RODOLFO MANZANO
Facts: Judge Manzano requested for an application for
membership in the Iloco Norte Provincial Committee.
Such Committee performs administrative funcitons.
ISSUE: Should his request be accepted?
RULING: No. It’s in blatant contravention of the
Constitution. Section 1 and 2 of Article 8. While the
doctrine of separation of powers is a relative theory not
to be enforced with pedantic rigor, the practical demands
of government precluding its doctrinaire application, it
cannot justify a member of the judiciary being
required to assume a position or perform a duty non-
judicial on character.  Implicit in the principle.
Otherwise, there is plain departure from command. Only
a higher court can pass on his actuation. He is not a
subordinate of an executive or legislative, however
eminent. Fidelity to his sworn responsibility no less
than the maintenance of respect for the judiciary can
be satisfied with nothing less.
- Executive Order No. 856: Provincial/City
Committees on Justice are created to insure the
speedy disposition of cases of detainees,
particularly involving the poor and indigent
ones, thus alleviating jail congestion and
improving jail conditions.
- Administrative functions: involve regulation and
control over the conduct and affairs of
individuals to better carry out the policy of the
legislature/such devolved upon the
administrative agency by the organic law of
its existence.
- (Doctrine of Separation of Powers) Members of
the Supreme Court and other Courts shall not
be designated to any agency performing quasi-
judicial or administrative functions.
- CONCLUSION: Even as non-members of
Provincial/City Committees on Justice, RTC
judges should render assistance to said
committees which may be reasonably incidental
to the fulfillment of their judicial duties.  They
form part of the structure of government.
EASTERN SHIPPING LINES v. POEA
Facts: Private respondent has been awarded with a sum
of money by POEA after her husband’s death (VITALIANO
SACO) in Tokyo, Japan due to an accident while in the
performance of his duty as a chief officer in M/V Eastern
Polaris. Petitioner argued that POEA has no jurisdiction
over the case because the deceased was a domestic
employee and not an overseas employee, and so SSS
should have been the one to handle the case. He added
further that since respondents received such award
through a memorandum issued by POEA, it should be
denied/revoked as POEA has no authority to issue such
rules. Such task lies with the legislative branch.
ISSUE: Does POEA have the authority to release such
memorandum?
RULING: Yes. Payment of death benefit pension to the PR
will not preclude the allowance of PR’s claim against
petitioner which is specially reserved in the standard
contract of employment for Filipino seamen.
- General rule that decisions of the POEA should
first be appealed to the NLRC; Case at bar comes
under one of the exceptions, as the questions
raised are questions of law; Absence of objection
by PR to petitioner’s direct resort to the SC. 
Usual procedure would delay the disposition of
the case to her prejudice. (Non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies)
- Legislative discretion as to the substantive
contents of the law CANNOT be delegated. What
CAN be delegated: discretion to determine
how the law may be enforced, not WHAT the
law should be.
- Tests Determining Valid Delegation of
Legislative Power:
o Completeness Test – law must be
complete in all its terms and conditions
when it leaves the legislature in such
that when it reaches the delegate the
only thing he well have to do is enforce
it.
o Sufficient Standard Test – adequate
guidlelines/limitations in the law to map
out the boundaries of the delegate’s
authority and prevent the delegation
from running riot.
o BOTH are intended to prevent TOTAL
TRANSFERENCE of legislative authority
to the delegate who isn’t allowed to do
such.
- Principle of Non-Delegation of Powers:
applicable to all 4 major powers of the
government but is especially IMPORTANT in the
case of the legislative power because of the
many instances when its delegation is
PERMITTED.
- Delegation of legislative power is necessary 
delegation of legislative power has become the
rule and its non-delegation the exception.
- REASON: (frequent delegation of legislative
power)
o Increasing complexities of the task of
the government
o Growing inability of the legislature to
cope directly with the myriad problems
demanding its attention
o Growth of society (ramified activities
and created peculiar problems that the
legislature cannot be expected to
comprehend)
o Specialization even in legislation has
become necessary. (CONCLUSION).
o Legislature may not have the
competence of providing a
direct/specific and solution but such
solution may be expected from its
delegates who are supposed to be
 experts in the particular fields
assigned to them.
- Power of Subordinate Legislation: delegated
power to issue rules to carry out the general
provisions of the statute.
- Administrative bodies implement the broad
policies by promulgating their supplementary
regulations (implementing rules issued by the
Department of Labor on the new Labor Code)
filling in details which the Congress may not
provide.  regulations have the force and effect
of law.
- Sufficient Standards of Delegation of Legislative
Power:
o Public interest
o Justice and equity
o Public convenience and welfare
o Simplicity, economy, efficiency
o Sense and experience of men
o National Security
- Administrative Agencies’ 2 Basic Powers:
o Quasi-legislative
o Quasi-judicial
o BOTH powers are okay as long as the
cardinal rights in the ANG TIBAY case
are observed.
