You are on page 1of 6

Gutierrez v DBM ill-gotten wealth because of the mismanagement, among

others, of this bank trans fund ?? now the


Before the provisions of the IRR as well as the NCC may Sandiganbayan declared unconstitutional the Sec 1 of PD
be given effect, acknowledged here, there is a purpose 755. it argued that this section constitute an undue
for the delegation of legislative powers to administrative delegation of legislative power because it authorizes the
bodies. As a general rule, dili nimo na sya pwede PCA to promulgate rules and regulations in the
mahatag because it is already delegated to the Congress, distribution of UCPB shares to coconut farmers. It was
and the Congress cannot further delegate it, but argued that mali ang ruling sa Sandiganbayan because
considering that constructions (?) whatever, have been according to them, the UCPB and the cronies, the
modernized, the Court recognize that it has become a provision was complete itself and it also has sufficient
necessity in modern governments because of the standards.
increasing propensity and variety of public functions. So So is Sec 1 of PD 755 an invalid delegation of power? The
it acknowledged that pwede ni buhaton sa isa ka agency, court said that it is. Why? Again as a general rule the
to clarify, the law provides as long a there is a Congress cannot delegate its legislative power but it can
clarification in the IRR or any issuances consistent with do so under certain circumstances. Among others, if
the provisions of the law, but the power to promulgate permitted by the constitution and administrative bodies
the IRR is limited with what the law provides. It cannot issuing IRRs to implement the law. Now, what are the
extend the law or expand its privilege, it cannot amend tests that have to be met in order to determine whether
the law or add to it because the power to do that there is a valid delegation of power? We have the
belongs to the legislature. sufficient standards test and the completeness test.
Now the Court said here that the NCC was validly Before you can delegate legislative power, the law itself
promulgated, it is consistent with the provisions of the must be complete and it must lay down a specific
law particularly Sc. 12. there is no need also for the standard so that the entity to produce the IRR or
publication of the IRR in this case. whatever guideline will be guided, will be limited by the
Now what about the argument na dili sya katong sa mga law itself. So a law is complete when it sets forth a policy
enumerated by the DBM? The Court said here that until to be executed, to be carried out, to be implemented
and unless the DBM issue such rules, tama lang na and it lays down a sufficient standard when it provides
katong mga compensation na wala na-enumerate sa law adequate guidelines, limitation in the law, to map out
as excluded, they are deemed included. Among those is the boundaries on how it delegates its authority and
the COLA, it was not among the items that were prevent the delegation from running riot.
excluded so they are deemed included. COLA here is The court said that Sec 1 of PD 755 did not succeed on
already incorporated in the Standardized Salary Law both tests. PD 755 does not even state who are to be
under the general rule of integration. considered as coconut farmers. The definition of a
So here the Court said that the NCC did not go beyond coconut farmer on the basis of the number of shares he
the law, so it is valid. is entitled to receive for free are important variables to
be determined by the law, it cant be that of the
COCOFED V REPUBLIC implementing agency. So the law here does not define
ho a o o ut fa e is…. so that ala pa aka lay do
RA 6263 was enacted and it created the Coconut ang limitation. Also, PD 755 did not identify any clear
Investment Fund, the fund will be sourced from a levy condition as to how the distribution of UCPB shares or
of .55 cents from sale of every 100kgs of copra. Who the conversion into private ownership will redound to
administers this fund? The PCA. It was tasked to collect the advancement of the national policy declared under it.
and administer the funds. The procedure was that The court reminded those cronies here that the purpose
cocofund receipts were to be issued by every copra seller of the law is to help the coconut industry. But here, it
and there was an issue here as to who should be the was found out that this law, instead of doing that, it
recipient. actually gave away public funds to private individuals. So
So we have PD 755, through this they were able to the priv individuals who own the UCPB shares of transfer
determine kung sino ang pwede mahatagan ug stock are free to dispose of them by sale and any other mode.
certificates in exchange of the benefit under this fund. In other words, there is no control kung kinsa makakuha
The purpose of this fund is to alleviate daw the lives of sa shares and kung kinsa man mamakuha, free nila
our coconut farmers. Now it was discovered that the ibaligya so nawala tong purpose sa law which is to help
party controlling the fund here was a crony of the the coconut industry.
