Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
DELEGATION
Issue:
WoN
private
respondent
PBOAP
can
increase
the
existing
Doctrine:
Potestas
delegata
non
delegari
potest.
What
has
been
fares
without
filing
a
petition
for
that
purpose
and
without
the
delegated
cannot
be
delegated.
benefit
of
a
public
hearing.
1.
Kilusang
Mayo
Uno
Labor
Center
v.
Garcia
|
Kapunan,
J.
Held:
NO.
The
instant
petition
is
hereby
GRANTED
and
the
GR
No.
115381,
December
23,
1994
challenged
administrative
issuances
and
orders
issued
by
respondent
LTFRB
are
hereby
DECLARED
contrary
to
law
and
Facts:
On
June
26,
1990,
Secretary
Orbos
of
DOTC
issued
DOTC
invalid
insofar
as
the
delegation
to
provincial
bus
and
jeepney
Memorandum
Order
90-395
to
LTFRB
Chairman
Fernando
operators
the
authority
to
increase
or
decrease
the
duly
allowing
provincial
bus
operators
to
charge
passengers
within
a
prescribed
transportation
fares.
range
of
15%
above
and
15%
below
the
LTFRB
official
rate
for
a
period
of
one
year.
Guidelines
and
procedures
for
said
fare
range
Respondent
LTFRB,
a
regulatory
body
today,
is
vested
with
the
scheme
shall
be
prepared
by
LTFRB
and
implementation
shall
power
of
fixing
the
rates
of
public
services
under
Executive
Order
start
on
Augst
6,
1990.
LTFRB
Chairman
submitted
a
No.
202
dated
June
19,
1987.
Section
5
(c)
of
the
said
executive
memorandum
to
Secretary
Orbos
indicating
that
Section
16
(c)
of
order
authorizes
LTFRB
"to
determine,
prescribe,
approve
and
the
Public
Service
Act
prescribes
the
requirements
for
the
fixing
periodically
review
and
adjust,
reasonable
fares,
rates
and
other
and
determination
of
rates
making
the
implementation
of
the
fare
related
charges,
relative
to
the
operation
of
public
land
range
scheme
not
legally
feasible.
transportation
services
provided
by
motorized
vehicles."
On
February
17,
1993,
the
LTFRB
issued
Memorandum
Circular
Such
delegation
of
legislative
power
to
an
administrative
agency
is
No.
92-009
promulgating
the
guidelines
for
the
implementation
of
permitted
in
order
to
adapt
to
the
increasing
complexity
of
the
DOTC
Department
Order
No.
92-587
which
contains
the
policy
modern
life.
As
subjects
for
governmental
regulation
multiply,
so
framework
on
the
regulation
of
transport
services.
does
the
difficulty
of
administering
the
laws.
Hence,
specialization
even
in
legislation
has
become
necessary.
Given
the
task
of
Sometime
in
March,
1994,
private
respondent
PBOAP,
availing
determining
sensitive
and
delicate
matters
as
route-fixing
and
itself
of
the
deregulation
policy
of
the
DOTC
allowing
provincial
rate-making
for
the
transport
sector,
the
responsible
regulatory
bus
operators
to
collect
plus
20%
and
minus
25%
of
the
body
is
entrusted
with
the
power
of
subordinate
legislation.
With
prescribed
fare
without
first
having
filed
a
petition
for
the
purpose
this
authority,
an
administrative
body
and
in
this
case,
the
LTFRB,
and
without
the
benefit
of
a
public
hearing,
announced
a
fare
may
implement
broad
policies
laid
down
in
a
statute
by
"filling
in"
increase
of
twenty
(20%)
percent
of
the
existing
fares.
Said
the
details
which
the
Legislature
may
neither
have
time
or
increased
fares
were
to
be
made
effective
on
March
16,
1994.
On
competence
to
provide.
However,
nowhere
under
the
aforesaid
said
date,
petitioner
KMU
filed
a
petition
before
the
LTFRB
provisions
of
law
are
the
regulatory
bodies
authorized
to
delegate
opposing
the
upward
adjustment
of
bus
fares
which
was
that
power
to
a
common
carrier,
a
transport
operator,
or
other
dismissed
for
lack
of
merit.
Hence,
the
instant
petition
for
public
service.
certiorari.
In
the
case
at
bench,
the
authority
given
by
the
LTFRB
to
the
provincial
bus
operators
to
set
a
fare
range
over
and
above
the
authorized
existing
fare,
is
illegal
and
invalid
as
it
is
tantamount
to
an
undue
delegation
of
legislative
authority.
The
present
administrative
procedure,
to
our
mind,
already
Potestas
delegata
non
delegari
potest.
What
has
been
mirrors
an
orderly
and
satisfactory
arrangement
for
all
parties
delegated
cannot
be
delegated.
This
doctrine
is
based
on
the
involved.
To
do
away
with
such
a
procedure
and
allow
just
one
ethical
principle
that
such
as
delegated
power
constitutes
not
party,
an
interested
party
at
that,
to
determine
what
the
rate
only
a
right
but
a
duty
to
be
performed
by
the
delegate
through
should
be
will
undermine
the
right
of
the
other
parties
to
due
the
instrumentality
of
his
own
judgment
and
not
through
the
process.
The
purpose
of
a
hearing
is
precisely
to
determine
what
a
intervening
mind
of
another.
11
The
policy
of
allowing
the
just
and
reasonable
rate
is.
Discarding
such
procedural
and
provincial
bus
operators
to
change
and
increase
their
fares
at
constitutional
right
is
certainly
inimical
to
our
fundamental
law
will
would
result
not
only
to
a
chaotic
situation
but
to
an
and
to
public
interest.
anarchic
state
of
affairs.
This
would
leave
the
riding
public
at
the
mercy
of
transport
operators
who
may
increase
fares
every
2.
Santiago
v.
COMELEC
|
Davide,
Jr.,
J.
hour,
every
day,
every
month
or
every
year,
whenever
it
pleases
GR
No.
