Omnibus to continue investigation.
were futile. Given that there is a need for the local government to The court stated that there were no implementing rules and
implement the laws that would help the backward people in Mindoro, regulations regarding disclosure, insider trading and the
they are then compelled by law to implement Admin Code Sec. 2145. provisions of the Revised Securities Acts which the respondents
Additionally, the LGU was compelled to enforce the law given that they violated.
wanted to prevent harmful activity of the Mindoro people when they There is also no statutory authority for SEC to file a suit for it will
cited cases of environmental destruction done through kaingin. be a violation of the respondents right to due process and equal
protection. While pending, RA 8799 (Securities Regulation Code)
Hence, Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is not an took effect on Aug. 8, 2000 which repealed Sec 8 of PD no. 902-
unlawful delegation of legislative power by the Philippine Legislature A which created the PED. This took the place of the Revised
to provincial official and a department head. Securities Act.
SEC v. INTERPORT Issues:

Whether the CA erred when it ruled that there is no Statutory Authority
Facts: for petitioner to file any suit against respondent with respect to
The board of directors of Interport Resources Corporation (IRC) Sections 30 and 36 of the Revised Security Act
approved an agreement between Ganda Holdings Berhad (GHB)
to acquire their Ganda Energy Holdings Inc. (GEHI), which was Held:
97% complete at that time. IRC on the other hand will issue 55% Yes. This Court rules that no implementing rules were needed to
of its expanded capital stock. Additionally, GHB will help IRC to render effective Sections 8, 30 and 36 of the Revised Securities Act;
acquire 67% of the capital stock of Philippine Racing Club (PCRI) nor was the PED Rules of Practice and Procedure invalid, prior to the
by arranging a loan from an international source. enactment of the Securities Regulations Code, for failure to provide
On 1994 of August, IRC alleged that it issued a press release of parties with the right to cross- examine the witnesses presented
the approval of its agreements but the SEC claims that it did not against them. Thus, the respondents may be investigated by the
receive any of it. The SEC claims that IRC failed to report its appropriate authority under the proper rules of procedure of the
business developments and its directors heavily traded IRC Securities Regulations Code for
stocks given the material of its information. SEC afterwards
conducted a hearing and found out that IRC and its directors violations of Sections 8, 30, and 36 of the Revised Securities Act.

The court upholds these provisions as legal and binding even without Generally available found in a newspaper, magazine, social media
constitutional or statutory infirmity. Unless a specific provision of the widely used Section 36
law is declared invalid and unconstitutional, the same is valid and
binding. The presumption of the validity of laws is based on the Directors, officers and principal stockholders Every person who
doctrine of separation of powers, to respect the acts of each is directly or indirectly the beneficial owner of more than ten per
department. It is impracticable for lawmakers to provide general centum of any [class] of any equity security which is registered
regulations for various details of management. The court does pursuant to this Act, or who is [a] director or an officer of the issuer of
not discern any vagueness or ambiguity in Sections 30 and 36 of such security.
the Revised Securities Act. The broadness of the anti-fraud
provisions is to embrace the infinite variety of deceptive conduct. Sections 30 and 36 of the Revised Securities Act were enacted to
promote full disclosure in the securities market and prevent
Section 30:Explains in simple terms the insiders misuse of non- public unscrupulous individuals, who by their positions obtain non-public
and undisclosed information is the gravamen of illegal conduct. To information, from taking advantage of an uninformed public. No
protect investors from fraud when an insider takes advantage of an individual would invest in a market which can be manipulated by a
uninformed investor using secret information. Insiders are obligated to limited number of corporate insiders. Such reaction would stifle, if not
disclose information or abstain from trading shares of his corporation. stunt, the growth of the securities market. To avert the occurrence of
such an event, Section 30 of the Revised Securities Act prevented the
INSIDERS persons whose relationship or former relationship to the unfair use of non-public information in securities transactions, while
issuer gives them access to a fact of special significance about the Section 36 allowed the SEC to monitor the transactions entered into
issuer or security generally not available or one who learns such a fact by corporate officers and directors as regards the securities of their
from an insider. companies.
FACT OF SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE PEOPLE v. ROSENTHAL
Material fact affect the market price of a security which the insider Facts:
would be required to disclose
Jacob Rosenthal and Nicasio Osmea were founders and
Reasonable person average man on the street; a reasonable shareholders of the ORO Oil Company. Later, Rosenthal and
person would consider important in determining his course of action Osmea were found guilty of selling their shares to individuals
with regard to shares of stock without actual tangible assets. Their shares were merely
based on speculations and future gains. This is in violation of
Nature and reliability reliability in light of the nature and source and Sections 2 and 5 of Act No. 2581.
circumstances of the information
Section 2 provides that every person, partnership,
association, or corporation attempting to offer to sell in the
Materiality concept balancing bot the indicated probability that the
Philippines speculative securities of any kind or character
event will occur and the anticipated magnitude of the even in light of
whatsoever, is under obligation to file previously with the
the totality of the company activity; determined on a caseby case
Insular Treasurer the various documents and papers
basis

enumerated therein and to pay the required tax of twenty- person, partnership, association or corporation applying therefor has
pesos. complied with the provisions of this Act, and this requirement,
construed in relation to the other provisions of the law, means that a
Section 5, on the other hand, provides that whenever the said
certificate or permit shall be issued by the Insular Treasurer when the
Treasurer of the Philippine Islands is satisfied, either with or
provisions of Act No. 2581 have been complied with. Upon the other
without the examination herein provided, that any person,
hand, the authority of the Insular Treasurer to cancel a certificate or
partnership, association or corporation is entitled to the right
permit is expressly conditioned upon a finding that such cancellation
to offer its securities as above defined and provided for sale
is in the public interest.
in the Philippine Islands, he shall issue to such person,
partnership, association or corporation a certificate or permit In view of the intention and purpose of Act No. 2581 to protect the
reciting that such person, partnership, association or public against speculative schemes which have no more basis than
corporation has complied with the provisions of this act, and so many feet of blue sky and against the sale of stock in fly-by-night
that such person, partnership, association or corporation, its concerns, visionary oil wells, distant gold mines, and other like
brokers or agents are entitled to order the securities named in fraudulent exploitations, the SC held that public interest in this
said certificate or permit for sale; that said Treasurer shall case is a sufficient standard to guide the Insular Treasurer in
furthermore have authority, whenever in his judgment it is in reaching a decision on a matter pertaining to the issuance or
the public interest, to cancel said certificate or permit, and cancellation of certificates or permits.
that an appeal from the decision of the Insular Treasurer may
Rosenthal insists that the delegation of authority to the Commission is
be had within the period of thirty days to the Secretary of
invalid because the stated criterion is uncertain. That criterion is the
Finance.
public interest. It is a mistaken assumption that this is a mere general
Rosenthal argued that Act 2581 is unconstitutional because reference to public welfare without any standard to guide
no standard or rule is fixed in the Act which can guide said determinations. The purpose of the Act, the requirement it imposes,
official in determining the cases in which a certificate or permit and the context of the provision in question show the contrary
ought to be issued, thereby making his opinion the sole
criterion in the matter of its issuance, with the result that, ABAKADA v. ERMITA
legislative powers being unduly delegated to the Insular
Treasurer. Facts:
Issue: Recit-Ready:
Whether or not there is undue delegation of power to the Internal
Treasurer. RA 9337 or the VAT Reform Act is a law that came about because of
the amounting budget deficits that is coupled by the realization of
shortages in allocation in key areas of government like health and
Held: education. RA 9337 is sourced from consolidating 3 bills and upon
passing as a law, was immediately issued a TRO by the court because
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the Act furnishes a sufficient of the confusion in its implementation.
standard for the Insular Treasurer to follow in reaching a decision
regarding the issuance or cancellation of a certificate or permit. The The confusion came when sectors are claiming that the said RA gives
certificate or permit to be issued under the Act must recite that the 10% additional expense to their products when in fact it was clarified