Marcoses. So when the EDSA happened, gihimo ning PD 755 did not provided for any guideline, standard or
PCGG to determine the corruptibility of the Marcoses condition by which the share is given to the coconut
and it was found out that PCA and the bank na involved farmers as to ensure the acceleration of the
diri, UCPB were cronies of the Marcoses. So nagfile ug development of the coconut industry. So this law
case before the Sandiganbayan for the recovery of because wala syay standard, it granted the PCA cart
blanche authority to distribute the farmers’ UCPB shares chance to examine them. So it went beyond law, it
at a level it may determine. So wala sya kabalo, wala prevented the officer to do his work kay naa na syay
syay guideline from the law itself kung asa maadto ang instant classification. In other words, it diminished the
funds. And because this provision gave rise to certain powers given by the tariffs and customs law.
administrative orders and resolutions, those are also So in order to be valid, again, the regulations must
considered with no effect because they lack the clear include the parameters of the law, but here the issuance,
mandate or instruction under the law. it went beyond that.
Any delegation of power to implement that provision is
an undue delegation of legislative power. VIVAS V MONETARY BOARD

COMM V HYPERMIX There is a close now-pay later policy made by the Central
Bank Monetary Board. Here, the Rural bank was
Comm issued CN 27-2003 and this CN classified wheat mismanaged and so it was placed under receivership.
as… the CN as halle ged e ause it as a gued that it And eventually, it was found out by the monetary board
was issued without the required publication under the that this bank should be prohibited doing business in the
Revised Administrative Code. And also, among others, it Philippines, because its assets, it appears, are under
violates the non-delegation of legislative power. receivership, etc. Now this bank went to the court in
Th RTC here declared the CN as void because the basic order to enjoin the resolution by the Central Bank,
requirement of publication was not complied with. There because according to them niclose na sila before pa sila
is a requirement under the RAC that certain circulars, gihatagan chance to recover. So here the court clarified
administrative rules to be published and for them to take that this close now-pay later policy is a valid policy for
effect. Here, it was not followed said the trial court. banks. The board has the power to take over banks
So is the order or the issuance here valid? without need of a prior hearing. So there’s a practical
It is invalid. The requirement of publication, the court basis for that, because kung hatagan nimog time ang
discussed here, since the regulation affects substantive bank to explain their side, it would give them the time to
rights, it follows that the issuance should have followed sell all its asset and prejudice its depositors. And the MB
the requirements under the RAC, among others, the is clearly given power by law, under RA 7653 to do
filing of this issuance with the UP Law Center. Aside from exactly that. This MB has been vested with more power
that, kailangan nimo ipublish and circulate the notice in to…a a k u de e ei e ship fo i sol e y e ause the
order to give the (interested parties?) the opportunity to bank’s continuance in business would probably result to
submit their views prior to the adoption of the rules. So a loss for depositors or creditors.
these requirements are required by the RAC, particularly Now it is argued daw that the provision, Sec. 30 of RA
here because it involves substantive rights. 7653 is unconstitutional because it is an invalid
Now what about interpretative administrative rules? The delegation of legislative powers. It granted the MB a
court said that insofar interpretative administrative rules broad and unrestrained power to place a financially
are concerned (which do not affect substantive rights), troubled bank under receivership. The court said that
there is no need for the filing and publication for their this is wrong. First of all, this a mere collateral attack to
validity. However, if the administrative rules goes the unconstitutionality of a law. According to the court,
beyond merely providing for the means and facility or at there is no undue delegation of legislative powers here
least render cumbersome (??) implementation of the law, because the provision giving the MB the power for the
or it increases substantially the burden, then it has to close now-pay later passes the completeness test and
follow the requirements under the RAC. the sufficient standard test. To address the ongoing
Since here, the administrative law belongs to the second concern in the banking industry, the legislature has
category, katong naay involved na substantive rights, sufficiently empowered the MB to effectively supervise
and wala nafollow ang requirements under the RAC, the banks and financial institutions and when circumstances
same is considered to be with no effect and the warrant forbid them do business, to take over their
delegation must be struck down. management or to place them under receivership, and
How did this violate the undue delegation of legislative this power is spelled out clearly under the law. Therefore
power? Under the tariffs and customs law, the the MB is given wide discretion as to how the law should
commissioner of customs is mandated, he has the duty be implemented in order to attain its objective to
to determine whether the package is consigned or protect the interest of the public.
designated for examination, etc. Now this issuance, on
the other hand, that provision of the law mandates the BELGICA V OCHOA
customs officer, must first assess and determine the
classification of the article before tariffs may be imposed. Why does the PDAF violate the non-delegation of
Unfortunately here, the issuance has already classified legislative power? Again, legislative power is lodged in
the article even before the customs officer had the the Congress as a body, not in the individual legislators.