127325,
March
19,
1997
them
or
whenever
they
deem
it
"necessary"
to
do
so.
Facts:
On
December
6,
1996,
private
respondent
Atty.
Jesus
S.
Moreover,
rate
making
or
rate
fixing
is
not
an
easy
task.
It
is
a
Delfin,
founding
member
of
the
Movement
for
Peoples
Initaitive
delicate
and
sensitive
government
function
that
requires
dexterity
(PIRMA),
filed
with
public
respondent
COMELEC
a
Petition
to
of
judgment
and
sound
discretion
with
the
settled
goal
of
arriving
Amend
the
Constitution
to
Lift
Term
Limits
of
Elective
Officials
by
at
a
just
and
reasonable
rate
acceptable
to
both
the
public
utility
Peoples
Initiative
through
the
exercise
of
the
power
to
directly
and
the
public.
Several
factors,
in
fact,
have
to
be
taken
into
propose
amendments
to
the
Constitution
as
granted
under
Section
consideration
before
a
balance
could
be
achieved.
A
rate
should
2,
Article
XVII.
He
asked
for
an
order
from
the
COMELEC
in
fixing
not
be
confiscatory
as
would
place
an
operator
in
a
situation
the
time
and
dates
for
signature
gathering
all
over
the
country
where
he
will
continue
to
operate
at
a
loss.
Hence,
the
rate
should
among
others
which
was
granted.
At
the
hearing
of
the
Delfin
enable
public
utilities
to
generate
revenues
sufficient
to
cover
Petition
on
December
12,
1996,
petitioner-intervenors
appeared
operational
costs
and
provide
reasonable
return
on
the
and
filed
a
Motion
to
Dismiss
on
the
ground
that
it
is
not
the
investments.
On
the
other
hand,
a
rate
which
is
too
high
becomes
initiatory
petition
properly
cognizable
by
the
COMELEC.
On
discriminatory.
It
is
contrary
to
public
interest.
A
rate,
therefore,
December
18,
1996,
petitioners
filed
a
special
civil
action
for
must
be
reasonable
and
fair
and
must
be
affordable
to
the
end
user
prohibition.
Petitioners
allege
that
the
issue
is
of
transedental
who
will
utilize
the
services.
importance
because
the
Delfin
Petition
would
entail
expenses
to
the
national
treasury
for
general
re-registration
of
voters
Given
the
complexity
of
the
nature
of
the
function
of
rate-fixing
amounting
to
atleast
P180M.
Moreover,
the
constitutional
and
its
far-reaching
effects
on
millions
of
commuters,
government
provision
on
peoples
initiative
to
amend
the
Constitution
can
only
must
not
relinquish
this
important
function
in
favor
of
those
who
be
implemented
by
law
to
be
passed
by
Congress
and
no
law
has
would
benefit
and
profit
from
the
industry.
Neither
should
the
been
passed
yet.
requisite
notice
and
hearing
be
done
away
with.
The
people,
represented
by
reputable
oppositors,
deserve
to
be
given
full
Issue:
WoN
the
COMELEC
has
the
power
to
provide
rules
and
opportunity
to
be
heard
in
their
opposition
to
any
fare
increase.
regulations
for
the
exercise
of
the
right
of
initiative
to
amend
the
Constitution.
Held:
NONE.
This
petition
must
then
be
granted,
and
the
be
a
showing
that
the
delegation
itself
is
valid.
It
is
valid
only
COMELEC
should
be
permanently
enjoined
from
entertaining
or
if
the
law
(a)
is
complete
in
itself,
setting
forth
therein
the
taking
cognizance
of
any
petition
for
initiative
on
amendments
to
policy
to
be
executed,
carried
out,
or
implemented
by
the
the
Constitution
until
a
sufficient
law
shall
have
been
validly
delegate;
and
(b)
fixes
a
standard
the
limits
of
which
are
enacted
to
provide
for
the
implementation
of
the
system.
sufficiently
determinate
and
determinable
to
which
the
delegate
must
conform
in
the
performance
of
his
functions.
A
From
the
proceedings
of
the
Constitutional
Commission,
the
sufficient
standard
is
one
which
defines
legislative
policy,
conclusion
then
is
inevitable
that,
indeed,
the
system
of
initaitive
marks
its
limits,
maps
out
its
boundaries
and
specifies
the
on
the
Constitution
is
not
self-executory.
Congress
has
the
power
public
agency
to
apply
it.
It
indicates
the
circumstances
under
to
provide
for
the
rules
implementing
the
exercise
of
the
right.
The
which
the
legislative
command
is
to
be
effected.
rules
refer
to
the
details
on
how
the
right
is
to
be
carried
out.
Insofar
as
initiative
to
propose
amendments
to
the
Constitution
is
The
allegation
of
respondents
that
RA
No.
6735
is
the
enabling
law
concerned,
RA
No.
6735
miserably
failed
to
satisfy
both
is
untenable
because
it
is
incomplete,
inadequate,
or
wanting
in
requirements
in
subordinate
legislation.
The
delegation
of
the
essential
terms
and
conditions
insofar
as
initiative
on
power
to
the
COMELEC
is
then
invalid.
It
logically
follows
that
the
amendments
to
the
Constitution
is
concerned.
It
does
not
suggest
COMELEC
cannot
validly
promulgate
rules
and
regulations
to
an
intiative
on
amendments
to
the
Constitution
because
it
does
not
implement
the
exercise
of
the
right
of
the
people
to
directly
provide
details
in
the
implementation
of
such
unlike
in
intitative
propose
amendments
to
the
Constitution
through
the
system
of
on
national
legislation
and
local
initiative.
Its
lacunae
on
the
initiative.
It
does
not
have
that
power
under
RA
No.
6735.
