Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

Pangasinan Transport Co. vs. Public Service CommissionGR NO.

47065, June 26, 1940

This is a case on the certificate of public convenience of petitioner PangasinanTransportation
Co. Inc (Pantranco). The petitioner has been engaged for the
past twentyyears in the business of transporting passengers in the province of Pangasinan
and Tarlac,Nueva Ecija and Zambales. On August 26, 1939, Pantranco filed with the Public
ServiceCommission (PSC) an application to operate 10 additional buses. PSC
granted theapplication with 2 additional conditions which was made to apply
also on their existingbusiness. Pantranco filed a motion for reconsideration
with the Public Service Commission.Since it was denied, Pantranco then filed
a petition/ writ of certiorari.
Whether the legislative power granted to Public Service Commission:- is unconstitutional and void because it is without limitation
- constitutes undue delegation
of powers

PANTRANCO vs. PSC, 70 Phil 229 (1940)

The challenged provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 454 are valid and
constitutionalbecause it is a proper delegation of legislative power, so called
Subordinate Legislation. It is a valid delegation because of the growing
complexities of modern government, thecomplexities or multiplication of
the subjects of governmental regulation and the increaseddifficulty of
administering the laws. All that has been delegated to the Commission is
theadministrative function, involving the use of discretion to carry out the will of the
NationalAssembly having in view, in addition, the promotion of public interests in a proper
andsuitable manner.The Certificate of Public Convenience is neither a
franchise nor contract, confers noproperty rights and is a mere license or
privilege, subject to governmental control for thegood of the public. PSC has the
power, upon notice and hearing, to amend, modify, orrevoked at any time any
certificate issued, whenever the facts and circumstances sowarranted. The
limitation of 25 years was never heard, so the case was remanded to PSCfor
further proceedings.In addition, the Court ruled that, the liberty and property
of the citizens should beprotected by the rudimentary requirements of fair
play. Not only must the party be givenan opportunity to present his case and
to adduce evidence tending to establish the rightsthat he asserts but the
tribunal must consider the evidence presented. When privateproperty is
affected with a public interest, it ceased to be juris privati or private use only.

PANTRANCO, a holder of an existing Certificate of Public
Convenience is applying to operate additional buses with thePublic
Service Commission (PSC). The PSC granted the application but
added several conditions for PANTRANCOs compliance.
PANTRANCO is questioning whether PSC can impose said
conditions. If so, wouldnt this power of the PSC, as provided for
under sec. 15, CA 146, constitute undue delegation of powers?
SC held that there was valid delegation of powers.
The theory of the separation of powers is designed by its
originators to secure action at the same time forestall overaction
which necessarily results from undue concentration of powers and
thereby obtain efficiency and prevent deposition. But due to the
growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of subjects of
governmental regulation and the increased difficulty of
administering laws, there is a constantly growing tendency toward
the delegation of greater powers by the legislature, giving rise to
the adoption, within certain limits, of the principle of subordinate
All that has been delegated to the Commission is the administrative
function, involving the use of discretion to carry out the will of the
National Assembly having in view, in addition, the promotion of
public interests in a proper and suitable manner.