The court enumerated here certain exceptions to the limitations a d est i tio s as ay e i posed … so take
rule on non-delegation: note the tariffs and customs law.
1. delegation to local governments; it is specifically Another exception, there is delegation to pass to the
stated in the Constitution people, consistent with the power of initiative in Sec 32,
2. Sanction by jurisprudence, the practice of Art. 6. The Congress shall, as soons as possible, provide
administrative bodies to promulgate their own rules and for a system of initiative and referendum where the
regulations. people can directly propose and enact laws, or approve
3. subordinate legislation for administrative regulations or reject ay act or law passed by the Congress or a local
in order to promote the public interest because of the legislative body. So we are empowered, provided that
growing complexity of life we comply with rthe law passed by Congress, law is RA
Here, the PDAF, the 2013 PDAF article violates the 6736 (Initiative and Referendum Act).
non-delegation of legislative power because it confers What is the difference between an initiative and a
post-enactment identification authority to legislators referendum?
because these legislators were allowed to individually An initiative is the power of the people to propose bills
exercise the power of appropriation, this power of and laws, and to enact or reject them, independent of
appropriation is lodged in the Congress, not in the the Congress. It is the rightful rule (??) of the citizen to
individual congressmen introduce a matter of the legislation either to the
So is appropriation anyway? The power of appropriation legislature or directly to the voters.
involves the setting apart, by law, of certain sum of A referendum on the other hand is the right of the
public revenue and for a specified purpose. what did the people to adopt or reject an act or means which has
2013 PDAF do? It gave individual legislators personal been passed by a legislative body. And in most cases,
lump-sum fund from which they are able to determine hi h ould e … o the pa t of the ele to s e o es
how much from the fund which will go to specific the law.
projects or beneficiaries thereof. So in other words, the Finally, the exception for LGUs provided for under the
individual legislators will be exercising the power of Constitution. The power to create, divide, abolish, merge
appropriation, which is can only be done by the Congress or substatially alter boundaries of provinces, cities and
as a whole. municipalities or barangays are essentially legislative in
nature but the Constitution allow the delegation of such
DISINI V DOJ power under Art 10, Sec 10, as long as the criteria
prescribed in the Local Government Code in the abolition,
This involves the Cybercrime Act. There is an argument etc. of boundaries is approved by a majority of votes in a
here that certain provisions of the law are plebiscite held for that purpose.
unconstitutional because it invalidly delegated legislative
power to the cybercrime investigation and coordination UMALI V COMELEC
center because it has given the power to formulate a There was a Sangguniang Panlungsod resolution passed
national cyber security plan, and the provision under the by Cabanatuan City requesting the Pres to declare a
law, walay sufficient standard and parameters for this portion of Cabanatuan City, the component city of the
coordinating center to follow. Are they correct? The province of Nueva Ecija to be a highly urbanized City. So
Court said that the law passes the 2 tests. The court said gusto niya to get out of the province and be independent.
here that the cybercrime law is complete in itself and it In response, the Pres issued a presidential proclamation
directed this coordinating center to formulate and to subject that proposal to a ratificationin in a plebiscite
implement a national cyber security plan. The law also by the ualified voters therein. So this was acted upon by
gives sufficient standard for the said center to follow, it the COMELEC and they conducted a plebiscite, but the
provided for the definition of cyber security. COMELEC limited it to the registered residents of
What are the exceptions to the non-delegation doctrine? Cabanatuan City. Of course the province of Nueva Ecija,
We have those specifically stated in the Constitution. through its Governor, contested this because dili man
There is a valid delegation to the President under Art. 6, lang Cabanatuan City ang maapektohan but also th
Sec. 23 par. 2 and Sec. 28 par. 2. in Section 23, this neighboring provinces. It directly affects the mother
involves the power of the Pres, in times of war and other province of Nueva Ecija so you do not limit the plebiscite
emergencies, the Congress may, by law, authorize the to the city but also to the localities which would be
Pres for a limited period and subject to certain affected.
restrictions, to exercise power necessary to carry out the The court said here that the governor is correct. Here,
declared national policy. It can be withdrawn by a there is a valid delegation of power because it is stated
resolution of the Congress, such power shall cease upon in the Constitution. And we also have a provision under
the next adjournment of the Congress. the LGC.