Reliance
substantive
matter
are
fatal
and
cannot
be
cured
by
empowering
on
the
COMELEC's
power
under
Section
2(1)
of
Article
IX-C
of
the
the
COMELEC
to
promulgate
such
rules
and
regulations
as
may
be
Constitution
is
misplaced,
for
the
laws
and
regulations
referred
to
necessary
to
carry
out
the
purposes
of
the
Act.
therein
are
those
promulgated
by
the
COMELEC
under
(a)
Section
3
of
Article
IX-C
of
the
Constitution,
or
(b)
a
law
where
The
rule
is
that
what
has
been
delegated,
cannot
be
delegated
or
as
subordinate
legislation
is
authorized
and
which
satisfies
the
expressed
in
a
Latin
maxim:potestas
delegata
non
delegari
potest.
"completeness"
and
the
"sufficient
standard"
tests.
The
recognized
exceptions
to
the
rule
are
as
follows:
(1)
Delegation
of
tariff
powers
to
the
President
under
Section
LIMITATION
ON
RULE
MAKING
POWER
28(2)
of
Article
VI
of
the
Constitution;
(2)
Delegation
of
emergency
powers
to
the
President
under
1.
PASEI
V.
Torres
|
Bellosillo,
J.
Section
23(2)
of
Article
VI
of
the
Constitution;
GR
No.
98472,
August
19,
1993
(3)
Delegation
to
the
people
at
large;
(4)
Delegation
to
local
governments;
and
Facts:
Article
25
of
the
Labor
Code
of
the
Philippines
(P.D.
442,
as
(5)
Delegation
to
administrative
bodies.
amended)
encourages
private
sector
participation
in
recruitment
and
placement
of
workers
under
guidelines,
rules
and
regulations
Empowering
the
COMELEC,
an
administrative
body
exercising
to
be
issued
by
the
Secretary
of
Labor.
On
20
January
1982,
quasi-judicial
functions,
to
promulgate
rules
and
regulations
is
President
Marcos
issued
LOI
1190
withholding
the
grant
of
new
a
form
of
delegation
of
legislative
authority
under
no.
5
above.
licenses
to
operate
agencies
for
overseas
employment
effective
1
However,
in
every
case
of
permissible
delegation,
there
must
January
1982
except
as
he
may
otherwise
direct.
On
19
March
1991,
President
Aquino
issued
EO
450
lifting
the
ban
on
new
perception
of
petitioners,
LOI
1190
does
not
actually
ban
the
grant
applications
for
licenses
to
operate
recruitment
agencies
subject
to
of
licenses
nor
bar
the
entry
of
new
licenses
since
anybody
could
guidelines
and
regulations
the
Secretary
of
Labor
may
promulgate.
still
apply
for
license
with
the
Minister
of
Labor
and
Employment,
On
8
April
1991,
respondent
Secretary
of
Labor
and
Employment
although
the
grant
thereof
is
subject
to
the
prior
authority
of
the
promulgated
Department
Order
(DO)
No.
9,
Series
of
1991,
President.
In
fact,
the
LOI
did
not
modify
the
rule-making
power
of
entitled
"Guidelines
Implementing
Executive
Order
No.
450.
In
this
the
Minister
of
Labor
and
Employment
under
the
Labor
Code;
it
petition
for
prohibition
with
preliminary
injunction/restraining
only
added
another
tier
of
review.
As
we
earlier
stated,
the
LOI
did
order
filed
14
May
1991
petitioners
pray
that
EO
450
be
declared
not
suspend
the
enforcement
of
Art.
25
of
the
Labor
Code;
it
invalid
for
being
contrary
to
LOI
1190.
merely
added
another
level
of
administrative
review.
The
case
before
us
appears
compounded
by
the
circumstance
that
Neither
can
petitioners
consider
this
additional
review
by
the
the
LOI
in
question
was
issued
by
former
President
Ferdinand
E.
President
as
an
amendment
of
Art.
25,
for
this
is
within
the
scope
Marcos
when
he
was
clothed
with
legislative
power,
while
the
EO
of
the
exercise
of
his
constitutionally
sanctioned
control
over
the
revoking
the
LOI
was
issued
by
then
President
Corazon
C.
Aquino
executive
departments
of
government.
Implicit
in
that
power
of
at
a
time
when
she
had
already
lost
her
law-making
power
after
control
is
the
President's
"authority
to
go
over,
confirm,
Congress
convened
on
27
July
1987.
modify
or
reverse
the
action
taken
by
his
department
secretaries."
Moreover,
if
we
discern
the
intent
of
LOI
1190
from
Issue:
Is
LOI
1190
a
law
or
an
administrative
action.
the
manner
it
was
enforced,
the
unrebutted
allegation
of
respondent
that
319
private
employment
agencies
secured
Held:
LOI
1190
is
an
administrative
action.
It
simply
imposes
a
administrative
presidential
approval
from
1982
to
1989
shows
presidential
review
of
the
authority
of
the
Minister
of
Labor
and
that
then
President
Marcos
merely
intended
to
regulate,
and
not
Employment
to
grant
licenses,
hence,
directed
to
him
alone.
Since
ban
altogether,
new
applications
for
licenses.
For
this
reason,
this
is
undoubtedly
an
administrative
action,
LOI
1190
should
Marcos
could
not
have
contemplated
repealing
Art.
25
of
the
Labor
properly
be
treated
as
an
administrative
issuance.
Unlike
Code.
Presidential
Decrees
which
by
usage
have
gained
acceptance
as
laws
promulgated
by
the
President,
Letters
of
Instruction
are
2.
DAR
v.
Sutton
|
Puno,
J.
presumed
to
be
mere
administrative
issuances
except
when
the
GR
No.
162070,
October
19,
2005
conditions
set
out
in
Garcia-Padilla
v.
Enrile
exist.
Consequently,
to
be
considered
part
of
the
law
of
the
land,
petitioners
must
Facts:
The
case
at
bar
involves
a
land
in
Aroroy,
Masbate,
establish
that
LOI
1190
was
issued
in
response
to
"a
grave
inherited
by
respondents
which
has
been
devoted
exclusively
to
emergency
or
a
threat
or
imminence
thereof,
or
whenever
the
cow
and
calf
breeding.