- CARDINAL RIGHTS
o The right to a hearing (right to present
one’s cause and submit evidence in
support thereof.
o Tribunal must consider the evidence
presented
o The decision must have something to
support itself
o Evidence must be substantial
o Decision must be based on the evidence
presented at the hearing; or at least
contained in the record and siclosedd to
the parties affected
o Tribunal/body or any of its judges must
act on its own independent
consideration of the law and facts of the
controversy and not simply accept the
views of a subordinate
o Board of body should, in all
controversial questions, render its
decision in such a manner that the
parties to the proceeding can know the
various issues involved and the reason
for the decision rendered.
CASIBANG v. Aquino
Facts: Respondent Judge was elected mayor of
Pangasinan. His only rival, the petitioner, protested
against the credibility of his office and the manner in
which he had attained it. Respondent invoked Section 9
of Article 17 of the New Constitution while dismissing the
election protests against him by the petitioner.
Respondent claims that under the said provision of the
New Consti, the court has lost jurisdiction as it is a
political question. Petitioner failed to refute this.
ISSUE: Is the respondent’s election a political question?
RULING: No. It is a justiciable question. Constiutional
Convention could not have intended to shield or protect
those who had been unduly elected. To hold that the right
of the PR is a political question would be tantamount to
giving a stamp of approval to what could have been an
election victory characterized by fraud. Justiciable
question siya kasi ang tanong lang naman kung who
between respondent and petitioner should enjoy the
position.
- COMELEC is now the sole judge of all contests
relating to elections, returns, and qualifications
of members of the National Assembly as well as
elective provincials and city officials  doesn’t
include electoral contests concerning municipal
elective positions.
- It is for the Court rather than the Executive to
determine whether We may take cognizance of
any given case involving the validity of acts of
the Executive Department purportedly under the
authority of Martial law.
- POLITICAL QUESTION DEFINED
- Justiciable Question: purely justiciable
controversy as it implies a given right, legally
demandable and enforceable, an act or
omission violative of said right, and a
remedy, granted or sanctioned by law for
said breach of right.
DAZA v. Singson
Facts: HoR apportioned 12 seats in the Commision on
Appointments. The petitioner is one of the 12 who got
chosen. He was a representative of the Liberal Party.
Upon HoR’s reorganization, LDP was developed and
resulted to political realignment. 24 liberal party
members resigned from the party and instead joined
LDP. Dumami members so HoR reduced this and
withdrew the seat occupied by the petitioner and gave it
to the newly formed LDP. Petitioner was replaced by
respondent, an additional member. Petitioner alleges that
HoR acted with grave abuse of discretion and that his
seat/election was permanent and cannot be made to base
on a party (LDP) that isn’t a duly registered political
party. Respondent contend that he isn’t properly
impleaded, that it should be the HoR and that the case is a
political question beyond the Court’s jurisdiction.
ISSUE: Is the issue a political question?
RULING: No. The Supreme Court has the competence to
act in the case at bar since it involved the legality of the
act of the HoR in removing the petitioner from the
Commission on Appointments. It is not a discretionary
act of the HoR. What is involved is legality not wisdom;
thus, not a political question. Because a political
question is concerned with issues dependent upon the
wisdom not legality of a particular measure. Even if
the question were political, it the case would still be
handled by the SC under their expanded jurisdiction.
HoR’s action may reflect at any time.
- Expanded jurisdiction of the SC conferred by
Section 1 Article 8 of the Consti  grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
- The transcendental importance to the public
of cases where serious constitutional
questions are raised demands that they be
settled promptly and brushing aside the
technicalities of procedure.
GARCIA v. Exec. Secretary
Facts: Petitioner assails the validity of Eos released by
the President increasing the tarrif rates. He questions the
legality and constitutionality of said Eos, while at the
same time maintaining that it is against the protection of
local industries. Furthermore, said Eos were also against
Consti because under Section 24 Article 6 revenue-
generating laws must originate from the HoR and not the
President.
ISSUE: Are the Eos valid?
RULING: Yes. Under Section 28(2) Article 6 of the
Constitution, President may be authorized by Congress
through the law, to fix within specified limits by the
Congress and subject to limitations, tariff rates.
(EXPLICIT). The EO (Section 401) of the Tariff and
Customs Code established a general standards which
the exercise of the authority delegated by that provision
to the President must be consistent: authority exercised
in the interest of national economy, general
welfare/national security. Petitioner insists that
protection of local industries is the ONLY permissible
objective that can be secured by the exercise of the
delegated authority. But it is wrong, it should be the
protection of consumers as in line with the national
economy, gen welf. And natl security. Petitioner failed to
overcome the legality of the Eos. PETITIONER
DISMISSED lack of merit.