In Sec 28, taxation. Congress may, by law, authorize the So what was wrong here was the interpretation of the
Pres, fixed with specified limits and subject to the term political units affected . it was determined that
the plebiscite should not have been limited to the city of any particular item/s in an appropriation or tariff bill and
Cabanatuan because dili man lang kamo ang affected. the veto shall not affect the other item/s he does not
The e Cou t said he e that the … y the ualified ote s object. Why is that the policy? Because for example, in
therein made the LGC to meet the qualified voters not an appropriation bill, it is important, kailangan ug kwarta
only in the city proposed to be converted into highly so the govt could run and if the Pres, if ang iyaha lang
urbanized city but also the political units directly affected power is to reject it or not, then malisdan run ang govt
by that conversion (I rly cant undertsand what he said (whut). take note that this item veto is limited only to
here, sorry :(). and so dapat giinclude ang mga revenue, tariff and appropriation bills.
neighboring localities sa plebiscite kung musugot ba sila
sa conversion. ARROYO V DE VENECIA
We also discussed before that though the Congress has There were amendments to the Natl Internal Revenue
plenary powers to enact laws, there are limitations, the Code by the passage of RA 8240 (?). in order to reconcile
procedural and the substantive. And substantive the differences, there was a bicameral conference
limitations may be implicit or explicit. Explicit limitations committee and it reconciled the provisions of both
are found in the constitution, there are also implied houses and after that a form was passed and subject to
substantive limitations. One of that is the passage of deliberations and then there was a violation daw of
irrepealable laws. Why is it prohibited? It deprives rules of parliamentary practice kay nagsabay silag storya
succeeding legislatures of the fundamental vast senses and the objection was not recognized. The law was
(??) in enacting laws appropriate for the .. belief. In other passed and signed by the Pres.
words it diminished the power of subsequent congresses What was violated in this case? The court said it was the
because it limits the way a law can be repealed or internal rules of procedure of the house rather than the
amended or modified. So it cannot be done, it cannot be constitutional requirment in the enactment of a law
limited by its own enactment. It cannot bind future particularly those enumerated in Sec 26 and 27. the
legislature to a particular mode of repeal. It cannot court said that the nature of internal rules, as a general
declare the vast intent of subsequent legislatures, or rule, does ot affect the validity of the law. These rules
effect subsequent legislations upon existing statutes. are subject to revocation by a petition or waiver,
We also have procedural limitations. These explicit therefore mere failure to conform to parliamentary
limitations are stated in Sec 26 to 27 of Art 6. there is a usage will not invalidate an action taken by the
procedure to be observed before a law can be passed. deliberative body. However there is an exception to this
Sec 26, every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace rule, if it affect persons other than the members of the
only one subject as expressed in the title. This is the one legislative body, then the question becomes judicial in
subject-one title rule. Dapat dili sya saksak sinagol. character and this can be questioned because private
In sec 26 par 2, no bill passed by either house shall rights are now involved. In this case, wala may allegation
become a law unless it has passed 3 readings on na ing ana, what was violated was merely internal rules
separate days (3 reading requirement), and printed of the house so the court said that it does not affect the
copies thereof in its final form shall be distributed among validity of the law.
its members 3 days before its passage except when the
Pres certifies the necessity of its immediate enactment ABAKADA V PURISIMA
for a public emergency or calamity. And on the last Law was challenged for being incomplete and for not
reading, no amendment shall be allowed and the vote laying down sufficient standards for its implementation.
thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter. Section 7. there was a Board created here, a
Second provsion which provides for the procedure is if performance evaluation board, to determine kung kinsa
the bill has already been passed by the congress, before sa mga employees sa BIR and POC ang dili makameet sa
it becomes a law it shall be presented to the Pres (in Sec ilang quota requirements. This law provides for
27). If he approves the same, he shall sign it, otherwise incentives and rewards as well. If you exceed your quota,
he shall veto it and return the same with his objections tagaan kag rewards, but if you do not reach the specific
to the house where it originated. The veto can be standard you are ought to meet, pwede ka matanggal
overriden, if after such reconsideration, 2/3 of all the from service. The purpose of the law is to optimize daw
members of such house (where it originate) shall agree the generation capability and collection of these
to pass the bill. It shall be sent together with the employees. Ginachallenge niya ang employees to exceed
objections to the other house, and if approved by 2/3 of their target quotas. The Board is empowered to set the
all the members of that house, it shall become a law. criteria and procedures from removing from service
Insofar as revenue, appropriation or tariff bills are offi ials a d e ployees … y at least 7 a d half pe e t,
concerned, the Pres can veto particular items, not like an with due consideration however of factors affecting the
ordinary law where he either rejects it or approves it, if it level of collection.