On
October
26,
1987,
pursuant
to
the
then
interim
Batasan
Pambansa
or
the
regular
National
Assembly
fails
existing
agrarian
reform
program
of
the
government,
respondents
or
is
unable
to
act
adequately
on
any
matter."
The
conspicuous
made
a
voluntary
offer
to
sell
(VOS)
their
landholdings
to
absence
of
any
of
these
conditions
fortifies
the
opinion
that
LOI
petitioner
DAR
to
avail
of
certain
incentives
under
the
law.
On
June
1190
cannot
be
any
more
than
a
mere
administrative
issuance
10,
1988,
a
new
agrarian
law,
RA
No.
6657
(Comprehensive
Agrarian
Reform
Law
or
CARL
of
1988)
took
effect.
It
included
in
There
is
nothing
in
the
LOI
which
repeals
or
runs
counter
to
Art.
its
coverage
farms
used
for
raising
livestock,
poultry
and
swine.
25
of
the
Labor
Code,
as
amended.
Instead,
contrary
to
the
On
December
4,
1990,
in
an
en
banc
decision
in
the
case
of
Luz
Constitutional
Commission
to
exclude
livestock
farms
from
the
Farms
v.
Secretary
of
DAR,
this
Court
ruled
that
lands
devoted
to
land
reform
program
of
the
government.
livestock
and
poultry-
raising
are
not
included
in
the
definition
of
agricultural
land.
Hence,
we
declared
as
unconstitutional
certain
Issue:
WoN
DAR
AO
No.
9,
series
of
1993,
which
prescribes
a
provisions
of
the
CARL
insofar
as
they
included
livestock
farms
in
maximum
retention
limit
for
owners
of
lands
devoted
to
livestock
the
coverage
of
agrarian
reform.
In
view
of
the
Luz
Farms
ruling,
raising
is
constitutional.
respondents
filed
with
petitioner
DAR
a
formal
request
to
withdraw
their
VOS
as
their
landholding
was
devoted
exclusively
Held:
NO.
In
the
case
at
bar,
we
find
that
the
impugned
A.O.
is
to
cattle-raising
and
thus
exempted
from
the
coverage
of
the
CARL.
invalid
as
it
contravenes
the
Constitution.
The
A.O.
sought
to
regulate
livestock
farms
by
including
them
in
the
coverage
of
On
December
21,
1992,
the
Municipal
Agrarian
Reform
Officer
of
agrarian
reform
and
prescribing
a
maximum
retention
limit
for
Aroroy,
Masbate,
inspected
respondents'
land
and
found
that
it
their
ownership.
However,
the
deliberations
of
the
1987
was
devoted
solely
to
cattle-raising
and
breeding.
He
Constitutional
Commission
show
a
clear
intent
to
exclude,
recommended
to
the
DAR
Secretary
that
it
be
exempted
from
the
inter
alia,
all
lands
exclusively
devoted
to
livestock,
swine
and
coverage
of
the
CARL.
On
April
27,
1993,
respondents
reiterated
to
poultry-raising.
The
Court
clarified
in
the
Luz
Farms
case
that
petitioner
DAR
the
withdrawal
of
their
VOS
and
requested
the
livestock,
swine
and
poultry-raising
are
industrial
activities
and
do
return
of
the
supporting
papers
they
submitted
in
connection
not
fall
within
the
definition
of
"agriculture"
or
"agricultural
therewith.
Petitioner
ignored
their
request.
activity."
The
raising
of
livestock,
swine
and
poultry
is
different
from
crop
or
tree
farming.
It
is
an
industrial,
not
an
agricultural,
On
December
27,
1993,
DAR
issued
A.O.
No.
9,
series
of
1993,
activity.
Clearly,
petitioner
DAR
has
no
power
to
regulate
which
provided
that
only
portions
of
private
agricultural
lands
livestock
farms
which
have
been
exempted
by
the
used
for
the
raising
of
livestock,
poultry
and
swine
as
of
June
15,
Constitution
from
the
coverage
of
agrarian
reform.
It
has
1988
shall
be
excluded
from
the
coverage
of
the
CARL.
In
exceeded
its
power
in
issuing
the
assailed
A.O.
determining
the
area
of
land
to
be
excluded,
the
A.O.
fixed
the
following
retention
limits,
viz:
1:1
animal-land
and
a
ratio
of
Administrative
agencies
are
endowed
with
powers
legislative
in
1.7815
hectares
for
livestock
infrastructure
for
every
21
heads
of
nature,
i.e.,
the
power
to
make
rules
and
regulations.
They
have
cattle
shall
likewise
be
excluded
from
the
operations
of
the
CARL.
been
granted
by
Congress
with
the
authority
to
issue
rules
to
regulate
the
implementation
of
a
law
entrusted
to
them.
Delegated
On
September
14,
1995,
then
DAR
Secretary
Garilao
issued
an
rule-making
has
become
a
practical
necessity
in
modern
Order
partially
granting
the
application
of
respondents
for
governance
due
to
the
increasing
complexity
and
variety
of
public
exemption
from
the
coverage
of
CARL
by
applying
the
retention
functions.
However,
while
administrative
rules
and
regulations
limits
outlined
in
DAR
AO
No.
9
and
ordered
the
rest
of
the
have
the
force
and
effect
of
law,
they
are
not
immune
from
judicial
respondents
landholding
to
be
segregated
and
placed
under
review.
They
may
be
properly
challenged
before
the
courts
to
Compulsory
Acquisition.
Respondents
moved
for
reconsideration
ensure
that
they
do
not
violate
the
Constitution
and
no
grave
but
was
denied.
They
filed
a
notice
of
appeal
with
the
Office
of
the
abuse
of
administrative
discretion
is
committed
by
the
President
who
upheld
the
assailed
decsion.
