Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Association v. Teves, et al. tenure, and at their and their respective families
prejudice.
G.R. No. 181704 : December 6, 2011
Respondents countered that R.A. No. 9335 and its
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES IRR do not violate the right to due process and right
ASSOCIATION (BOCEA), represented by its to security of tenure of BIR and BOC employees. The
National President (BOCEA National Executive OSG stressed that the guarantee of security of tenure
Council) Mr. Romulo A. Pagulayan,Petitioner, v. under the 1987 Constitution is not a guarantee of
HON. MARGARITO B. TEVES, in his capacity perpetual employment. R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR
as Secretary of the Department of Finance, HON. provided a reasonable and valid ground for the
NAPOLEON L. MORALES, in his capacity as dismissal of an employee which is germane to the
Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs, HON. purpose of the law. Likewise, R.A. No. 9335 and its
LILIAN B. HEFTI, in her capacity as IRR provided that an employee may only be
Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, separated from the service upon compliance with
Respondents. substantive and procedural due process. The OSG
added that R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR must enjoy the
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: presumption of constitutionality.
1
IRR. 7 (b) and (c) of R.A. No. 9335. The concerned BIR or
BOC official or employee is not simply given a target
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: administrative revenue collection and capriciously left without any
agencies quarter. R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR clearly give due
consideration to all relevant factors that may affect
The principle of separation of powers ordains that the level of collection.
each of the three great branches of government has
exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in matters As the Court is not a trier of facts, the investigation
falling within its own constitutionally allocated on the veracity of, and the proper action on these
sphere. Necessarily imbedded in this doctrine is the anomalies are in the hands of the Executive branch.
principle of non-delegation of powers, as expressed Correlatively, the wisdom for the enactment of this
in the Latin maxim potestas delegata non delegari law remains within the domain of the Legislative
potest, which means "what has been delegated, branch. We merely interpret the law as it is. The
cannot be delegated." This doctrine is based on the Court has no discretion to give statutes a meaning
ethical principle that such delegated power detached from the manifest intendment and language
constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed thereof. Just like any other law, R.A. No. 9335 has in
by the delegate through the instrumentality of his its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and to
own judgment and not through the intervening mind justify its nullification, there must be a clear and
of another. However, this principle of non-delegation unequivocal breach of the Constitution and not one
of powers admits of numerous exceptions, one of that is doubtful, speculative, or argumentative. We
which is the delegation of legislative power to have so declared in Abakada, and we now reiterate
various specialized administrative agencies like the that R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR are constitutional.
Board in this case.
DISMISSED.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: equal protection
clause SUFFICIENT TEST
2
, challenging the constitutionality of saidEO. The that barrios may “not be created or their
trial court sustained the confiscation of the boundaries altered nor their names changed”
animals and declined to rule on the validityof the except by Act of Congress. Pelaez argues: “If the
law on the ground that it lacked authority to do President, under this new law, cannot even create
so. Its decision was affirmed by the IAC.Hence, a barrio, how can he create a municipality which
this petition for review filed by is composed of several barrios, since barrios are
Petitioner.ISSUE:Whether or not police power is units of municipalities?”
properly enforcedHELD: NO. The protection
of the general welfare is the particular function of The Auditor General countered that there was no
the police power which both restraints and is repeal and that only barrios were barred from
restrained by due process. The police power is being created by the President. Municipalities are
simply defined as exempt from the bar and that a municipality can
the power inherent in the State to regulate liberty be created without creating barrios. He further
and property for the promotion of thegeneral maintains that through Sec. 68 of the RAC,
welfare. As long as the activity or the property has Congress has delegated such power to create
some relevance to the public welfare,its regulation municipalities to the President.
under the police power is not only proper but
ISSUE: Whether or not Congress has delegated
necessary. In the case at bar, E.O.626-A has
the power to create barrios to the President by
the same lawful subject as the original executive
virtue of Sec. 68 of the RAC.