that there were exceptions and that implementation varies from Under the general rule, the exception in delegation of legislative
industry to industry as the RA interacts in different ways to other powers is subject to the following recognized limitations:
existing laws and that the exceptions to some laws should suffice
enough not to exceed or even reach the said 10% increase in prices. - delegation of tariff powers to President under Constitution
However, upon looking at the provisions of the law, the petitioners
contend that Section 4, 5, and 6 of the RA 9337 amend section 106, - delegation of emergency powers to President under
107, and 108 of the National Internal Revenue Code. Section 4 Constitution
imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and properties, Section 5
imposes a 10% VAT on importation of goods, and Section 6 imposes - delegation to the people at large
a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties.
- delegation to local governments
The said provision also grants the President, upon the
recommendation of Secretary of Finance, to increase the tax to 12% - delegation to administrative bodies
effective on 2006 as long as certain set of condition are set which are:
1) if the national deficit as a percentage of GDP from last year The case at hand is not a delegation of legislative power but more
exceeds by 1 and 12 and 2) that the VAT as percentage of GDP of an ascertainment of facts. The power to impose the 12% VAT
increases beyond 2 and 4/5% from the previous year. They is contingent of set of specified facts or conditions that are
contend that the Secretary of Finance does not have clear outside the control of the executive. The use of the word shall also
prerogatives on how he could determine the increase of tax also. should be noted as the word is a legislative order that binds the
president to enact the said increase of 12% VAT in accordance to the
Issue: order of legislative if certain conditions are met. The said shall
Whether RA 9337s granting of stand-by authority in abeyance of removes the doubt in power of the President to impose taxes at his
Secretary of Finances decision is an undue delegation of power of own discretion. There is no persuasive argument also of Pimentel
taxation that the legislative has and the President is bereft. when he says that may is the actual implication of shall. In the present
case also, the Secretary of Finance is not acting for the President but
Held: as an agent of the legislative department as he anticipates the
conditions set for him to recommend the increase of tax. The Sec. of
No. The court recognizes that the legislative under Section 28(2) of Finance acts as an agent of legislative that has the mandate to confirm
Article VI has clear mandate to authorize the President to fix, within the facts by the use of data and analysis.
specified limits, or impose tariff rates, import and export quotas,
tonnage, and wharfage dues and other duties or imposts within the Petitioners argued that that the grant to the President of a standby
framework of the national development program of the govt. authority to increase the VAT rate was a virtual abdication by
Congress of its exclusive power to tax, because the VAT was not
The petitioners argue since VAT is a tax on sale, barter, or exchange within the purview of tariffs. They further contended that the delegation
of goods and properties as well, the said VAT is in no way come into to the Chief Executive of the legislative power to tax was contrary to
the purview of those mentioned. They also mention since the the principle of republicanism; and that the President has ample
Secretary of Finance is a mere alter ego, the President in total powers to cause, influence or create the conditions provided by the
determines the tax. law to bring about either or both conditions precedent. Petitioners

Escudero et al. added that to subject the imposition of the 12 percent Opinions:
VAT rate to the whim of the finance secretary, an unelected
bureaucrat, was contrary to the principle of no taxation without PUNO, CJ:
representation. After a brief discourse on the principle of non-
delegation of powers, the Supreme Court pointed out that the general As he had argued in Tolentino, the powers of the BCC were limited,
rule barring the delegation of legislative powers was subject to certain for which reason it cannot be allowed to act as if it were a third house
recognized limitations or exceptions. In every case of permissible of Congress.
delegation, it said, there must be a showing that the delegation itself
[was] valid; that is, (a) the law was complete in itself -- it spelled out Under the clear rules of both the Senate and the House, the BCC could
the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate; go no further than settling differences in their bills or joint resolutions.
and (b) the law fixed a standard to which the performance of a Neither could the Committee, on its own, settle differences that were
delegates functions must conform a standard whose limits were substantial in character. In the latter situation, it had to go back to the
sufficiently determinate and determinable. chamber that had created it for the latters appropriate action. Thus,
it could not create a new law, i.e., that which has never been
Citing People v. Vera and Edu v. Ericta, the Court then declared that discussed in either chamber of Congress.
[w]hile the power to tax cannot be delegated to executive agencies,
details as to the enforcement and administration of an exercise of such Constituting grave abuse of discretion that amounted to lack or excess
power may be left to them, including the power to determine the of jurisdiction, and that should be struck down as unconstitutional,
existence of facts on which its operation depends. were the following acts of the BCC:
Here, the common proviso in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of RA 9337 involved a. Its deletion of the pro poor no pass on provision which is
simply a delegation of the ascertainment of facts upon which the common in both Senate Bill No. 1950 and House Bill No.
operation of the 12 percent VAT rate effective January 1, 2006, would 3705. x x x
be made contingent. There was no discretion to be exercised by the b. The insertion of added restrictions on local governments use
President, as may be gleaned from the use of the word shall. of incremental revenue from the VAT in Section 21 of R.A. No.
9337, which were not present in the Senate or House Bills,
The Court held that in making recommendations to the President on which did not harmonize conflicting provisions between the
the existence of either of the two specified conditions, the finance constituent bills of R.A. No. 9337 but are entirely new and
secretary was not acting as the Chief Executives alter ego or even extraneous concepts.
subordinate. Rather, the finance chief was acting as the agent of the
legislative department, to determine and declare the event upon which The test of germaneness was overly broad. It allowed the BCC to
its expressed will is to take effect. This being so, the findings of the change provisions in the bills of the House and the Senate, even when
secretary could not be altered, modified, nullified or set aside by the not in disagreement. Worse still, it enables the Committee to
President; much less could the judgment of the former be substituted introduce amendments which are entirely new and have not previously
for that of the latter. passed through the coils of scrutiny of the members of both Houses.