On
appeal,
the
Court
of
administrative
body
concerned.
Appeals
ruled
in
favor
of
the
respondents
and
declared
DAR
AO
No.
9
void
for
being
contrary
to
the
intent
of
the
1987
The
fundamental
rule
in
administrative
law
is
that,
to
be
valid,
of
their
drivers
license
and/or
removal
of
their
license
plate
by
administrative
rules
and
regulations
must
be
issued
by
police
authorities
for
alleged
traffic
violation.
Those
complained
of
authority
of
a
law
and
must
not
contravene
the
provisions
of
were
required
to
submit
a
Comment
and
one
invoked
Ordinance
the
Constitution.
The
rule-making
power
of
an
administrative
No.
7,
Series
of
1988
of
Mandaluyong
while
another
invoked
a
agency
may
not
be
used
to
abridge
the
authority
given
to
it
by
memorandum
dated
February
27,
1991
from
the
District
Congress
or
by
the
Constitution.
Nor
can
it
be
used
to
enlarge
Commander
of
the
Western
Traffic
District
of
the
PNP.
Director
the
power
of
the
administrative
agency
beyond
the
scope
General
Cesar
P.
Nazareno
of
the
PNP
assured
the
Court
in
his
own
intended.
Constitutional
and
statutory
provisions
control
with
Comment
that
his
office
had
never
authorized
the
removal
of
the
respect
to
what
rules
and
regulations
may
be
promulgated
by
license
plates
of
illegally
parked
vehicles
and
that
he
had
in
fact
administrative
agencies
and
the
scope
of
their
regulations.
directed
full
compliance
with
the
above-mentioned
decision
in
a
memorandum,
copy
of
which
he
attached,
entitled
Removal
of
In
sum,
it
is
doctrinal
that
rules
of
administrative
bodies
must
be
Motor
Vehicle
License
Plates
and
dated
February
28,
1991.
in
harmony
with
the
provisions
of
the
Constitution.
They
cannot
amend
or
extend
the
Constitution.
To
be
valid,
they
must
conform
Issue:
WoN
the
exercise
of
the
delegated
power
is
valid.
to
and
be
consistent
with
the
Constitution.
In
case
of
conflict
between
an
administrative
order
and
the
provisions
of
the
Held:
NO.
The
measures
in
question
do
not
merely
add
to
the
Constitution,
the
latter
prevails.
requirement
of
PD
1605
but,
worse,
impose
sanctions
the
decree
does
not
allow
and
in
fact
actually
prohibits.
In
so
doing,
the
3.
SolGen
v.
MMA
|
Cruz,
J.
ordinances
disregard
and
violate
and
in
effect
partially
repeal
the
GR
No.
102782,
December
11,
1991
law.
It
is
for
Congress
to
determine,
in
the
exercise
of
its
own
discretion,
whether
or
not
to
impose
such
sanctions,
either
Facts:
In
Metropolitan
Traffic
Command,
West
Traffic
District
vs.
directly
through
a
statute
or
by
simply
delegating
authority
to
this
Hon.
Arsenio
M.
Gonong,
G.R.
No.
91023,
promulgated
on
July
13,
effect
to
the
local
governments
in
Metropolitan
Manila.
Without
1990,
the
Court
held
that
the
confiscation
of
the
license
plates
of
such
action,
PD
1605
remains
effective
and
continues
to
prohibit
motor
vehicles
for
traffic
violations
was
not
among
the
sanctions
the
confiscation
of
license
plates
of
motor
vehicles
(except
under
that
could
be
imposed
by
the
Metro
Manila
Commission
under
PD
the
conditions
prescribed
in
LOI
43)
and
of
driver's
licenses
as
1605
and
was
permitted
only
under
the
conditions
laid
down
by
well
for
traffic
violations
in
Metropolitan
Manila.
LOI
43
in
the
case
of
stalled
vehicles
obstructing
the
public
streets.
It
was
there
also
observed
that
even
the
confiscation
of
drivers
To
sustain
the
ordinance
would
be
to
open
the
floodgates
to
other
licenses
for
traffic
violations
was
not
directly
prescribed
by
the
ordinances
amending
and
so
violating
national
laws
in
the
guise
of
decree
nor
was
it
allowed
by
the
decree
to
be
imposed
by
the
implementing
them.
Thus,
ordinances
could
be
passed
imposing
Commission.
No
motion
for
reconsideration
of
that
decision
was
additional
requirements
for
the
issuance
of
marriage
licenses,
to
submitted.
The
judgment
became
final
and
executory
on
August
6,
prevent
bigamy;
the
registration
of
vehicles,
to
minimize
1990,
and
it
was
duly
entered
in
the
Book
of
Entries
of
Judgments
carnapping;
the
execution
of
contracts,
to
forestall
fraud;
the
on
July
13,
1990.
validation
of
passports,
to
deter
imposture;
the
exercise
of
freedom
of
speech,
to
reduce
disorder;
and
so
on.
The
list
is
After
the
said
decision
became
final
and
executory,
it
received
endless,
but
the
means,
even
if
the
end
be
valid,
would
be
ultra
several
complaints
from
different
persons
against
the
confiscation
vires.
Congress,
the
local
government
unit
cannot
contravene
but
must
The
measures
in
question
are
enactments
of
local
governments
obey
at
all
times
the
will
of
their
principal.
In
the
case
before
us,
acting
only
as
agents
of
the
national
legislature.
Necessarily,
the
the
enactments
in
question,
which
are
merely
local
in
origin,
acts
of
these
agents
must
reflect
and
conform
to
the
will
of
their
cannot
prevail
against
the
decree,
which
has
the
force
and
effect
of
principal.
To
test
the
validity
of
such
acts
in
the
specific
case
now
a
statute.
before
us,
we
apply
the
particular
requisites
of
a
valid
ordinance
as
laid
down
by
the
accepted
principles
governing
municipal
REQUISITES
FOR
A
VALID
DELEGATION
OF
LEGISLATIVE
POWER
corporations.