order (E.O. 626 as cited in Toribiocase) but NOT
the same lawful method. The reasonable HELD: No. There was no delegation
connection between the means employedand the here. Although Congress may delegate to another
purpose sought to be achieved by the questioned branch of the government the power to fill in the
measure is missing. The challengedmeasure is an details in the execution, enforcement or
invalid exercise of the police power because the administration of a law, it is essential, to forestall a
method employed to conserve thecarabaos is not violation of the principle of separation of powers,
reasonably necessary to the purpose of the law that said law: (a) be complete in itself — it must
and, worse, is unduly oppressive. set forth therein the policy to be executed, carried
out or implemented by the delegate — and (b) fix
Emmanuel Pelaez vs Auditor General
a standard — the limits of which are sufficiently
In 1964, President Ferdinand Marcos issued determinate or determinable — to which the
executive orders creating 33 municipalities – this delegate must conform in the performance of his
was purportedly pursuant to Section 68 of the functions. In this case, Sec. 68 lacked any such
Revised Administrative Code which provides in standard. Indeed, without a statutory declaration
part: of policy, the delegate would, in effect, make or
formulate such policy, which is the essence of
The President may by executive order define the every law; and, without the aforementioned
boundary… of any… municipality… and may standard, there would be no means to determine,
change the seat of government within any with reasonable certainty, whether the delegate
subdivision to such place therein as the public has acted within or beyond the scope of his
welfare may require… authority.
The then Vice President, Emmanuel Pelaez, as a Further, although Sec. 68 provides the qualifying
taxpayer, filed a special civil action to prohibit the clause “as the public welfare may require” –
auditor general from disbursing funds to be which would mean that the President may exercise
appropriated for the said municipalities. Pelaez such power as the public welfare may require – is
claims that the EOs were unconstitutional. He said present, still, such will not replace the standard
that Section 68 of the RAC had been impliedly needed for a proper delegation of power. In the
repealed by Section 3 of RA 2370 which provides first place, what the phrase “as the public welfare
3
may require” qualifies is the text which to tax because such delegation is not covered by
immediately precedes hence, the proper Section 28 (2), Article VI Consti. They argue that
interpretation is “the President may change the VAT is a tax levied on the sale or exchange of
seat of government within any subdivision to such goods and services which can’t be included within
place therein as the public welfare may require.” the purview of tariffs under the exemption
Only the seat of government may be changed by delegation since this refers to customs duties, tolls
the President when public welfare so requires and or tribute payable upon merchandise to the
NOT the creation of municipality. government and usually imposed on
imported/exported goods. They also said that the
The Supreme Court declared that the power to President has powers to cause, influence or create
create municipalities is essentially and eminently the conditions provided by law to bring about the
legislative in character not administrative (not conditions precedent. Moreover, they allege that
executive). no guiding standards are made by law as to how
the Secretary of Finance will make the
ABAKADA GURO VS SEC ERMITA
recommendation.
Facts: On May 24, 2005, the President signed into
law Republic Act9337 or the VAT Reform Act.
Before the law took effect on July 1, 2005, the Issue: Whether or not the RA 9337's stand-by
Court issued a TRO enjoining government from authority to the Executive to increase the VAT
implementing the law in response to a slew of rate, especially on account of the recommendatory
petitions for certiorari and prohibition power granted to the Secretary of Finance,
questioning the constitutionality of the new law. constitutes undue delegation of legislative power?
NO
4
(b) delegation of emergency powers to President
under Constitution
Congress just granted the Secretary of Finance
the authority to ascertain the existence of a fact---
whether by December 31, 2005, the VAT collection
(c) delegation to the people at large as a percentage of GDP of the previous year
exceeds 2 4/5 % or the national government deficit
as a percentage of GDP of the previous year
(d) delegation to local governments exceeds one and 1½%. If either of these two
instances has occurred, the Secretary of Finance,
by legislative mandate, must submit such
information to the President.
(e) delegation to administrative bodies
Thus, it is the ministerial duty of the President to There is no undue delegation of legislative power
immediately impose the 12% rate upon the but only of the discretion as to the execution of a
existence of any of the conditions specified by law. This is constitutionally permissible. Congress
Congress. This is a duty, which cannot be evaded did not delegate the power to tax but the mere
by the President. It is a clear directive to impose implementation of the law.
the 12% VAT rate when the specified conditions
are present.
5
CASE DIGEST (Transportation Law): Bantangas to the exclusion of other bodies.