PANGANIBAN, J: Separate Second, there was no undue delegation of legislative power in the
standby authority given by Congress to the President, because the law
I voted to grant the Petitions partially; and to declare Sections 1, 2, was complete and the standards were fixed. Once either the factual or
and 3 of RA 9337 unconstitutional, insofar as they (a) amended the the mathematical events provided in the law took place, the President
rates of income tax on domestic, resident foreign, and nonresident would have no choice but to implement the increase of the VAT rate
foreign corporations; (b) amended the tax credit against taxes due on to 12 percent. Thus, the Chief Executive was given merely the power
intercorporate dividends from nonresident foreign corporations; and to ascertain the facts to bring the law into operation -- clearly an
(c) reduced the allowable deduction for interest expense. As to the administrative, not a legislative, function.
other provisions, I submitted that they were constitutional.
I disagreed with the majority, however, when it averred that the finance
At the outset, I pointed out the non-absolute character of the enrolled secretary would
bill doctrine, which held that an enrolled bill was conclusive not only
as to the provisions of a law, but also as to its due enactment. I said become an agent of Congress in determining and declaring the event
that the doctrine applied mainly to the internal rules and processes upon which its expressed will was to take effect; and that the
followed by Congress in its principal duty of lawmaking. Such doctrine secretarys personality was in reality but a projection of that of
must yield to mandatory provisions of the 1987 Constitution. Thus, the Congress. Maintaining that the finance secretary remained the Chief
Court had the power and duty to strike down any provision of a law Executives alter ego, I argued thus:
that in its enactment would violate conditions, restrictions
The mandate given by RA 9337 to the secretary is not equipollent to
or limitations imposed by the Constitution. an authority to make laws. In passing this law, Congress did not restrict
or curtail the constitutional power of the President to retain control and
Being a mere creation of Congress, the BCC may resolve differences supervision over the entire Executive Department. The law should be
only in conflicting provisions of congressional bills referred to it; and construed to be merely asking the President, with a recommendation
only on the condition that the resolution would not violate the from the Presidents alter ego in finance matters, to determine the
origination, the three-reading, and the no-amendment rules of the factual bases for making the increase in VAT rate operative. Indeed,
Constitution. as I have mentioned earlier, the fact-finding condition is a mere
administrative, not legislative, function.
First, it was my position that the origination or germaneness principles
were not violated by the BCC when it crafted changes to reconcile the Third, I opined that the BCC had exercised its prerogative to delete
conflicting provisions of the Senate and the House bills. In particular, the no-pass-on provisions, which were in conflict. Its authority to make
those changes were the 70 percent cap and the 5 percent final amendments implied the power to make not only insertions, but also
withholding VAT; percentage taxes on domestic carriers, keepers of deletions, in order to resolve conflicting provisions. But the BCC
garages and international carriers; franchise taxes; amusement taxes; blatantly violated the origination and the germaneness principles when
excise taxes on manufactured oils and other fuels; registration it inserted provisions not found in the House versions of the E-VAT
requirements; the issuance of receipts, sales or commercial invoices; Law: those (1) increasing the tax rates on domestic, resident foreign
and the disposition of incremental revenues. All of those modifications and nonresident foreign corporations; (2) raising the tax credit against
were within the powers of the BCC. taxes due on intercorporate dividends from nonresident foreign
corporations; and (3) reducing the allowable deduction for interest

expense. The amendments regarding income taxes were not legally because SB 1950 was not based on any bill passed by the House of
germane to the subject matter of the House bills.Lastly, I maintained Representatives.
that the advantages and the disadvantages of the E-VAT Law, as
(4) The rule on germaneness requires that the Senate bill must be
well as its long-term effects on the economy, were beyond the reach related to the bill originally passed by the House of Representatives.
of judicial review. As it was very apparent that HB 3555 and 3705 merely intended to
amend Sections of the NIRC pertaining to the VAT provisions, the
GUTIERREZ, J: Senate could not, without violating the germaneness rule and the
principle of exclusive origination, propose the tax matters in SB Bill
Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez said that it was high time to re- 1950, which referred to matters outside of VAT, such as income tax,
examine the test of germaneness proffered in Tolentino; that the BCC percentage tax, franchise tax, taxes on banks and other financial
cannot exercise its unbridled discretion and create a new law; and intermediaries and excise taxes.
that the deletion of the no-pass-on provision, common to both SB 1950
and HB 3705, was unconstitutional. She further explained: PEOPLE v. VERA
(1) Sections 4 to 6 of RA 9337 were patently unconstitutional as they Facts:

violated the principle of non-delegation of legislative power. The
delegation did not fall under any of the excepted instances. Moreover, In 1934, Mariano Cu Unjieng was convicted in a criminal case
while the two conditions upon which the President may increase the filed against him by the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking
VAT rate to 12% may appear to be definite standards sufficient to Corporation (HSBC). In 1936, he filed for probation. The
guide the President, they were ineffectual and malleable as they gave matter was referred to the Insular Probation Office which
the President ample opportunity to exercise her authority in arbitrary recommended the denial of Cu Unjiengs petition for
and discretionary fashion. probation. A hearing was set by Judge Jose Vera concerning
the petition for probation. The Prosecution opposed the
(2) No doubt, RA 9337 was enacted pursuant to a valid governmental petition. Eventually, due to delays in the hearing, the
objective, which is to raise revenues for the government. However, the Prosecution filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme
means employed to accomplish such objective -- particularly Sections Court alleging that courts like the Court of First Instance of
4, 5 and 6 of RA 9337 -- were arbitrary Manila (which is presided over by Judge Vera) have no
jurisdiction to place accused like Cu Unjieng under probation
and unduly oppressive. For that matter, she questioned the grant of because under the law (Act No. 4221 or The Probation Law),
the standby authority to the President to increase the VAT rate on the probation is only meant to be applied in provinces with
premise alone that she deserves an incentive or reward for probation officers; that the City of Manila is not a province, and
satisfactory VAT collection. Neither an excess nor a deficiency of that Manila, even if construed as a province, has no
revenue vis--vis the needs of government would be in keeping with designated probation officer hence, a Manila court cannot
the principle of fiscal adequacy. grant probation.
Meanwhile, HSBC also filed its own comment on the matter
(3) A perusal of the legislative history of RA 9337 showed that it did
alleging that Act 4221 is unconstitutional for it violates the
not exclusively originate from the House of Representatives primarily
constitutional guarantee on equal protection of the laws.

HSBC averred that the said law makes it the prerogative of provinces were given the option to apply the law by simply providing
provinces whether or nor to apply the probation law if a for a probation officer. So if a province decides not to install a probation
province chooses to apply the probation law, then it will officer, then the accused within said province will be unduly deprived
appoint a probation officer, but if it will not, then no probation of the provisions of the Probation Law.
officer will be appointed hence, that makes it violative of the
Undue Delegation of Legislative Power
equal protection clause.
There is undue delegation of legislative power. Act 4221 provides that
Further, HSBC averred that the Probation Law is an undue
it shall only apply to provinces where the respective provincial boards
delegation of power because it gave the option to the
have provided for a probation officer. But nowhere in the law did it
provincial board to whether or not to apply the probation law
state as to what standard (sufficient standard test) should provincial
however, the legislature did not provide guidelines to be
boards follow in determining whether or not to apply the probation law
followed by the provincial board.
in their province. This only creates a roving commission which will act
Further still, HSBC averred that the Probation Law is an arbitrarily according to its whims.
encroachment of the executives power to grant pardon. They
---
say that the legislature, by providing for a probation law, had
in effect encroached upon the executives power to grant Act No. 4221, Sec. 11 reads as follows:
pardon. (Ironically, the Prosecution agreed with the issues
raised by HSBC ironic because their main stance was the This Act shall apply only in those provinces in which the
non-applicability of the probation law only in Manila while respective provincial boards have provided for the salary of a
recognizing its application in provinces). probation officer at rates not lower than those now provided for
provincial fiscals. Said probation officer shall be appointed by
For his part, one of the issues raised by Cu Unjieng is that,
the Secretary of Justice and shall be subject to the direction of
the Prosecution, representing the State as well as the People
the Probation Office
of the Philippines, cannot question the validity of a law, like
Act 4221, which the State itself created. Further, Cu Unjieng
In order to test whether a statute constitute an undue delegation of
also castigated the fiscal of Manila who himself had used the
legislative power or not, it is usual to see whether the statute was
Probation Law in the past without question but is now
complete in all its terms and provisions when it left the hands of the
questioning the validity of the said law (estoppel).
legislature so that nothing was left to the judgment of any other
Issue: appointee or delegate of the legislature. For the purpose of Probation
Act, the provincial boards may be regarded as administrative bodies
W/N Act. No 4221 is constitutional. endowed with power to determine when the Act should take effect in
their respective provinces.
Held:
NO. Encroachment of Executive Power
Though Act 4221 is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court recognized
Violation of the Equal Protection Clause the power of Congress to provide for probation. Probation does not
The contention of HSBC and the Prosecution is well taken on this note. encroach upon the Presidents power to grant pardon. Probation is not
There is violation of the equal protection clause. Under Act 4221,