According
to
Elliot,
a
municipal
ordinance,
to
be
(not
the
issue
in
this
case)
valid:
1)
must
not
contravene
the
Constitution
or
any
statute;
2)
The
Court
holds
that
there
is
a
valid
delegation
of
legislative
power
must
not
be
unfair
or
oppressive;
3)
must
not
be
partial
or
to
promulgate
such
measures,
it
appearing
that
the
requisites
of
discriminatory;
4)
must
not
prohibit
but
may
regulate
trade;
5)
such
delegation
are
present.
These
requisites
are:
1)
the
must
not
be
unreasonable;
and
6)
must
be
general
and
consistent
completeness
of
the
statute
making
the
delegation;
and
2)
the
with
public
policy.
presence
of
a
sufficient
standard.
Under
the
first
requirement,
the
statute
must
leave
the
legislature
complete
in
all
its
terms
and
A
careful
study
of
the
Gonong
decision
will
show
that
the
provisions
such
that
all
the
delegate
will
have
to
do
when
the
measures
under
consideration
do
not
pass
the
first
criterion
statute
reaches
it
is
to
implement
it.
What
only
can
be
delegated
is
because
they
do
not
conform
to
existing
law.
The
pertinent
law
is
not
the
discretion
to
determine
what
the
law
shall
be
but
the
PD
1605.
PD
1605
does
not
allow
either
the
removal
of
license
discretion
to
determine
how
the
law
shall
be
enforced.
This
has
plates
or
the
confiscation
of
driver's
licenses
for
traffic
violations
been
done
in
the
case
at
bar.
As
a
second
requirement,
the
committed
in
Metropolitan
Manila.
The
Commission
was
allowed
enforcement
may
be
effected
only
in
accordance
with
a
sufficient
to
"impose
fines
and
otherwise
discipline"
traffic
violators
only
"in
standard,
the
function
of
which
is
to
map
out
the
boundaries
of
the
such
amounts
and
under
such
penalties
as
are
herein
prescribed,"
delegate's
authority
and
thus
"prevent
the
delegation
from
that
is,
by
the
decree
itself.
Nowhere
is
the
removal
of
license
running
riot."
This
requirement
has
also
been
met.
It
is
settled
that
plates
directly
imposed
by
the
decree
or
at
least
allowed
by
it
to
be
the
"convenience
and
welfare"
of
the
public,
particularly
the
imposed
by
the
Commission.
Notably,
Section
5
thereof
expressly
motorists
and
passengers
in
the
case
at
bar,
is
an
acceptable
provides
that
"in
case
of
traffic
violations,
the
driver's
license
shall
sufficient
standard
to
delimit
the
delegate's
authority.
not
be
confiscated."
These
restrictions
are
applicable
to
the
Metropolitan
Manila
Authority
and
all
other
local
political
4.
Boie-Takeda
Chemicals,
Inc
v.
de
la
Serna
|
Narvasa,
C.
J.
subdivisions
comprising
Metropolitan
Manila,
including
the
GR
No.
92174,
December
10,
1993
Municipality
of
Mandaluyong.
Facts:
A
routine
inspection
was
conducted
in
the
premises
of
The
requirement
that
the
municipal
enactment
must
not
violate
petitioner
by
Labor
and
Development
Officer
Ramos
under
existing
law
explains
itself.
Local
political
subdivisions
are
able
to
Inspection
Authority
No.
4-209-89.
Finding
that
petitioner
had
not
legislate
only
by
virtue
of
a
valid
delegation
of
legislative
power
been
including
the
commissions
earned
by
its
medical
from
the
national
legislature
(except
only
that
the
power
to
create
representatives
in
the
computation
of
their
13th
month
pay,
their
own
sources
of
revenue
and
to
levy
taxes
is
conferred
by
the
Ramos
served
a
Notice
of
Inspection
Results
on
Boie-Takeda
Constitution
itself).
They
are
mere
agents
vested
with
what
is
through
its
president,
Mr.
Araneta,
requiring
Boie-Takeda
within
called
the
power
of
subordinate
legislation.
As
delegates
of
the
ten
(10)
calendar
days
from
notice
to
effect
restitution
or
correction
of
"the
underpayment
of
13th
month
pay
for
the
year(s)
1986,
1987
and
1988
of
medical
representatives
in
the
total
Contrary
to
respondents'
contention,
Memorandum
Order
No.
28
amount
of
P558,810.89.
did
not
repeal,
supersede
or
abrogate
P.D.
851.
As
may
be
gleaned
from
the
language
of
Memorandum
Order
No.
28,
it
merely
Petitioner
wrote
the
Labor
Department
contesting
the
Notice
of
"modified"
Section
1
of
the
decree
by
removing
the
P1,000.00
Inspection
Results
and
contending
that
in
the
computation
of
the
salary
ceiling.
The
concept
of
13th
Month
Pay
as
envisioned,
13th
month
pay
to
its
medical
representatives,
the
commission
defined
and
implemented
under
P.D.
851
remained
unaltered,
and
paid
should
not
be
included
since
the
law
and
its
implementing
while
entitlement
to
said
benefit
was
no
longer
limited
to
rules
speak
of
regular
or
basic
salary.
Regional
Director
Piezas
employees
receiving
a
monthly
basic
salary
of
not
more
than
directed
petitioner
to
appear
before
his
Office
but
no
one
appeared
P1,000.00,
said
benefit
was,
and
still
is,
to
be
computed
on
the
despite
due
notice.
An
order
was
promulgated
directing
petitioner
basic
salary
of
the
employee-recipient
as
provided
under
P.D.
851.
to
pay
its
medical
represntatives
and
its
managers
the
total
Thus,
the
interpretation
given
to
the
term
"basic
salary"
as
defined
amount
of
P558,810.89
representing
the
underpayment
of
the
13th
in
P.D.
