11.

SALVADOR C. FERNANDEZ and ANICIA M. DE LIMA, petitioners,

vs. HON. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, Chairman, and HON. RAMON B.
ERENETA, Commissioner, Civil Service Commission, respondents

G.R. No. 116418 March 7, 1995

FELICIANO, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioners in the instant case, Salvador Sanchez here serving as Director of the
Office of Personnel Inspection and Audit ("OPIA") while petitioner de Lima was
serving as Director of the Office of the Personnel Relations ("OPR"), both at the
Central Office of the Civil Service Commission. Petitioners assailed the validity of
the resolution promulgated by the CSC and its authority to issue such, the
Resolution No. 934710 resolves to effect changes in the organizations specifically
Central Offices ( re arranged and merged some offices. It also allocated some
functions ( internal organizations). The objective which is to improve on the
delivery of services

ISSUE 1:

Whether or not the Civil Service Commission had legal authority to issue
Resolution No. 94-3710 to the extent it merged the OCSS [Office of Career Systems
and Standards], the OPIA [Office of Personnel Inspection and Audit] and the OPR
[Office of Personnel Relations], to form the RDO [Research and Development
Office];

HELD:

YES.

Examination on the statutory provisions specifically The Revised Administrative

Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292 dated 25 July 1987) sets out, in Book V,
Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 3, the internal structure and organization of the
Commission Sec. 16. Offices in the Commission reveals that the OCSS, OPIA and
OPR, and as well each of the other Offices listed in Section 16 above, consist of
aggregations of Divisions, each of which Divisions is in turn a grouping of Sections.
In short these offices constitute administrative subdivisions of the CSC.
Legislative Authority have validly delegated to CSC by Sec. 17 and also
Sec 1 of 1997 Revised Administrative Code.

The reorganization of offices is moved by legitimate considerations of

administrative efficiency and convenience.

ISSUE 2:

Whether the reorganization abolished offices?

HELD:

It did not abolished any public office nor terminate relationship whatsoever
employees by the Civil Service Commission Office or any of its officers and
employees.

RATIONALE why CSC can validly reorganized:

Because only CSC knows the ever changing needs with the call of times or demand
of times, as long as this will not involve any reduction in rank or status or neither
the salaries of such employees and it is not amounting to removal nor constructive
dismissal.

12.
BLENDING OF POWERS

With the intricateness of the operations of government, it is unwise and

impracticable to effect a strict and complete separation of powers. There are
instances when certain powers are to be reposed in more than one department so
they may better collaborate with, and in the process check each other for the sake
of a good and efficient government. Thus, the necessity of blending of powers.

Blending of powers is actually sharing of powers of the different departments of

government whereby one department helps and coordinates with the other in the
exercise of a particular power, function or responsibility.

The following are examples under the 1987 Philippine

Constitution where powers are not confined exclusively within one
department but are in fact shared:

1. The President and Congress help one another in the making of laws. Congres
enacts the bill and the President approves it.
2. The President prepares a budget and Congress enacts an appropriation bill
pursuant to that budget.

3. The President enters into a treaty with foreign countries and the Senate
ratifies the same.

4. The Supreme Court may declare a treaty, international or executive

agreement, or law, as unconstitutional, and it has also the power to declare
invalid any act done by the othe departments of government.

5. The grant of amnesty by the President is subject to the concurrence of a

majority of all the members of the Congress.

6. The President appoints, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments,

members of the Constitutional Commissions, ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel
or Naval Captai, and other officers whose appointments are vested in the
President in the 1987 Constitution.

7. The members of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President, based on
a list prepared by the Judicial and Bar council. These appointments do not
need the consent of the Commission on Appointments.

13.
In relation to Permissive Delegation of Legislative Power, what can or
cannot be delegated?

Permissive delegation of legislative power.

1) Sec. 23 (2) of Article VI (Emergency powers to the President in case of war or

other national emergency, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as
Congress may provide, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a
declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by Resolution of Congress, such
powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.

2) Sec. 28 (2) of Article VI. The Congress may by law, authorize the President to
fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may
impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and
other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program
of the government.

