In Re: Rodolfo Manzano

Facts:
Judge Manzano filed a petition allowing him to accept the appointment by Ilocos Sur Governor
Rodolfo Farinas as the member of Ilocos Norte provincial Committee on Justice created pursuant
to a Presidential Order. He petitioned that his membership in the Committee will not in any way
amount to an abandonment to his present position as Executive Judge of Branch XIX, RTC, 1st
Judicial region and as a member of judiciary.
Issue:
What is an administrative agency? Where does it draw the line insofar as administrative
functions are concerned?
Ruling:
The petition is denied. The Constitution prohibits the designation of members of the Judiciary to
any agency performing Quasi-Judicial or Administrative functions (Sec.12, Art.VIII, 1987
Constitution).
Quasi-Judicial has a fairly clear meaning and Judges can confidently refrain from participating in
the work of any Administrative Agency which adjudicates disputes & controversies involving the
rights of parties within its jurisdiction.
Administrative functions are those which involve the regulation and control over the conduct &
affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better
carry out the policy of the Legislature or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by
the organic law of its existence.
Administrative functions as used in Sec. 12 refers to the Governments executive machinery
and its performance of governmental acts. It refers to the management actions, determinations,
and orders of executive officials as they administer the laws and try to make government
effective. There is an element of positive action, of supervision or control.
In the dissenting opinion of Justice Gutierrez:
Administrative functions are those which involve the regulation and control over the conduct and
affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better
carry out the policy of the legislature or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by
the organic law of its existence we can readily see that membership in the Provincial or City
Committee on Justice would not involve any regulation or control over the conduct and affairs of
individuals. Neither will the Committee on Justice promulgate rules and regulations nor exercise
any quasi-legislative functions. Its work is purely advisory. A member of the judiciary joining any
study group which concentrates on the administration of justice as long as the group merely
deliberates on problems involving the speedy disposition of cases particularly those involving the
poor and needy litigants-or detainees, pools the expertise and experiences of the members, and
limits itself to recommendations which may be adopted or rejected by those who have the power
to legislate or administer the particular function involved in their implementation.
Angara v. Electoral Commission, G.R. No. L-45081, July 15, 1936
I. THE FACTS
Petitioner Jose Angara was proclaimed winner and took his oath of office as member of the
National Assembly of the Commonwealth Government. On December 3, 1935, the National
Assembly passed a resolution confirming the election of those who have not been subject of an
election protest prior to the adoption of the said resolution.
On December 8, 1935, however, private respondent Pedro Ynsua filed an election protest against
the petitioner before the Electoral Commission of the National Assembly. The following day,
December 9, 1935, the Electoral Commission adopted its own resolution providing that it will not
consider any election protest that was not submitted on or before December 9, 1935.
Citing among others the earlier resolution of the National Assembly, the petitioner sought the
dismissal of respondents protest. The Electoral Commission however denied his motion.
II. THE ISSUE
Did the Electoral Commission act without or in excess of its jurisdiction in taking cognizance of
the protest filed against the election of the petitioner notwithstanding the previous confirmation
of such election by resolution of the National Assembly?
III. THE RULING
[The Court DENIED the petition.]
NO, the Electoral Commission did not act without or in excess of its jurisdiction in taking
cognizance of the protest filed against the election of the petitioner notwithstanding the previous
confirmation of such election by resolution of the National Assembly.
The Electoral Commission acted within the legitimate exercise of its constitutional prerogative in
assuming to take cognizance of the protest filed by the respondent Ynsua against the election of
the petitioner Angara, and that the earlier resolution of the National Assembly cannot in any
manner toll the time for filing election protests against members of the National Assembly, nor
prevent the filing of a protest within such time as the rules of the Electoral Commission might
prescribe.
The grant of power to the Electoral Commission to judge all contests relating to the election,
returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly, is intended to be as complete
and unimpaired as if it had remained originally in the legislature. The express lodging of that
power in the Electoral Commission is an implied denial of the exercise of that power by the
National Assembly. xxx.
[T]he creation of the Electoral Commission carried with it ex necesitate rei the power regulative
in character to limit the time with which protests intrusted to its cognizance should be filed.
[W]here a general power is conferred or duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for the
exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also conferred. In the absence of any
further constitutional provision relating to the procedure to be followed in filing protests before
the Electoral Commission, therefore, the incidental power to promulgate such rules necessary for
the proper exercise of its exclusive power to judge all contests relating to the election, returns
and qualifications of members of the National Assembly, must be deemed by necessary
implication to have been lodged also in the Electoral Commission.
DELEGATION OF POWER
Garcia v. Exec. Secretary
The Congress may authorize the President to fix tariff rates and duties subject to such limitations
and restrictions that they may impose. This is expressly provided for in Art 6, Sec 28 par 2 of the
Constitution.
Araneta v. Dinglasan
The delegation of emergency powers by Congress to the President may be limited by Congress
subject to restrictions it may provide. Congress may withdraw the delegated power at any time.
In this case, the emergency power was withdrawn at the time Congress became able to exercise
its legislative duties again.
Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA
The principle of non-delegation of powers is applicable to all three branches of government
specifically in the case of the legislative. What can be delegated is the discretion to determine
how the law may be enforced and not what the law shall be since the ascertainment of the latter
subject is within the prerogative and determination of the legislature. Delegation of legislative
power is permitted and valid provided that is passes the two accepted tests- completeness test
and the sufficient standard test. The reason for such delegation is the increasing complexity of
the task of the government and the growing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the
myriad problems demanding its attention.
Rodriguez v. Gella
Act No. 671 was expressly in pursuance of the constitutional limitation of the delegation of
emergency powers. It is presumed that the National Assembly intended it to be for a limited
period. Executive Orders Nos. 545 and 546, which was anchored to the said Act are declared null
and void and the respondents are ordered to desist from appropriating, releasing and allotting
expending funds set aside therein.

People v. Vera
Act No. 4221 is tantamount to an undue delegation of legislative power. The powers of the
government are distributed among three coordinate and substantially independent organs: the
legislative, the executive and the judicial. Each of the departments of the government derives its
authority from the Constitution.

US vs. Ang Tang Ho

If the act within itself does not define a crime and is not complete, legislative act remains to be
done to make it a law or a crime, the doing of which is vested in the Gov, generally, the act is a
delegation of legislative power, and is thus unconstitutional and void.

Ynot vs. IAC

There is no standard that the officials must observe in determining to whom to distribute the
confiscated carabaos and carabeef. There is thus an invalid delegation of legislatie power.
Tablarin vs. Gutierez
Because the necessity standards are set forth in the statute (RA No. 2383), providing for
standardization and regulation of education, delegation is valid.
Pelaez vs. Auditor General
The two tests (Completeness test and Sufficient Standard test) must be applied together.