involves appropriation, etc. Pwede nya I-item ang veto. It So mao ni ang ginachallenge, the board may also
is in Sec 27, par 2, the Pres shall have the power to veto terminate the personnel accdg to the criteria adopted in
its paragraph b. So it is argued that the Board is given An EO was issued by the Pres which requires certain
this power but wala syay parameters, the law is not officials in the Exec, including the AFP, to secure the
complete and it has no sufficient standard to guide the consent of the Pres before they undergo any hearing or
board kung kinsa man ang pangtanggalon from public legislative investigation.
service. Senate issued invitations to various exec heads in order
The court said that that law is complete and also passes to enlighten them as to the Northrail Project anomalies.
the sufficient standard test. It may .. sufficient grounds Many officials of the exec were invited as well as AFP
for removal and that is if the the revenue production fall officials. But because of this EO 464, issued by then Pres
short of the target 7.5% and there is also due Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, it enabled this officials to not
consideration of all relevant factors affecting the level of attend the inquiry if they do not secure the onsent of the
collection for that particular employee. Dili sya arbitrary Pres.
because you are given poortunity to explain yourself. Sec 1 provides that all heads of the departments of the
This po e of the oa d to e o e is … i effi ie y a d execbranch of the govt shall secure the consent of the
competence in the performance of official duties. Same Pres prior to appearing to either house of the Congress.
grounds for disciplinary action. The court held that the Because of this, many of those who were invited did not
provision is valid. However, that certain provision which obey the invitation of the Senate because they allege
empowers a certain committee of Congress to approve that they were not able to secure the consent of the
the IRR of this law was struck down as unconstitutional Pres.
e ause it is a … legislatio . Na alik sa Congress ang However, there were officials of the AFP who went to
implentation of the law and it goes beyond the power of the hearing, and after they went there, they were
Congress which is only limited to mere oversight. The relieved of their duties by the Pres. The Senate question
fact na ginahatag sa congress ang power to approve or this EO because it diminishes its power to conduct
disapprove the IRR which has been passed by the legislative inquiries.
Executive brach, that cannot be done. It violates the The court ruled here that only specific provisions of the
doctrine of separation of powers and the rule on issuance are void; Sction 2b and 3.
presentment. Sec 2b provides for kung kinsa tong covered sa issuance.
Take note of the procedure of the passage of law in this Section 3 provides that only those enumerated in Sec 2b
case, first muagi pa ang law sa Congress and second, it shall secure prior consent from the Pres prior to
will go to the Pres. appearing from either house of Congress.
The court struck these provisions as unconstitutional
----- because these provision are too broad, it no longer
invloves question hour but this involves already the
Provisions in Art 6 which empowers the Congress to power of the congress to conduct inquiry in aid of
conduct investigations. legislation.
Sec 2b in particular expands the concept of executive
Art 6 Sec 21- legislative investigation in Aid of legislation privilege. Gives more importance to the position of the
Art 6, Sec 22- Question Hour person invoking it, not the info concerned.
Why does the congress even need to conduct these
Sec 22, Question hour. Heads of depts may, upon the .. hearings? Because the legislative body cannot legislate
intiative, with the consent of the Pres or upon request of wisely if it does not have information for which the
either house, appear before and be heard by such house legislation is intended to effect or change. And it can be
on any matter pertaining to their departments. Purpose done through these hearings. And the power of inquiry
is to obtain info in pursuit of Congress’ oversight extends to exec officials.
function As a GR, an exec official cannot disobey the subpoena by
-only dept heads may appear the Congress. But, as an exemption, under the claim of
-subject matter is related only to the dept executive privilige.
-appearance is only discretionary Why is this privilige extended to exec officials? Because
these officials must assisst the Pres in shaping policies
Sec 21. inquiry in aid of legislation. The aim of which is to and making decisions and to do so in a way, many are
elicit information which may be used in aid of legislation unwilling to express except privately. So there are
-it must always be done for the purpose of legislation matters which can only be between the Pres and these
-any person may appear before the committees, as long exec officals because of the sacredness and
as the subject matter is for the purpose of legislation confidentiality of the matter.
-appearance is mandatory (cant be excused, otherwise But of course, there must be a valid claim for this
you’ll be cited in contempt) privilege.

SENATE V ERMITA
Executive privilege is only recognized in certain types of
information of a sensitive character. The privilege
attaches on the information, not on the official.
Sec. 1 is valid for it provides for a question hour and
appearance is not even mandatory.