Other exceptions: traditional

By the organic law of the Philippine Islands and the Constitution of the United
States all powers are vested in the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary. It is the
duty of the Legislature to make the law; of the Executive to execute the law; and
of the Judiciary to construe the law. The Legislature has no authority to execute or
construe the law, the Executive has no authority to make or construe the law, and
the Judiciary has no power to make or execute the law. Subject to the Constitution
only, the power of each branch is supreme within its own jurisdiction, and it is for
the Judiciary only to say when any Act of the Legislature is or is not constitutional.

By the Organic Law, all Legislative power is vested in the Legislature,

and the power conferred upon the Legislature to make laws cannot be
delegated to the Governor-General, or any one else. The Legislature
cannot delegate the legislative power to enact any law. If Act no 2868 is a
law unto itself and within itself, and it does nothing more than to authorize the
Governor-General to make rules and regulations to carry the law into effect, then
the Legislature itself created the law. There is no delegation of power and it is
valid. On the other hand, if the Act within itself does not define crime, and is not a
law, and some legislative act remains to be done to make it a law or a crime, the
doing of which is vested in the Governor-General, then the Act is a delegation of
legislative power, is unconstitutional and void.

14.
SOUTHERN CROSS CEMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. CEMENT
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, THE
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE and THE
COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, respondents.

G.R. No. 158540. August 3, 2005

TINGA, J.

Facts:

Republic Act No. 8800, the Safeguard Measures Act (SMA), which was one of the
laws enacted by Congress soon after the Philippines ratified the General
Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO)
Agreement.[3] The SMA provides the structure and mechanics for the imposition
of emergency measures, including tariffs, to protect domestic industries and
producers from increased imports which inflict or could inflict serious injury on
them.

Petitioner Southern Cross Cement Corporation (Southern Cross) is a domestic

corporation engaged in the business of cement manufacturing, production,
importation and exportation. Its principal stockholders are Taiheiyo Cement
Corporation and Tokuyama Corporation, purportedly the largest cement
manufacturers in Japan.[5]

Private respondent Philippine Cement Manufacturers Corporation[6] (Philcemcor)

is an association of domestic cement manufacturers. It has eighteen (18)
members,[7] per Record. While Philcemcor heralds itself to be an association of
domestic cement manufacturers, it appears that considerable equity holdings, if
not controlling interests in at least twelve (12) of its member-corporations, were
acquired by the three largest cement manufacturers in the world, namely
Financiere Lafarge S.A. of France, Cemex S.A. de C.V. of Mexico, and Holcim Ltd.
of Switzerland (formerly Holderbank Financiere Glaris, Ltd., then Holderfin B.V.).

the DTIs disagreement with the conclusions of the Tariff Commission, but at the
same time, ultimately denying Philcemcors application for safeguard measures on
the ground that the he was bound to do so in light of the Tariff Commissions
negative findings.

Philcemcor challenged this Decision of the DTI Secretary by filing with the Court of
Appeals a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus[11] seeking to set
aside the DTI Decision, as well as the Tariff Commissions Report. The Court of
Appeals Twelfth Division, in a Decision[13] penned by Court of Appeals Associate
Justice Elvi John Asuncion,[14] partially granted Philcemcors petition.

On 23 June 2003, Southern Cross filed the present petition, arguing that the Court
of Appeals has no jurisdiction over Philcemcors petition, as the proper remedy is a
petition for review with the CTA conformably with the SMA, and; that the factual
findings of the Tariff Commission on the existence or non-existence of conditions
warranting the imposition of general safeguard measures are binding upon the
DTI Secretary.

Despite the fact that the Court of Appeals Decision had not yet become final, its
binding force was cited by the DTI Secretary when he issued a new Decision on 25
June 2003, wherein he ruled that that in light of the appellate courts Decision,
there was no longer any legal impediment to his deciding Philcemcors application
for definitive safeguard measures.

The Court of Appeals had held that based on the foregoing premises, petitioners
prayer to set aside the findings of the Tariff Commission in its assailed Report
dated March 13, 2002 is DENIED. On the other hand, the assailed April 5, 2002
Decision of the Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry is hereby SET
ASIDE. Consequently, the case is REMANDED to the public respondent Secretary
of Department of Trade and Industry for a final decision in accordance with RA
8800 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. Hence, the appeal.