pardon. Probation is within the power of Congress to fix penalties while 84-1 and Administrative Order No. 84.
pardon is a power of the president to commute penalties.
Held:
PEOPLE v. MACEREN NO. We are of the opinion that the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Facts: Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries exceeded their
authority in issuing Fisheries Administrative Orders Nos. 84 and 84-1
Jose Buenaventura, Godofredo Reyes, Benjamin Reyes,
and that those orders are not warranted under the Fisheries
Nazario Aquino and Carlito del Rosario were charged by a
Commission, Republic Act No. 3512.
Constabulary investigator in the municipal court of Sta. Cruz,
Laguna with having violated Fisheries Administrative Order The reason is that the Fisheries Law does not expressly prohibit
No. 84-1. It was alleged in the complaint that the five accused electro fishing. As electro fishing is not banned under that law, the
in the morning of March 1, 1969 resorted to electro fishing in Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the
the waters of Barrio San Pablo Norte, Sta. Cruz by "using a Commissioner of Fisheries are powerless to penalize it. In other
somewhat webbed copper wire on the tip or other end of a words, Administrative Orders Nos. 84 and 84-1, in penalizing
bamboo pole with electric wire attachment which was electro fishing, are devoid of any legal basis.
attached to the dynamo direct and with the use of these
devices or equipment catch fish thru electric current, which An examination of the rule-making power of executive officials and
destroy any aquatic animals within its cuffed reach, to the administrative agencies and, in particular, of the Secretary of
detriment and prejudice of the populace" Agriculture and Natural Resources (now Secretary of Natural
The trial court dismissed the case as under Sec 11 the law Resources) under the Fisheries Law sustains the view that he
punishes: "the use of any obnoxious or poisonous substance" exceeded his authority in penalizing electro fishing by means of an
in fishing. It is noteworthy since the Fisheries Law does not administrative order. Although administrative officials are given such
expressly punish .electro fishing." Notwithstanding the silence rule-
of the law, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
making power, their power is limited only to those that are germane to
Resources, upon the recommendation of the Commissioner
the defects and purposes of the law and that it should conform to the
of Fisheries, promulgated Fisheries Administrative Order No. standards that the law prescribes. By such regulations, of course,
84 (62 O.G. 1224), prohibiting electro fishing in all Philippine the law itself cannot be extended.
waters.
Issues:
Whether electro fishing in fresh water is punished by Admin Order No.

DAGAN v. PRC quartered because the individual horse owners had already
complied with the Philracom regulation that horses should not
Facts: bear any disease. There was neither a directive nor a rule that
racehorses already lodged in the stables of the racing clubs
The controversy stemmed from the 11 August 2004 directive should again be subjected to the collection of blood samples
issued by the Philippine Racing Commission (Philracom) preparatory to the conduct of the EIA tests. Thus it came to
directing the Manila Jockey Club, Inc. (MJCI) and Philippine them as a surprise that Philracom demanded a Coggins Test.
Racing Club, Inc. (PRCI) to immediately come up with their
respective Clubs House Rule to address Equine Infectious Issue:
Anemia (EIA) problem and to rid their facilities of horses Whether respondents had acted with whim and caprice in the
infected with EIA. Said directive was issued pursuant to implementation of the contested guideline.
Administrative Order No. 5 dated 28 March 1994 by the
Department of Agriculture declaring it unlawful for any person, Held:
firm or corporation to ship, drive, or transport horses from any
locality or place except when accompanied by a certificate No. The validity of an administrative issuance, such as the assailed
issued by the authority of the Director of the Bureau of Animal guidelines, hinges on compliance with the following requisites: (1) Its
Industry (BAI). In compliance with the directive, MJCI and promulgation must be authorized by the legislature; (2) It must be
PRCI ordered the owners of racehorses stable in their promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure; (3) It must
establishments to submit the horses to blood sampling and be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature; (4) It must
administration of the Coggins Test to determine whether they be reasonable. All the prescribed requisites are met with regard
are afflicted with the EIA virus. to the questioned issuances.
Petitioners and racehorse owners William Dagan (Dagan) et
al. refused to comply with the directive. First, they alleged that The rule is that what has been delegated cannot be delegated, or as
there had been no prior consultation with horse owners. expressed in the Latin maxim: potestas delegate non delegare potest.
Second, they claimed that neither official guidelines nor This rule however admits of recognized exceptions such as the grant
regulations had been issued relative to the taking of blood of rule-making power to administrative agencies. Delegated rule-
samples. And third, they asserted that no documented case making has become a practical necessity in modern governance due
of EIA had been presented to justify the undertaking. Despite to the increasing complexity and variety of public functions. However,
resistance from petitioners, the blood testing proceeded. The there must be a showing that the delegation itself is valid. It is valid
horses, whose owners refused to comply were banned from only if the law (a) is complete in itself, setting forth therein the policy to
the races, were removed from the actual day of race, be executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate; and (b) fixes
prohibited from renewing their licenses or evicted from their a standardthe limits of which are sufficiently determinate and
stables. determinable.
When their complaint went unheeded, the racehorse owners
lodged a complaint before the Office of the President (OP). In this case, Philracom was created for the purpose
Petitioners maintain that the assailed guidelines do not of carrying out the declared policy in Section 1 which
comply with due process requirements. Petitioners insist that is "to promote and direct the accelerated development and continued
racehorses already in the MJCI stables were allowed to be so growth of horse racing