CATV vs. C.A.
x x x
BATANGAS CATV, INC. vs. THE COURT OF
APPEALS, THE BATANGAS CITY Like any other enterprise, CATV operation maybe
SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD and regulated by LGUs under the general welfare
BATANGAS CITY MAYOR [G.R. No. 138810. clause. This is primarily because the CATV system
September 29, 2004] commits the indiscretion of crossing public
properties. (It uses public properties in order to
FACTS: reach subscribers.) The physical realities of
On July 28, 1986, respondent Sangguniang constructing CATV system – the use of public
Panlungsod enacted Resolution No. 210 granting streets, rights of ways, the founding of structures,
petitioner a permit to construct, install, and and the parceling of large regions – allow an LGU
operate a CATV system in Batangas City. Section a certain degree of regulation over CATV
8 of the Resolution provides that petitioner is operators.
authorized to charge its subscribers the maximum
rates specified therein, “provided, however, that x x x
any increase of rates shall be subject to the
approval of the Sangguniang Panlungsod. But, while we recognize the LGUs’ power under
the general welfare clause, we cannot sustain
Sometime in November 1993, petitioner increased Resolution No. 210. We are convinced that
its subscriber rates from P88.00 to P180.00 per respondents strayed from the well recognized
month. As a result, respondent Mayor wrote limits of its power. The flaws in Resolution No. 210
petitioner a letter threatening to cancel its permit are: (1) it violates the mandate of existing laws
unless it secures the approval of respondent and (2) it violates the State’s deregulation policy
Sangguniang Panlungsod, pursuant to Resolution over the CATV industry.
No. 210.
LGUs must recognize that technical matters
Petitioner then filed with the RTC, Branch 7, concerning CATV operation are within the
Batangas City, a petition for injunction alleging exclusive regulatory power of the NTC.
that respondent Sangguniang Panlungsod has no
authority to regulate the subscriber rates charged ROMULO, MABANTA, BUENAVENTURA,
by CATV operators because under Executive SAYOC & DE LOS ANGELES vs. HOME
Order No. 205, the National Telecommunications DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND
Commission (NTC) has the sole authority to
regulate the CATV operation in the Philippines. G.R. No. 131082 June 19, 2000
6
1 of Rule VII provides that for a company to be the features of the plan or plans are superior to
entitled to a waiver or suspension of Fund the fund or continue to be so. The law obviously
coverage, 3 it must have a plan providing for both contemplates that the existence of either plan is
provident/retirement and housing benefits considered as sufficient basis for the grant of an
superior to those provided under the Pag-IBIG exemption; needless to state, the concurrence of
Fund. both plans is more than sufficient. To require the
existence of both plans would radically impose a
PETITIONER submitted to the HDMF a letter more stringent condition for waiver which was not
explaining that the Amendments to the Rules are clearly envisioned by the basic law. By removing
invalid. In that the amendments are void insofar the disjunctive word “or” in the implementing
as they abolished the exemption granted by rules the respondent Board has exceeded its
Section 19 of P.D. 1752, as amended. The repeal of authority.
such exemption involves the exercise of legislative It is without doubt that the HDMF Board has
power, which cannot be delegated to HMDF. rule-making power as provided in Section 51 17 of
HDMF disapproved PETITIONER’s application R.A. No. 7742 and Section 13 18 of P.D. No. 1752.
on the ground that the requirement that there However, it is well-settled that rules and
should be both a provident retirement fund and a regulations, which are the product of a delegated
housing plan is clear in the use of the phrase power to create new and additional legal
“and/or,” and that the Rules Implementing R.A. provisions that have the effect of law, should be
No. 7742 did not amend nor repeal Section 19 of within the scope of the statutory authority granted
P.D. No. 1752 but merely implement the law. The by the legislature to the administrative agency. 19
respondent Board was merely exercising its rule- It is required that the regulation be germane to
making power under Section 13 of P.D. No. 1752. the objects and purposes of the law, and be not in
It had the option to use “and” only instead of “or” contradiction to, but in conformity with, the
in the rules on waiver in order to effectively standards prescribed by law.