Yet on 25 June 2003, the DTI Secretary issued a new Decision, ruling this time that
that in light of the appellate courts Decision there was no longer any legal
impediment to his deciding Philcemcors application for definitive safeguard
measures.[41] He made a determination that, contrary to the findings of the Tariff
Commission, the local cement industry had suffered serious injury as a result of
the import surges.[42] Accordingly, he imposed a definitive safeguard measure on
the importation of gray Portland cement, in the form of a definitive safeguard duty
in the amount of P20.60/40 kg. bag for three years on imported gray Portland
Cement. Hence, the appeal.
Issue:

Whether or not the decision of DTI Secretary, to impose safeguard measures is

valid.

Held:

NO, due to the nature of this case, the Court found that the DTI should follow the
regulations prescribed by SMA. The Court held that he assailed Decision of the
Court of Appeals is DECLARED NULL AND VOID and SET ASIDE. The Decision of
the DTI Secretary dated 25 June 2003 is also DECLARED NULL AND VOID and SET
ASIDE. No Costs.

Yet on 25 June 2003, the DTI Secretary issued a new Decision, ruling this time
that that in light of the appellate courts Decision there was no longer any legal
impediment to his deciding Philcemcors application for definitive safeguard
measures.[41] He made a determination that, contrary to the findings of the Tariff
Commission, the local cement industry had suffered serious injury as a result of
the import surges.[42] Accordingly, he imposed a definitive safeguard measure on
the importation of gray Portland cement, in the form of a definitive safeguard duty
in the amount of P20.60/40 kg. bag for three years on imported gray Portland
Cement.
15.

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner,

vs.
PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION (POEA),
MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, HEARING OFFICER ABDUL
BASAR and KATHLEEN D. SACO, respondents.

G.R. No. 76633 October 18, 1988

CRUZ, J.:

GENERAL RULE: Non-delegation of Legislative Power

EXCEPTION: Subordinate Legislation

Tests for Valid Delegation of Legislative Power

FACTS:

Vitaliano Saco, the Chief Officer of a ship, was killed in an accident in Tokyo, Japan.
The widow filed a complaint for damages against the Eastern Shipping Lines with
the POEA, based on Memorandum Circular No. 2 issued by the latter which
stipulated death benefits and burial expenses for the family of an overseas worker.
Eastern Shipping Lines questioned the validity of the memorandum circular.
Nevertheless, the POEA assumed jurisdiction and decided the case.

ISSUE:

W/N the issuance of Memorandum Circular No. 2 is a violation of non-delegation of

powers

HELD:

SC held that there was valid delegation of powers.

In questioning the validity of the memorandum circular, Eastern Shipping Lines

contended that POEA was given no authority to promulgate the regulation, and
even with such authorization, the regulation represents an exercise of legislative
discretion which, under the principle, is not subject to delegation.

GENERAL RULE: Non-delegation of powers; exception

It is true that legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot
be delegated. What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law
may be enforced, not what the law shall be. The ascertainment of the latter
subject is a prerogative of the legislature. This prerogative cannot be abdicated or
surrendered by the legislature to the delegate.

Two Tests of Valid Delegation of Legislative Power

There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid
delegation of legislative power, viz, the completeness test and the sufficient
standard test. Under the first test, the law must be complete in all its terms and
conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate
the only thing he will have to do is to enforce it. Under the sufficient standard test,
there must be adequate guidelines or stations in the law to map out the
boundaries of the delegates authority and prevent the delegation from running
riot.

Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authority to

the delegate, who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and
exercise a power essentially legislative.

Xxx The delegation of legislative power has become the rule and its
non-delegation the exception.

Rationale for Delegation of Legislative Power

The reason is the increasing complexity of the task of government and the growing
inability of the legislature to cope directly with the myriad problems demanding its
attention. The growth of society has ramified its activities and created peculiar and
sophisticated problems that the legislature cannot be expected to reasonably
comprehend. Specialization even in legislation has become necessary. Too many
of the problems attendant upon present-day undertakings, the legislature may not
have the competence to provide the required direct and efficacious, not to say,
specific solutions. These solutions may, however, be expected from its delegates,
who are supposed to be experts in the particular fields.

Power of Subordinate Legislation

The reasons given above for the delegation of legislative powers in general are
particularly applicable to administrative bodies. With the proliferation of
specialized activities and their attendant peculiar problems, the national legislature
has found it more and more necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the
authority to issue rules to carry out the general provisions of the statute. This is
called the power of subordinate legislation.

With this power, administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid down
in statute by filling in the details which the Congress may not have the
opportunity or competence to provide. Memorandum Circular No. 2 is one such
administrative regulation.