not only in pursuance of the sports development On April 6, 2011, respondent Finance Secretary Cesar V. Purisima
program but also in order to insure the full exploitation of the sport as filed before the IAD-ODESLA a complaint-affidavit for grave
a source of revenue and employment." Furthermore, Philracom was misconduct against petitioner Prospero A. Pichay, Jr., Chairman of the
granted exclusive jurisdiction and control over every aspect of the Board of Trustees of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA),
conduct of horse racing, including the framing and scheduling of races, as well as the incumbent members of the LWUA Board of Trustees,
the construction and safety of race tracks, and the security of racing. namely, Renato Velasco, Susana Dumlao Vargas, Bonifacio Mario M.
P.D. No. 420 is already complete in itself. Pena, Sr. and Daniel Landingin, which arose from the purchase by the
LWUA of Four Hundred Forty-Five Thousand Three Hundred Seventy
Section 9 (Specific Powers) of the law fixes the standards and Seven (445,377) shares of stock of Express Savings Bank, Inc.
limitations to which Philracom must conform in the performance of its
functions. Among them is the power to enforce and prescribe rules On April 14, 2011, petitioner received an Order3 signed by Executive
regarding horse-racing. Clearly, there is a proper legislative delegation Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr. requiring him and his co-respondents
of rule-making power to Philracom. Clearly too, for its part Philracom to submit their respective written explanations under oath. In
has exercised its rule-making power in a proper and reasonable compliance therewith, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss Ex
manner. More specifically, its discretion to rid the facilities of MJCI and Abundante Ad Cautelam manifesting that a case involving the same
PRCI of horses afflicted with EIA is aimed at preserving the security transaction and charge of grave misconduct entitled, "Rustico B. Tutol,
and integrity of horse races. et al. v. Prospero Pichay, et al.", and docketed as OMB-C-A-10-0426-
I, is already pending before the Office of the Ombudsman.
There is no delegation of power to speak of between Philracom, as
the delegator and MJCI and PRCI as delegates. The Philracom Issue:
DIRECTIVE is merely instructive in character. Philracom had Whether E.O. 13 is unconstitutional for abrogating unto an
instructed PRCI and MJCI to "immediately come up with Clubs House administrative office a quasi-judicial function through and E.O. and not
Rule to address the problem and rid their facilities of horses infected through legislative enactment by Congress
with EIA." PRCI and MJCI followed-up when they ordered the
racehorse owners to submit blood samples and subject their race Held:
horses to blood testing. NO.
The President has Continuing Authority to Reorganize the Executive
PICHAY JR. v. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE Department under E.O. 292. In the case of Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB
SECRETARY v. Zamora the Court affirmed that the President's authority to carry out
a reorganization in any branch or agency of the executive department
Facts: is an express grant by the legislature by virtue of Section 31, Book III,
E.O. 292 (the Administrative Code of 1987), "the President, subject to
On November 15, 2010, President Benigno Simeon Aquino III issued the policy of the Executive Office and in order to achieve simplicity,
Executive Order No. 13 (E.O. 13), abolishing the PAGC and economy and efficiency, shall have the continuing authority to
transferring its functions to the Office of the Deputy Executive reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the President."
Secretary for Legal Affairs(ODESLA), more particularly to its newly-
established Investigative andA djudicatory Division (IAD). The law grants the President this power in recognition of the recurring
need of every President to reorganize his office "to achieve simplicity,

economy and efficiency." The Office of the President is the nerve and transferring its functions to the ODESLA is allowable under
center of the Executive Branch. To remain effective and efficient, the Section 31 (1) of E.O. 292.
Office of the President must be capable of being shaped and reshaped
by the President in the manner he deems fit to carry out his directives What actions does reorganization include?
and policies. After all, the Office of the President is the command post
of the President. (Emphasis supplied) The Reorganization Did not Entail the Creation of a New, Separate
and Distinct Office.
Clearly, the abolition of the PAGC and the transfer of its functions to a
division specially created within the ODESLA is properly within the The abolition of the PAGC did not require the creation of a new,
prerogative of the President under his continuing "delegated additional and distinct office as the duties and functions that pertained
legislative authority to reorganize" his own office pursuant to E.O. 292. to the defunct anti-graft body were simply transferred to the ODESLA,
which is an existing office within the Office of the President Proper.
The President's power to reorganize the Office of the President under The reorganization required no more than a mere alteration of the
Section 31 (2) and (3) of EO 292 should be distinguished from his administrative structure of the ODESLA through the establishment of
power to reorganize the Office of the President Proper. Under Section a third division the Investigative and Adjudicatory Division through
31 (1) of EO 292, the President can reorganize the Office of the which ODESLA could take on the additional functions it has been
President Proper by abolishing, consolidating or merging units, or by tasked to discharge under E.O. 13.
transferring functions from one unit to another. In contrast, under
Section 31 (2) and (3) of EO 292, the President's power to reorganize Reorganization takes place when there is an alteration of the existing
offices outside the Office of the President Proper but still within the structure of government offices or units therein, including the lines of
Office of the control, authority and responsibility between them. It involves a
reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by
President is limited to merely transferring functions or agencies from reason of economy or redundancy of functions.
the Office of the President to Departments or gencies, and vice versa.
The IAD-ODESLA is a fact-finding and recommendatory body not
The distinction between the allowable organizational actions under vested with quasi-judicial powers.
Section 31(1) on the one hand and Section 31 (2) and (3) on the other
is crucial not only as it affects employees' tenurial security but also while the term "adjudicatory" appears part of its appellation, the IAD-
insofar as it touches upon the validity of the reorganization, that is, ODESLA cannot try and resolve cases, its authority being limited to
whether the executive actions undertaken fall within the limitations the conduct of investigations, preparation of reports and submission
prescribed under E.O. 292. When the PAGC was created under E.O. of recommendations. E.O. 13 explicitly states that the IAD-
12, it was composed of a Chairman and two (2) Commissioners who
held the ranks of Presidential Assistant II and I, respectively,9 and was ODESLA shall "perform powers, functions and duties xxx, of PAGC."
placed directly "under the Office of the President."10 On the other
hand, the ODESLA, to which the functions of the PAGC have now Under E.O. 12, the PAGC was given the authority to "investigate or
been transferred, is an office within the Office of the President hear administrative cases or complaints against
Proper.11 Since both of these offices belong to the Office of the
President Proper, the reorganization by way of abolishing the PAGC all presidential appointees in the government" and to "submit its report

and recommendations to the President." The IAD-ODESLA is a fact- its duties as an impartial tribunal, contending that both the IAD-
finding and recommendatory body to the President, not having the ODESLA and respondent Secretary Purisima are connected to the
power to settlecontroversies and adjudicate cases. As the Court ruled President. The mere suspicion of partiality will not suffice to invalidate
in Cario v. Commission on Human Rights, and later reiterated in the actions of the IAD-ODESLA. Mere allegation is not equivalent to
Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission: proof. Bias and partiality cannot be presumed. Petitioner must present
substantial proof to show that the lAD-ODES LA had unjustifiably
Fact-finding is not adjudication and it cannot be likened to the judicial sided against him in the conduct of the investigation. No such
function of a court of justice, or even a quasi- judicial agency or office. evidence has been presented as to defeat the presumption of
The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the regularity m the performance of the fact-finding investigator's duties.
facts of a controversy is not a judicial function. To be considered as The assertion, therefore, deserves scant consideration.
such, the act of receiving evidence and arriving at factual conclusions
in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying the Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and to
law to the factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of
decided or determined authoritatively, finally and definitively, subject the Constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative one.39 Petitioner
to such appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. has failed to discharge the burden of proving the illegality of E.O. 13,
which IS indubitably a valid exercise of the President's continuing
The IAD-ODESLA does not encroach upon the powers and duties authority to reorganize the Office of the President.
of the Ombudsman.
ARROYO v. DOJ
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the IAD-ODESLA did not encroach
upon the Ombudsman's primary jurisdiction when it took cognizance Facts:
of the complaint affidavit filed against him notwithstanding the earlier Due to allegations of massive electoral fraud and manipulation of
filing of criminal and administrative cases involving the same charges election results in the 2004 and 2007 National Elections, on August 2,
and allegations before the Office of the Ombudsman. The primary 2011, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 9266 approving the creation
jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute cases of a committee jointly with the Department of Justice (DOJ).
refers to criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and not to On August 4, 2011, the Secretary of Justice issued Department
administrative cases. It is only in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction Order No. 640 naming three (3) of its prosecutors to the Joint
that the Ombudsman may, at any time, take over the investigation Committee.
being conducted by another investigatory agency. Section 15 (1) of On August 15, 2011, the Comelec and the DOJ issued Joint Order
R.A. No. 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989. No. 001-2011 creating and constituting a Joint Committee and
Fact-Finding Team on the 2004 and 2007 National Elections
While the Ombudsman's function goes into the determination of the electoral fraud and manipulation cases with the mandate to
existence of probable cause and the adjudication of the merits of a conduct the necessary preliminary investigation on the basis of the
criminal accusation, the investigative authority of the IAD- ODESLA is evidence gathered and the charges recommended by the Fact-Finding
limited to that of a fact-finding investigator whose determinations and Team created and referred.
recommendations remain so until acted upon by the President. The Fact-Finding Team, on the other hand, was created for the
purpose of gathering real, documentary, and testimonial
Finally, petitioner doubts that the IAD-ODESLA can lawfully perform evidence which can be utilized in the preliminary investigation to