851
applies
equally
to
"basic
salary"
under
Memorandum
month
pay
for
the
yeas
indicated
above.
Petitioner
filed
a
motion
Order
No.
28.
for
reconsideration
but
the
assailed
decision
was
affirmed
with
modification
that
the
sales
commissions
earned
before
August
13,
5.
Victoria
Milling
Company,
Inc.
v.
SSC
|
Barrera,
J.
1989,
the
effectivity
date
of
Memorandum
Order
No.
28
and
its
GR
No.
L-16704,
March
17,
1962
Implementing
Guidelines,
shall
be
excluded
in
the
computation
of
the
13th
month
pay.
Facts:
SSS
issued
Circular
No.
22,
which
mandated
employers
in
computing
the
premiums
due
the
System
to
include
in
the
Issue:
WoN
respondent
labor
officials
in
computing
the
13th
month
employees
remuneration
all
bonuses
and
overtime
pay,
as
well
as
pay
benefit
committed
grave
abuse
of
discretion
amounting
to
lack
the
cash
value
of
other
media
of
remunerarion.
Upon
receipt
of
a
of
jurisdcition
by
giving
effect
to
Section
5
of
the
Revised
copy
thereof,
petitioner
wrote
SSS
protesting
against
the
circular
Guidelines
on
the
Implementation
of
the
Thirteenth
Month
Pay
as
contradictory
to
a
previous
Circular
expressuly
excluding
(PD
No.
851)
promulgated
by
the
Secretary
of
Labor
and
overtime
pay
and
bonus
in
the
computation
of
the
employers
and
Employment.
employees
respective
monthly
premium
contributions.
Overruling
these
objections,
SSS
ruled
that
the
assailed
circular
is
a
mere
Held:
YES.
In
including
commissions
in
the
computation
of
the
administrative
interpretation
of
the
statute,
a
mere
statement
of
13th
month
pay,
the
second
paragraph
of
Section
5
(a)
of
the
general
policy
or
opinion
as
to
how
the
law
should
be
construed.
Revised
Guidelines
on
the
Implementation
of
the
13th
Month
Pay
Not
satisfied
with
the
ruling,
petitioner
filed
an
appeal.
Law
unduly
expanded
the
concept
of
"basic
salary"
as
defined
in
P.D.
851.
It
is
a
fundamental
rule
that
implementing
rules
cannot
Issue:
WoN
Circular
No.
22
is
not
a
rule
or
regulation,
as
add
to
or
detract
from
the
provisions
of
the
law
it
is
designed
to
contemplated
in
Section
4(a)
of
RA
1161
empowering
the
SSC
to
implement.
Administrative
regulations
adopted
under
legislative
adopt,
amend
and
repeal
subject
to
the
approval
of
the
President
authority
by
a
particular
department
must
be
in
harmony
with
the
such
rules
and
regulations
as
may
be
ncessary
to
carry
out
the
provisions
of
the
law
they
are
intended
to
carry
into
effect.
They
provisions
and
purposes
of
this
Act.
cannot
widen
its
scope.
An
administrative
agency
cannot
amend
an
act
of
Congress.
Held:
The
Commission's
interpretation
of
the
amendment
agreement
with
the
policy
stated
therein
or
its
innate
wisdom.
On
embodied
in
its
Circular
No.
22
is
correct.
The
express
elimination
the
other
hand,
administrative
interpretation
of
the
law
is
at
best
among
the
exemptions
excluded
in
the
old
law,
of
all
bonuses,
merely
advisory,
for
it
is
the
courts
that
finally
determine
what
the
allowances
and
overtime
pay
in
the
determination
of
the
law
means.
"compensation"
paid
to
employees
makes
it
imperative
that
such
bonuses
and
overtime
pay
must
now
be
included
in
the
6.
find
out
the
case
title
employee's
remuneration
in
pursuance
of
the
amendatory
law.
7.
Lupangco
v.
CA
|
Gancayco,
J.
Circular
No.
22
purports
merely
to
advise
employers
members
of
GR
No.
77372,
April
29,
1988
the
System
of
what,
in
the
light
of
the
amendment
of
the
law,
they
should
include
in
determining
the
monthly
compensation
of
their
Facts:
On
October
6,
1986,
PRC
issued
Resolution
No.
105
as
part
employees
upon
which
the
social
security
contributions
should
be
of
its
Additional
Instructions
to
Examinees,
to
all
tohse
applying
based,
and
that
such
circular
did
not
require
presidential
approval
for
admission
to
take
the
licensure
examinations
in
accountancy.
and
publication
in
the
Official
Gazette
for
its
effectivity.
The
resolution
prohibits
examiness
to
attend
any
review
class,
briefing,
conference
or
the
line
conducted
by,
or
shall
receive
any
There
can
be
no
doubt
that
there
is
a
distinction
between
an
hand-out,
review
material,
or
any
tip
from
any
school,
college
or
administrative
rule
or
regulation
and
an
administrative
university,
or
any
review
center
or
the
like
or
any
reviewer,
interpretation
of
a
law
whose
enforcement
is
entrusted
to
an
lecturer,
instructor
official
or
employee
of
any
of
the
administrative
body.
When
an
administrative
agency
promulgates
aforementioned
or
similar
institutions
during
the
three
days
rules
and
regulations,
it
"makes"
a
new
law
with
the
force
and
immediately
preceding
every
examination
day
including
the
effect
of
a
valid
law,
while
when
it
renders
an
opinion
or
gives
a
examination
day.
Any
examinee
violating
the
instruction
shall
be
statement
of
policy,
it
merely
interprets
a
pre-existing
law.
Rules
subject
to
sanctions
prescribed
by
Section
8,
Article
3
of
the
Rules
and
regulations
when
promulgated
in
pursuance
of
the
procedure
and
Regulations
of
the
Commission.
or
authority
conferred
upon
the
administrative
agency
by
law,
partake
of
the
nature
of
a
statute,
and
compliance
therewith
may
On
October
16,
1986,
petitioners,
all
reviewees
preparing
to
take
be
enforced
by
a
penal
sanction
provided
in
the
law.
