Mutual Film Corporation v.

Industrial Commission Facts: Mutual Film Corporation is engaged in the business of purchasing, selling, and leasing films in Ohio and other foreign countries. Subsequently moving picture censorship act of Ohio of 1913 was passed. Acting pursuant to such statute the board of sensors has demanded of Mutual Film Corporation that it submit its films to censorship before it can be released for exhibition.Consequently herein complainant challeged the said statute saying that it furnishes no standard of what is educational, moral, amusing, or harmless, and hence leaves decision to arbitrary judgment, whim, and caprice; or, aside from those extremes, leaving it to the different views which might be entertained of the effect of the pictures, permitting the "personal equation" to enter, resulting "in unjust discrimination against some propagandist film," Issue: Whether or not there is invalid delegation of legislative power HELD: No, there is valid delegation . The statute by its provisions guards against such variant judgments, and its terms, like other general terms, get precision from the sense and experience of men, and become certain and useful guides in reasoning and conduct. The exact specification of the instances of their application would be as impossible as the attempt would be futile. If this is true then many administrative agencies created by the state and national governments would be denuded of their utility, and government in some of its most important exercises become impossible. It would be next to impossible to devise language that would be at once comprehensive and automatic." language of the statute "might have been extended by description and illustrative words," but doubting that it would have been the more intelligible, and that probably by being more restrictive might be more easily thwarted

Cervantes v. Auditor General Facts: Petitioner was the manager of the NAFCO.By a resolution of the BOD of NAFCO, petitioner was granted a quarters allowance. However when the same resolution was submitted it was disapproved by the Control Committee of the Government Enterprises Council that was created by the President under EO 93 pursuant to Republic Act No. 51 authorizing the President of the Philippines, among other things, to effect such reforms and changes in government-owned and controlled corporations for the purpose of promoting simplicity, economy and efficiency in their operation. The petitioner challeged the said EO 93 that the same is null and because it is based on a law that is unconstitutional as an illegal delegation of legislative power to the executive. Issue: Wheter or not there is invalid delegation of power.

Held: There is valid delegation of power, so long as the Legislature "lays down a policy and a standard is established by the statute" there is no undue delegation Republic Act No. 51 in authorizing the President of the Philippines, among others, to make reforms and changes in government-controlled corporations, lays down a standard and policy that the purpose shall be to meet the exigencies attendant upon the establishment of the free and independent Government of the Philippines and to promote simplicity, economy and efficiency in their operations. The standard was set and the policy fixed. The President had to carry the mandate. This he did by promulgating the executive order in question which, tested by the rule above cited, does not constitute an undue delegation of legislative power. Ynot vs. IAC Facts: Petitioner six carabaos were confiscated when he transported the same from Masbate to Iloilo by the police commander of Iloilo for violation of EO 626-A which prohibits the interprovincial movement of

carabaos. Petitioner questioned the constitutionality of the law insofar as it authorizes outright confiscation of carabao or carabeef.
Issue: Whether or not EO 626 is unconstitutional. HELD:YES.It is there authorized that the seized property shall "be

distributed to charitable institutions and other similar institutions as the Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commissionmay see fit, in the case of carabeef, and to deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of Animal Industry may see fit, in the case of carabaos." (Emphasis supplied.) The phrase "may see fit" is an extremely generous and dangerous condition, if condition it is. It is laden with perilous opportunities for partiality and abuse, and even corruption. One searches in vain for the usual standard and the reasonable guidelines, or better still, the limitations that the said officers must observe when they make their distribution. There is none. Their options are apparently boundless. Who shall be the fortunate beneficiaries of their generosity and by what criteria shall they be chosen? Only the officers named can supply the answer, they and they alone may choose the grantee as they see fit, and in their own exclusive discretion. Definitely, there is here a "roving commission," a wide and sweeping authority that is not "canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing," in short, a clearly profligate and therefore invalid delegation of legislative powers.
chanrobles virt ualaw libraryc han robles virt ual