be conducted by the Joint Committee. Joint Resolution of the Joint Committee subject to modifications. The
The members of the Fact-Finding Team unanimously agreed that dispositive portion of the Comelec Resolution reads:
the subject of the Initial Report would be the electoral fraud and WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolution of the
manipulation of election results allegedly committed during the Joint DOJ-COMELEC Preliminary Investigation Committee in
May 14, 2007 elections. Thus, in its Initial Report dated October 20, DOJ-COMELEC Case No. 001-2011 and DOJ-COMELEC
2011, the Fact-Finding Team concluded that manipulation of the Case No. 002-2011, upon the recommendation of the
results in the May 14, 2007 senatorial elections in the provinces of COMELECs own representatives in the Committee, is hereby
North and South Cotabato and Maguindanao were indeed APPROVED and ADOPTED, subject to the following
perpetrated. MODIFICATIONS:
The Fact-Finding Team recommended that petitioner Abalos and 1. That information/s for the crime of ELECTORAL SABOTAGE
ten (10) others be subjected to preliminary investigation for electoral be filed against GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, BENJAMIN
sabotage for conspiring to manipulate the election results in ABALOS, SR., LINTANG H. BEDOL, DATU ANDAL AMPATUAN,
North and South Cotabato. Twenty-six (26) persons, including SR. and PETER REYES; xxx
petitioners GMA and Abalos, were likewise recommended for 3. That the charges against JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, BONG
preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage for manipulating SERRANO, ALBERTO AGRA, ANDREI BON TAGUM, GABBY
the election results in Maguindanao. Several persons were also CLAUDIO, ROMY DAYDAY, JEREMY JAVIER, JOHN DOE a.k.a
recommended to be charged administratively, while others, including BUTCH, be DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence to establish
petitioner Mike Arroyo, were recommended to be subjected to probable cause;
further investigation. The case resulting from the investigation of the xxx
Fact-Finding Team was docketed as DOJ-Comelec Case No. 001- On even date, pursuant to the above Resolution, the Comelecs
2011. Law Department filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasay
Petitioners filed before the Court separate Petitions for Certiorari City, an Information against petitioner GMA, Governor Andal
and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Ampatuan, Sr., and Atty. Lintang H. Bedol. The case was raffled to
Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction Branch 112 and the corresponding Warrant of Arrest was issued
assailing the creation of the Joint Panel. The petitions were eventually which was served on GMA on the same day.
consolidated. On November 18, 2011, petitioner GMA filed with the RTC an
GMA filed before the Joint Committee an Omnibus Motion Ad Urgent Omnibus Motion Ad Cautelam with leave to allow the Joint
Cautelam to require Senator Pimentel to furnish her with documents Committee to resolve the motion for reconsideration filed by GMA,
referred to in his complaint-affidavit and for the production of election to defer issuance of a warrant of arrest and a Hold Departure Order,
documents as basis for the charge of electoral sabotage. GMA and to proceed to judicial determination of probable cause. She,
contended that for the crime of electoral sabotage to be established, likewise, filed with the Comelec a Motion to Vacate Ad Cautelam
there is a need to present election documents allegedly tampered praying that its Resolution be vacated for being null and void. The
which resulted in the increase or decrease in the number of votes RTC nonetheless issued a warrant for her arrest which was duly
of local and national candidates. The Joint Committee denied the served. GMA thereafter filed a Motion for Bail which was granted.
aforesaid motion. GMA subsequently filed a motion for
reconsideration. Issues:
On November 18, 2011, after conducting a special session, the 1. Whether or not Joint Order No. 001-2011 "Creating and Constituting
Comelec en banc issued a Resolution approving and adopting the a Joint DOJ-COMELEC Preliminary Investigation Committee and

Fact-Finding Team on the 2004 and 2007 National Elections Electoral reflected in Section 265 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise
Fraud and Manipulation Cases" is constitutional in light of the known as the Omnibus Election Code, to wit: Section 265.
following: Prosecution. The Commission shall, through its duly authorized
due process clause YES, it is constitutional legal officers, have the exclusive power to conduct preliminary
equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution- YES, it is investigation of all election offenses punishable under this Code,
constitutional and to prosecute the same. The Commission may avail of the
the principle of separation of powers- YES, it is constitutional assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government: Provided,
the independence of the COMELEC as a constitutional body- however, That in the event that the Commission fails to act on any
YES, it is constitutional complaint within four months from his filing, the complainant may file
2. Whether or not the COMELEC has jurisdiction under the law to the complaint with the office of the fiscal [public prosecutor], or with
conduct preliminary investigation jointly with the DOJ.- YES the Ministry Department of Justice for proper investigation and
3. Whether or not due process was observed by the Joint DOJ- prosecution, if warranted.
COMELEC Fact-Finding Team and Preliminary Investigation Under the above provision of law, the power to conduct preliminary
Committee, and and the COMELEC in the conduct of the preliminary investigation is vested exclusively with the Comelec. The latter,
investigation and approval of the Joint Panels Resolution. however, was given by the same provision of law the authority to
avail itself of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the
Held: government. Thus, under Section 2, Rule 34 of the Comelec Rules
of Procedure, provincial and city prosecutors and their assistants are
Jurisdiction over the validity of theconduct of the preliminary given continuing authority as deputies to conduct preliminary
investigation investigation of complaints involving election offenses under
Substantive IssuesBases for the Creation of theFact-Finding election laws and to prosecute the same. The complaints may be
Team and Joint Committee filed directly with them or may be indorsed to them by the petitioner
Section 2, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution enumerates the or its duly authorized representatives.
powers and functions of the Comelec. Paragraph (6) thereof vests Thus, under the Omnibus Election Code, while the exclusive
in the Comelec the power to: (6) File, upon a verified complaint, or jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation had been lodged
on its own initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of with the Comelec, the prosecutors had been conducting preliminary
voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of investigations pursuant to the continuing delegated authority given
violations of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting by the Comelec. The reason for this delegation of authority has been
election frauds, offenses, and malpractices. explained in Commission on Elections v. Espaol: The deputation of
The grant to the Comelec of the power to investigate and prosecute the Provincial and City Prosecutors is necessitated by the need for
election offenses as an adjunct to the enforcement and prompt investigation and dispensation of election cases as an
administration of all election laws is intended to enable the Comelec indispensable part of the task of securing fine, orderly, honest,
to effectively insure to the people the free, orderly, and honest peaceful and credible elections. Enfeebled by lack of funds and the
conduct of elections. The failure of the Comelec to exercise this magnitude of its workload, the petitioner does not have a sufficient
power could result in the frustration of the true will of the people and number of legal officers to conduct such investigation and to
make a mere idle ceremony of the sacred right and duty of every prosecute such cases.
qualified citizen to vote. Section 43 of R.A. No. 9369 reads:
The constitutional grant of prosecutorial power in the Comelec was Section 43. Section 265 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 is