RODRIGUEZ v. Gella
Facts: President released EOs appropriating funds to the
victims of calamities and othr disasters. The CA 671
states that there is a limited duration to powers vested in
the President by the Legislature during war and
emergency. The Eos which are created because of CA 671
do not have such duration. Giving the 2 departments the
indefinite prerogative of implementation.
ISSUE: Are the 2 Eos constitutional?
RULING: No. CA 671 (in times of war) on which the Eos
are based has already terminated during the ending of
the emergency resulting from the last world war.
President cannot set aside funds for special purposes (as
stated in the EO) since the Congress has been approving
appropriation acts. If President had ceased to have
powers with respect to general appropriations none can
remain in respect of special appropriations; otherwise he
may do indirectly what he cannot do directly.
- KINDS OF EMERGENCIES
o In times of war
o Other national emergency.
ARRANETA v. Dinglasan
Facts: Petitioners assail the validity of the EOrders
promulgated by virtue of the Emergency Powers Act (CA
671). They contend that 671 ceased to be effective.
ISSUE: Are the EOrders valid?
RULING: No. The Emergency powers act is no longer
effective. PETITION GRANTED.
- Emergency in order to justify the delegation of
emergency powers, must be temporary or it can
not be said to be an emergency.
- Legislature had restricted the life of emergency
powers due to enemy action brought on by war
(ACT 671)
- CA 671 would become invalid unless reenacted.
These phrases connote automatic extinction of
the law upon the conclusion of a certain period.
The same law has to be repassed if the grant
should be prolonged.
- The conferring of powers upon the President
was due to the inability of the National
Assembly to meet. No other factor than this
inability could have motivated the delegation of
powers so vast as to amount an abdication by the
National Assembly of its authority. (Inability of
the Congress to function, period ending as
soon as they convene)  CA 671 then becomes
inoperative (EOrders were then issued without
authority of law because they were based on the
CA 671 that is now terminated)
- Legislation is preserved in Congress all the time.
- Executive Orders are not laws although they may
have the effect of laws. They may be considered
only as rules and regulations because it is
merely a power delegated to him by the
Congress under Section 26 ART 6.
YNOT v. Intermediate Appellate Court
Facts: Petitioner transported his carabao in a boat from
Masbate to Iloilo. During such act, a police seized his
carabaos and he dismissed. The seizure was outright. The
petitioner had no time to explain himself nor was he
informed that such act of carabao transportation was an
amendment to the EO of the President. Such EO contains
a measure providing that carabaos seuzed shall be
distributed by the police as he shall deem fit, while
originally the EO is about the prevention of carabao
slaughter.
ISSUE: Is the challenged measure valid?
RULING: No. It is unconstitutional becauseit serves no
purpose and is irrelevant to the law and it arbitrarily
gives full discretion to the police regarding the seizure of
carabaos. Hence, it is an undue delegation of legislative
power and is also oppressive. The delegated power (EO)
has no standard/reasonable guideline. There is no
limitation. Pero yung EO preventing carabao slaughter is
related to public welfare na rin. (being a poor man’s
tractor). There is a roving commission, a clearly invalid
delegation of legislative power.
- Lower Courts have authority to resolve the issue
of constitutionality of legislative measures
subjected only to a review by the highest
tribunal.
- SC has jurisdiction to review, review, reverse,
modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari as
the law/rules of court may provide final
judgments of the lower courts and all cases
involving constitutionality of certain measures.
 Resolution must be made in the first instance
by the lower courts.
- The challenged measure is an invalid exercise of
police power for the method employed to
conserve the carabaos is not reasonably
necessary to the purpose of the law and worse,
unduly oppressive. The conferment on the
administrative authorities of the power to
adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender is a
clear encroachment on judicial functions and
militates against the doctrine of separation of
powers.
- Ommission of right to a prior hearing can only be
made by the courts of justice and not the police.
US. v. ANG TANG HO
Facts: The Governor General issued a proclamation fixing
the price at which rice should be sold. Appelant-
defendatn was caught selling rice at a rate higher than
that proclaimed by the Gov. General. The Act which
legislative has delegatd to the Gov. Gen was
discretionary.
ISSUE: Is the authority of the Governor General to fix the
price of rice a valid delegation of legislative power?
RULING: No. Act. 2868, the basis of the Gov. General’s
power to impose rates, authorizes him in his discretion to
issue a proclamation fixing the price of rice. The law was
not dealing with Government property, it was dealing
with private rights. The rice was the personal property of
the defendant. The Government had not bought it. The
said act is an undue delegation of legislative power as it
did not specify or limit the terms and conditions of said
statute. The Legislature cannot delegate the legislative
power to enact any law. The Act is a not a law unto itself
and it there is left for the legislative something to do;
hence, this specific provision is unconstitutional and
void.