implement the Pag-IBIG Fund Law. By choosing
“and,” the Board has clarified the confusion In the present case, when the Board of Trustees of
brought about by the use of “and/or” in Section 19 the HDMF required in Section 1, Rule VII of the
of P.D. No. 1752, as amended. 1995 Amendments to the Rules and Regulations
PETITIONER filed a petition for review before Implementing R.A. No. 7742 that employers
the Court of Appeals but was dismissed. should have both provident/retirement and
housing benefits for all its employees in order to
Issue: Whether or not the board of HDMF qualify for exemption from the Fund, it effectively
exceeded its delegated power. amended Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752. And when
the Board subsequently abolished that exemption
Held: YES. The controversy lies in the legal
through the 1996 Amendments, it repealed Section
signification of the words “and/or.”
19 of P.D. No. 1752. Such amendment and
It seems to us clear from the language of the subsequent repeal of Section 19 are both invalid,
enabling law that Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752 as they are not within the delegated power of the
intended that an employer with a provident plan Board. The HDMF cannot, in the exercise of its
or an employee housing plan superior to that of rule-making power, issue a regulation not
the fund may obtain exemption from coverage. If consistent with the law it seeks to apply. Indeed,
the law had intended that the employee [sic] administrative issuances must not override,
should have both a superior provident plan and a supplant or modify the law, but must remain
housing plan in order to qualify for exemption, it consistent with the law they intend to carry out.
would have used the words “and” instead of Only Congress can repeal or amend the law.
“and/or.”
CASE DIGEST: Guingona, Jr. vs. Carague
Notably, paragraph (a) of Section 19 requires for
annual certification of waiver or suspension, that
7
G.R. No. 94571. April 22, 1991 state policies or objectives.
Whether or not the automatic appropriation for §5(b) of the law provided that “tariff duty shall be
debt service is unconstitutional; it being higher imposed . . . on imported crude oil at the rate of
than the budget for education. three percent (3%) and imported refined petroleum
products at the rate of seven percent (7%) . . .” On
HELD: the other hand, §15 provided that “[t]he DOE
shall, upon approval of the President, implement
No. While it is true that under Section 5(5), Article the full deregulation of the downstream oil industry
XIV of the Constitution Congress is mandated to not later than March 1997. As far as practicable,
“assign the highest budgetary priority to the DOE shall time the full deregulation when the
education,” it does not thereby follow that the prices of crude oil and petroleum products in the
hands of Congress are so hamstrung as to deprive world market are declining and when the exchange
it the power to respond to the imperatives of the
national interest and for the attainment of other
8
rate of the peso in relation to the US dollar 4. Did R.A. No. 8180 violate §19, Article XII of
is stable . . .” the Constitution prohibiting monopolies,
combinations in restraint of trade and unfair
competition?
9
to make law itself. We delineated the metes and have been defined in R.A. No. 8180 as they do not
bounds of these tests in Eastern Shipping Lines, set determinate or determinable standards. The
Inc. VS. POEA, thus: stubborn submission deserves scant
consideration. The dictionary meanings of these
There are two accepted tests to determine whether words are well settled and cannot confuse men of
or not there is a valid delegation of legislative reasonable intelligence. Webster defines
power, viz: the completeness test and the sufficient “practicable” as meaning possible to practice or
standard test. Under the first test, the law must be perform, “decline” as meaning to take a
complete in all its terms and conditions when it downward direction, and “stable” as meaning
leaves the legislative such that when it reaches the firmly established. The fear of petitioners that
delegate the only thing he will have to do is to these words will result in the exercise of executive
enforce it. Under the sufficient standard test, there discretion that will run riot is thus groundless. To
must be adequate guidelines or limitations in the be sure, the Court has sustained the validity of
law to map out the boundaries of the delegate's similar, if not more general standards in other
authority and prevent the delegation from cases.
running riot. Both tests are intended to prevent a
total transference of legislative authority to the
delegate, who is not allowed to step into the shoes
of the legislature and exercise a power essentially 3. YES, E.O. No. 392 was arbitrary and
legislative. unreasonable.