hereby amended to read as follows: therein were linked to GMA as there were public officers who were
SEC. 265. Prosecution. The Commission shall, through its investigated upon in connection with their acts in the performance
duly authorized legal officers, have the power, concurrent with of their official duties. Private individuals were also subjected to the
the other prosecuting arms of the government, to conduct investigation by the Joint Committee.
preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable As the constitutional body granted with the broad power of enforcing
72
under this Code, and to prosecute the same. and administering all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of
As clearly set forth above, instead of a mere delegated authority, the an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall, and tasked
other prosecuting arms of the government, such as the DOJ, now to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections, the
exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the Comelec to conduct Comelec has the authority to determine how best to perform such
preliminary investigation of all election offenses and to prosecute the constitutional mandate. Pursuant to this authority, the Comelec
same. issues various resolutions prior to every local or national elections
It is, therefore, not only the power but the duty of both the setting forth the guidelines to be observed in the conduct of the
Comelec and the DOJ to perform any act necessary to ensure elections. This shows that every election is distinct and requires
the prompt and fair investigation and prosecution of election different guidelines in order to ensure that the rules are updated to
offenses. Pursuant to the above constitutional and statutory respond to existing circumstances.
provisions, and as will be explained further below, we find no Moreover, as has been practiced in the past, complaints for
impediment for the Comelec and the DOJ to create the Joint violations of election laws may be filed either with the Comelec or
Committee and Fact-Finding Team for the purpose of with the DOJ. The Comelec may even initiate, motu proprio,
conducting a thorough investigation of the alleged massive complaints for election offenses.
electoral fraud and the manipulation of election results in the Pursuant to law and the Comelecs own Rules, investigations
2004 and 2007 national elections relating in particular to the may be conducted either by the Comelec itself through its law
presidential and senatorial elections. department or through the prosecutors of the DOJ. These
varying procedures and treatment do not, however, mean that
Constitutionality of Joint-Order No. 001-2011 respondents are not treated alike. Thus, petitioners insistence of
Equal Protection Clause infringement of their constitutional right to equal protection of the law
Unlike the matter addressed by the Courts ruling in Biraogo v. is misplaced.
Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, Joint Order No. 001-2011
cannot be nullified on the ground that it singles out the officials of Due Process
the Arroyo Administration and, therefore, it infringes the equal It is settled that the conduct of preliminary investigation is, like court
protection clause. proceedings, subject to the requirements of both substantive and
The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 was expressly created for procedural due process. Preliminary investigation is considered as
the purpose of investigating alleged graft and corruption during the a judicial proceeding wherein the prosecutor or investigating officer,
Arroyo Administration since Executive Order No. 1 specifically by the nature of his functions, acts as a quasi-judicial officer. The
referred to the "previous administration"; while the Joint authority of a prosecutor or investigating officer duly empowered to
Committee was created for the purpose of conducting preside over or to conduct a preliminary investigation is no less than
preliminary investigation of election offenses during the 2004 that of a municipal judge or even an RTC Judge.
and 2007 elections. While GMA and Mike Arroyo were among It must also be emphasized that Joint Order No. 001-2011 created
those subjected to preliminary investigation, not all respondents two bodies, namely: (1) the Fact-Finding Team tasked to gather real,

documentary and testimonial evidence which can be utilized in the current positions as prosecutors of the DOJ and legal officers of the
preliminary investigation to be conducted by the Joint Committee; Comelec. Thus, in no way can we consider the Joint Committee as
and (2) the Joint Committee mandated to conduct preliminary a new public office.
investigation. It is, therefore, inaccurate to say that there is only one
body which acted as evidence-gatherer, prosecutor and judge. Independence of the Comelec
Petitioners claim that in creating the Joint Panel, the Comelec has
Separation of powers effectively abdicated its constitutional mandate to investigate and,
Petitioners claim that the Joint Panel is a new public office as shown where appropriate, to prosecute cases of violation of election laws
by its composition, the creation of its own Rules of Procedure, and including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses,
the source of funding for its operation. It is their position that the and malpractices in favor of the Executive Department acting
power of the DOJ to investigate the commission of crimes and the through the DOJ Secretary. Under the set- up, the Comelec
Comelecs constitutional mandate to investigate and prosecute personnel is placed under the supervision and control of the DOJ.
violations of election laws do not include the power to create a new The chairperson is a DOJ official. Thus, the Comelec has willingly
public office in the guise of a joint committee. Thus, in creating the surrendered its independence to the DOJ and has acceded to share
Joint Panel, the DOJ and the Comelec encroached upon the power its exercise of judgment and discretion with the Executive Branch.
of the Legislature to create public office. Prior to the amendment of Section 265 of the Omnibus Election
As clearly explained above, the Comelec is granted the power to Code, the Comelec had the exclusive authority to investigate and
investigate, and where appropriate, prosecute cases of election prosecute election offenses. In the discharge of this exclusive
offenses. This is necessary in ensuring free, orderly, honest, power, the Comelec was given the right to avail and, in fact, availed
peaceful and credible elections. On the other hand, the DOJ is of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government such
mandated to administer the criminal justice system in accordance as the prosecutors of the DOJ. By virtue of this continuing authority,
with the accepted processes thereof consisting in the investigation the state prosecutors and the provincial or city prosecutors were
of the crimes, prosecution of offenders and administration of the authorized to receive the complaint for election offense and delegate
correctional system. It is specifically empowered to "investigate the the conduct of investigation to any of their assistants. The
commission of crimes, prosecute offenders and administer the investigating prosecutor, in turn, would make a recommendation
probation and correction system." Also, the provincial or city either to dismiss the complaint or to file the information. This
prosecutors and their assistants, as well as the national and regional recommendation is subject to the approval of the state, provincial or
state prosecutors, are specifically named as the officers authorized city prosecutor, who himself may file the information with the proper
to conduct preliminary investigation. Recently, the Comelec, through court if he finds sufficient cause to do so, subject, however, to the
its duly authorized legal offices, is given the power, concurrent with accuseds right to appeal to the Comelec.
the other prosecuting arms of the government such as the DOJ, to Clearly, the Comelec recognizes the need to delegate to the
conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses. prosecutors the power to conduct preliminary investigation.
Undoubtedly, it is the Constitution, statutes, and the Rules of Court Otherwise, the prompt resolution of alleged election offenses will not
and not the assailed Joint Order which give the DOJ and the be attained. This delegation of power, otherwise known as
Comelec the power to conduct preliminary investigation. No new deputation, has long been recognized and, in fact, been utilized as
power is given to them by virtue of the assailed order. As to the an effective means of disposing of various election offense cases.
members of the Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team, they Apparently, as mere deputies, the prosecutors played a vital role in
perform such functions that they already perform by virtue of their the conduct of preliminary investigation, in the resolution of