This
is
so
the
said
examination
filed
in
their
own
behald
and
in
behalf
of
all
because
statutes
are
usually
couched
in
general
terms,
after
others
similarly
situated
like
them
with
the
RTC
of
Manila
a
expressing
the
policy,
purposes,
objectives,
remedies
and
complaint
for
injucntion
with
a
prayer
for
the
issuance
of
a
writ
of
sanctions
intended
by
the
legislature.
The
details
and
the
manner
preliminary
injunction
against
PRC
to
restrain
the
latter
from
of
carrying
out
the
law
are
often
times
left
to
the
administrative
enforcing
the
above-mentioned
resolution
and
to
declare
the
same
agency
entrusted
with
its
enforcement.
In
this
sense,
it
has
been
unconstitutional.
said
that
rules
and
regulations
are
the
product
of
a
delegated
power
to
create
new
or
additional
legal
provisions
that
have
the
PRC
filed
a
motion
to
dismiss
on
the
ground
that
the
RTC
had
no
effect
of
law.
jurisdiction
to
review
and
enjoin
the
enforcement
of
its
resolution
but
the
latter
declared
that
it
had
jurisdiction
to
try
the
case
and
A
rule
is
binding
on
the
courts
so
long
as
the
procedure
fixed
for
enjoined
the
former
from
enforcing
and
giving
effect
to
the
its
promulgation
is
followed
and
its
scope
is
within
the
statutory
assailed
Resolution.
RTC
found
the
assailed
Resolution
to
be
authority
granted
by
the
legislature,
even
if
the
courts
are
not
in
unconstitutional
applies
to
a
specific
situation.
This
does
not
cover
rules
and
PRC
filed
with
the
CA
a
petition
for
the
nullification
of
the
RTCs
regulations
of
general
applicability
issued
by
the
administrative
decision,
which
was
granted
on
the
ground
that
the
PRC
and
RTC
body
to
implement
its
purely
administrative
policies
and
functions
are
co-equal
bodies
and
have
no
power
to
control
each
other
or
like
Resolution
No.
105
which
was
adopted
by
the
respondent
PRC
interfere
with
each
others
acts.
as
a
measure
to
preserve
the
integrity
of
licensure
examinations.
Issue:
Is
the
RTC
of
the
same
category
as
the
PRC
so
that
it
cannot
Of
course,
we
realize
that
the
questioned
resolution
was
adopted
pass
upon
the
validity
of
the
administrative
acts
of
the
latter?
for
a
commendable
purpose
which
is
"to
preserve
the
integrity
and
purity
of
the
licensure
examinations."
However,
its
good
aim
Held:
NO.
What
is
clear
from
Presidential
Decree
No.
223
is
that
cannot
be
a
cloak
to
conceal
its
constitutional
infirmities.
On
its
the
Professional
Regulation
Commission
is
attached
to
the
Office
of
face,
it
can
be
readily
seen
that
it
is
unreasonable
in
that
an
the
President
for
general
direction
and
coordination.
Well
settled
examinee
cannot
even
attend
any
review
class,
briefing,
in
our
jurisprudence
is
the
view
that
even
acts
of
the
Office
of
the
conference
or
the
like,
or
receive
any
hand-out,
review
material,
or
President
may
be
reviewed
by
the
Court
of
First
Instance
(now
the
any
tip
from
any
school,
college
or
university,
or
any
review
center
Regional
Trial
Court).
or
the
like
or
any
reviewer,
lecturer,
instructor,
official
or
employee
of
any
of
the
aforementioned
or
similar
institutions.
Upon
the
other
hand,
there
is
no
law
providing
for
the
next
course
of
action
for
a
party
who
wants
to
question
a
ruling
or
order
of
the
The
unreasonableness
is
more
obvious
in
that
one
who
is
caught
Professional
Regulation
Commission.
There
is
no
provision
in
committing
the
prohibited
acts
even
without
any
ill
motives
will
Presidential
Decree
No.
223,
the
law
creating
the
Professional
be
barred
from
taking
future
examinations
conducted
by
the
Regulation
Commission,
that
orders
or
resolutions
of
the
respondent
PRC.
Furthermore,
it
is
inconceivable
how
the
Commission
are
appealable
either
to
the
Court
of
Appeals
or
to
the
Commission
can
manage
to
have
a
watchful
eye
on
each
and
every
Supreme
Court.
examinee
during
the
three
days
before
the
examination
period.
It
is
an
axiom
in
administrative
law
that
administrative
authorities
should
not
act
arbitrarily
and
capriciously
in
the
In
order
to
invoke
the
exclusive
appellate
jurisdiction
of
the
Court
issuance
of
rules
and
regulations.
To
be
valid,
such
rules
and
of
Appeals
as
provided
for
in
Section
9,
paragraph
3
of
B.P.
Blg.
regulations
must
be
reasonable
and
fairly
adapted
to
secure
129,
there
has
to
be
a
final
order
or
ruling
which
resulted
from
the
end
in
view.
If
shown
to
bear
no
reasonable
relation
to
the
proceedings
wherein
the
administrative
body
involved
exercised
purposes
for
which
they
are
authorized
to
be
issued,
then
its
quasi-judicial
functions.
In
Black's
Law
Dictionary,
quasi- they
must
be
held
to
be
invalid.
judicial
is
defined
as
a
term
applied
to
the
action,
discretion,
etc.,
of
public
administrative
officers
or
bodies
required
to
investigate
facts,
or
ascertain
the
existence
of
facts,
hold
hearings,
and
draw
conclusions
from
them,
as
a
basis
for
their
official
action,
and
to
exercise
discretion
of
a
judicial
nature.
To
expound
thereon,
quasi-
judicial
adjudication
would
mean
a
determination
of
rights,
privileges
and
duties
resulting
in
a
decision
or
order,
which