TABLARIN v. Gutierrez
Facts: Petitioners took medical school entrance exams
for SY 1986-1987, they were denied for it was found that
they are ineligible for not having taken the NMAT. They
assailed the constitutionality of NMAT. Saying that it is
unfair and an undue delegation of legislative power. Add
to this, the cut-off scores are also mutable which makes it
capricious and arbitrary.
ISSUE: Is NMAT a valid delegation?
RULING: Yes. Different cut-off scores for different school
years may be dictated by differing conditions. TO
establish a permanent cut-off scores would be an
unreasonable rigidity. Prescirbing NMAT and requiring
certain minimum scores therein as a condition for
admission to medical schools in the Philippines do not
constitute an unconstitutional imposition. PETITION
DISMISSED.
- Delegatus non Potest Delegare has been made
to adapt itself to the complexities of modern
government giving rise to adoption of
subordinate legislation.
- The standard may either be express or implied.
The standard does not have to be spelled out
specifically. It could be implied from the policy
and purpose of the act considered as a whole.
- The Legislative and administrative provisions of
the statue that is impugned constitute a valid
exercise of police power of the state.
- The petitioners’ questions of NMAT’s desirability
must be addressed to the political departments
of the government not to the courts.
- Police Power is the pervasive and non-waivable
power and authority of the sovereign to secure
and promote all the important interests and
needs of the genral community.
- The regulation of practice of medicine is a a
reasonable method of protecting the health and
safety of the public. It includes the power to
regulate admission to medical schools
authorizing practice of medicine. HENCe
government is entitled to prescribe an admission
test like the NMAT.
PEOPLE v. VERA
Facts: Mariano Cu Unjieng was convicted by the trial
court in Manila. He filed for reconsideration and four
motions for new trial but all were denied. He then
elevated to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court
remanded the appeal to the lower court for a new trial.
While awaiting new trial, he appealed for probation
alleging that the he is innocent of the crime he was
convicted of. The Judge of the Manila CFI directed the
appeal to the Insular Probation Office. The IPO denied the
application. However, Judge Vera upon another request
by petitioner allowed the petition to be set for hearing.
The City Prosecutor countered alleging that Vera has no
power to place Cu Unjieng under probation because it is
in violation of Sec. 11 Act No. 4221 which provides that
the act of Legislature granting provincial boards the
power to provide a system of probation to convicted
person. Nowhere in the law is stated that the law is
applicable to a city like Manila because it is only indicated
therein that only provinces are covered. And even if
Manila is covered by the law it is unconstitutional
because Sec 1 Art 3 of the Constitution provides equal
protection of laws. The said law provides absolute
discretion to provincial boards and this also constitutes
undue delegation of power. Further, the said probation
law may be an encroachment of the power of the
executive to provide pardon because providing
probation, in effect, is granting freedom, as in pardon.
ISSUE: Whether or not Act No. 4221 constituted an
undue delegation of legislative power
RULING: An act of the legislature is incomplete and
hence invalid if it does not lay down any rule or definite
standard by which the administrative officer or board
may be guided in the exercise of the discretionary
powers delegated to it. The probation Act does not, by
the force of any of its provisions, fix and impose upon the
provincial boards any standard or guide in the exercise of
their discretionary power. What is granted, as mentioned
by Justice Cardozo in the recent case of Schecter, supra, is
a “roving commission” which enables the provincial
boards to exercise arbitrary discretion. By section 11 if
the Act, the legislature does not seemingly on its own
authority extend the benefits of the Probation Act to the
provinces but in reality leaves the entire matter for the
various provincial boards to determine.

PELAEZ v. Auditor General

Facts: President issued an EO stating the authority
creating 33 municipalities. Petitioner, the VP, filed a writ
of prohibition preventing respondent from disbursement
of appropriation to said municipalities claiming that EO is
null and void as it has been repealed by the Republic Act
2370 and that it is an undue delegation of Legislative
power. Respondent contends that action of petitioner
was premature and not all parties (municipal
corporations) were impleaded.
ISSUE: Is EO granting President to create municipalities a
valid delegation of legislative power?
RULING: No. EO is void ab initio. Respondent enjoined
from disbursing funds. EO doesn’t enunciate a policy to
be carried out by the President. It doesn’t provide a
sufficient standard to avoid evil effects from flowing from
such issuance. Power to fix municipalities is legislative
in nature. The requirements for a valid delegation was
not met. Pure a Legislative question tong case so it is a
political question for the legislative bills failed to pass
congress. PRESIDENT no cntrl over local govts.
- Requisites for valid delegation of power
o complete in itself, setting forth therein
the policy to be executed/carried
out/implemented by delegate
o fix a standard to which the delegate
must conform in the performance of his
functions.