complaints filed before them, and in the filing of the informations with and the other petitioners counter-affidavits. This, according to GMA,
the proper court. violates her right to due process of law.
In view of the foregoing disquisition, we find no impediment for the The subpoena issued against respondent therein should be
creation of a Joint Committee. While the composition of the Joint accompanied by a copy of the complaint and the supporting
Committee and Fact-Finding Team is dominated by DOJ officials, it affidavits and documents. GMA also has the right to examine
does not necessarily follow that the Comelec is inferior. Under the documents but such right of examination is limited only to the
Joint Order, resolutions of the Joint Committee finding probable documents or evidence submitted by the complainants (Senator
cause for election offenses shall still be approved by the Comelec in Pimentel and the Fact-Finding Team) which she may not have been
accordance with the Comelec Rules of Procedure. This shows that furnished and to copy them at her expense.
the Comelec, though it acts jointly with the DOJ, remains in control While it is true that Senator Pimentel referred to certain election
of the proceedings. In no way can we say that the Comelec has documents which served as bases in the allegations of significant
thereby abdicated its independence to the executive department. findings specific to the protested municipalities involved, there were
no annexes or attachments to the complaint filed. As stated in
Validity of the Conduct of Preliminary Investigation the Joint Committees Order dated November 15, 2011 denying
In questioning the propriety of the conduct of the preliminary GMAs Omnibus Motion Ad Cautelam, Senator Pimentel was
.
investigation in her Supplemental Petition, GMA only raises her ordered to furnish petitioners with all the supporting evidence
continuing objection to the exercise of jurisdiction of the Joint However, Senator Pimentel manifested that he was adopting all
Committee and the Comelec. There is, therefore, no impediment for the affidavits attached to the Fact-Finding Teams Initial Report.
the Court to rule on the validity of the conduct of preliminary Therefore, when GMA was furnished with the documents
investigation. attached to the Initial Report, she was already granted the right
The right to have a preliminary investigation conducted before being to examine as guaranteed by the Comelec Rules of Procedure
bound for trial and before being exposed to the risk of incarceration and the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Those were the only
and penalty is not a mere formal or technical right; it is a substantive documents submitted by the complainants to the Committee.
right. To deny the accused's claim to a preliminary investigation is We must, however, emphasize at this point that during the
to deprive him of the full measure of his right to due process. preliminary investigation, the complainants are not obliged to prove
In a preliminary investigation, the Rules of Court guarantee the their cause beyond reasonable doubt. It would be unfair to expect
petitioners basic due process rights such as the right to be furnished them to present the entire evidence needed to secure the conviction
a copy of the complaint, the affidavits, and other supporting of the accused prior to the filing of information. A preliminary
documents, and the right to submit counter-affidavits, and other investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display
supporting documents in her defense. of the parties respective evidence but the presentation only of such
Admittedly, GMA received the notice requiring her to submit her evidence as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense
counter-affidavit. Yet, she did not comply, allegedly because she has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof
could not prepare her counter-affidavit. She claimed that she was and should be held for trial. Precisely there is a trial to allow the
not furnished by Senator Pimentel pertinent documents that she reception of evidence for the prosecution in support of the charge.
needed to adequately prepare her counter-affidavit. With the denial of GMAs motion to be furnished with and examine
The Joint Committee, however, denied GMAs motion which carried the documents referred to in Senator Pimentels complaint, GMAs
with it the denial to extend the filing of her counter-affidavit. motion to extend the filing of her counter-affidavit and countervailing
Consequently, the cases were submitted for resolution sans GMAs evidence was consequently denied. Indeed, considering the nature

of the crime for which GMA was subjected to preliminary considered to have abdicated its independence in favor of the
investigation and the documents attached to the complaint, it is executive branch of government. Resolution No. 9266 was validly
incumbent upon the Joint Committee to afford her ample time to issued by the Comelec as a means to fulfill its duty of ensuring the
examine the documents submitted to the Joint Committee in order prompt investigation and prosecution of election offenses as an
that she would be able to prepare her counter-affidavit. She cannot, adjunct of its mandate of ensuring a free, orderly, honest, peaceful,
however, insist to examine documents not in the possession and credible elections. The role of the DOJ in the conduct of
and custody of the Joint Committee nor submitted by the preliminary investigation of election offenses has long been
complainants. Otherwise, it might cause undue and unnecessary recognized by the Comelec because of its lack of funds and legal
delay in the disposition of the cases. The constitutional right to officers to conduct investigations and to prosecute such cases on its
speedy disposition of cases is not limited to the accused in criminal own. This is especially true after R.A. No. 9369 vested in the
proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, including civil and Comelec and the DOJ the concurrent jurisdiction to conduct
administrative cases, and in all proceedings, including judicial and preliminary investigation of all election offenses. While we uphold
quasi-judicial hearings. Any party to a case has the right to demand the validity of Comelec Resolution No. 9266 and Joint Order No.
on all officials tasked with the administration of justice to expedite its 001-2011, we declare the Joint Committees Rules of Procedure
disposition. infirm for failure to comply with the publication requirement.
Consequently, Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and the
To recapitulate, we find and so hold that petitioners failed to establish 1993 Comelec Rules of Procedure govern.
any constitutional or legal impediment to the creation of the Joint DOJ- Fifth, petitioners were given the opportunity to be heard. They were
Comelec Preliminary Investigation Committee and Fact-Finding furnished a copy of the complaint, the affidavits, and other
Team. supporting documents submitted to the Joint Committee and they
were required to submit their counter-affidavit and countervailing
First, while GMA and Mike Arroyo were among those subjected to evidence. As to petitioners Mike Arroyo and Abalos, the pendency
preliminary investigation, not all respondents therein were linked to of the cases before the Court does not automatically suspend the
GMA; thus, Joint Order No. 001-2011 does not violate the equal proceedings before the Joint Committee nor excuse them from their
protection clause of the Constitution. failure to file the required counter-affidavits. With the foregoing
Second, the due process clause is likewise not infringed upon by the disquisitions, we find no reason to nullify the proceedings
alleged prejudgment of the case as petitioners failed to prove that undertaken by the Joint Committee and the Comelec in the electoral
the Joint Panel itself showed such bias and partiality against them. sabotage cases against petitioners.
Neither was it shown that the Justice Secretary herself actually
intervened in the conduct of the preliminary investigation. More
importantly, considering that the Comelec is a collegial body, the
perceived prejudgment of Chairman Brillantes as head of the
Comelec cannot be considered an act of the body itself.
Third, the assailed Joint Order did not create new offices because
the Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team perform functions that
they already perform by virtue of the Constitution, the statutes, and
the Rules of Court.
Fourth, in acting jointly with the DOJ, the Comelec cannot be


Article 6 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 6 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 6 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARTICLE 6: THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT Congress may legislate on any subject matter, subject only to

Constitutional limitations. The power of present and future

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

SEC v. INTERPORT Issues:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

FACT OF SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE PEOPLE v. ROSENTHAL

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

(1) Sections 4 to 6 of RA 9337 were patently unconstitutional as they Facts:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

Whether electro fishing in fresh water is punished by Admin Order No.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | Atty. Chan-Gonzaga

You might also like