10
alter either by subtraction or addition the increasing their product cost by 4%. They will be
standards set in R.A. No. 8180 for it has no power competing on an uneven field. The argument that
to make laws. To cede to the Executive the power the 4% tariff differential is desirable because it
to make law is to invite tyranny, indeed, to will induce prospective players to invest in
transgress the principle of separation of refineries puts the cart before the horse. The first
powers. The exercise of delegated power is given a need is to attract new players and they cannot be
strict scrutiny by courts for the delegate is a mere attracted by burdening them with heavy
agent whose action cannot infringe the terms of disincentives. Without new players belonging to
agency. In the cases at bar, the Executive co- the league of Petron, Shell and Caltex, competition
mingled the factor of depletion of the OPSF fund in our downstream oil industry is an idle dream.
with the factors of decline of the price of crude oil
in the world market and the stability of the peso to
the US dollar. On the basis of the text of E.O. No.
The provision on inventory widens the balance of
392, it is impossible to determine the weight given
advantage of Petron, Shell and Caltex against
by the Executive department to the depletion of
prospective new players. Petron, Shell and Caltex
the OPSF fund. It could well be the principal
can easily comply with the inventory requirement
consideration for the early deregulation. It could
of R.A. No. 8180 in view of their existing storage
have been accorded an equal significance. Or its
facilities. Prospective competitors again will find
importance could be nil. In light of this
compliance with this requirement difficult as it
uncertainty, we rule that the early deregulation
will entail a prohibitive cost. The construction cost
under E.O. No. 392 constitutes a misapplication
of storage facilities and the cost of inventory can
of R.A. No. 8180.
thus scare prospective players. Their net effect is
to further occlude the entry points of new players,
dampen competition and enhance the control of
4. YES, R.A. No. 8180 violated §19, Article XII of the market by the three (3) existing oil companies.
the Constitution prohibiting monopolies,
combinations in restraint of trade and unfair
competition.
Finally, we come to the provision on predatory
pricing which is defined as “. . . selling or offering
to sell any product at a price unreasonably below
[I]t cannot be denied that our downstream oil the industry average cost so as to attract
industry is operated and controlled by an customers to the detriment of competitors.”
oligopoly, a foreign oligopoly at that. Petron, Shell Respondents contend that this provision works
and Caltex stand as the only major league players against Petron, Shell and Caltex and protects new
in the oil market. All other players belong to the entrants. The ban on predatory pricing cannot be
lilliputian league. As the dominant players, analyzed in isolation. Its validity is interlocked
Petron, Shell and Caltex boast of existing with the barriers imposed by R.A. No. 8180 on the
refineries of various capacities. The tariff entry of new players. The inquiry should be to
differential of 4% therefore works to their determine whether predatory pricing on the part
immense benefit. Yet, this is only one edge of the of the dominant oil companies is encouraged by
tariff differential. The other edge cuts and cuts the provisions in the law blocking the entry of new
deep in the heart of their competitors. It erects a players. Text-writer Hovenkamp gives the
high barrier to the entry of new players. New authoritative answer and we quote:
players that intend to equalize the market power
of Petron, Shell and Caltex by building refineries xxx xxx xxx
of their own will have to spend billions of pesos.
The rationale for predatory pricing is the
Those who will not build refineries but compete
sustaining of losses today that will give a firm
with them will suffer the huge disadvantage of
11
monopoly profits in the future. The monopoly cattle imported by the petitioner and for the
profits will never materialize, however, if the slaughter thereof. Cruz attacked
market is flooded with new entrants as soon as the theconstitutionality of Act No. 3155, which at
successful predator attempts to raise its present prohibits the importation of cattle
price. Predatory pricing will be profitable only if fromforeign countries into the Philippine Islands.
the market contains significant barriers to new He also asserted that the sole purpose of
entry. theenactment was to prevent the introduction of
cattle diseases in the country. The respondent
asserted that the petition did not state facts
sufficient to constitute a causeof action. The
As aforediscussed, the 4% tariff differential and
demurrer was based on two reasons: (1) that if Act
the inventory requirement are significant barriers
No. 3155 was
which discourage new players to enter the market.
declaredunconstitutional and void, the petitioner
Considering these significant barriers established
would not be entitled to the relief demandedbecau
by R.A. No. 8180 and the lack of players with the
se Act No. 3052 would automatically become effect
comparable clout of PETRON, SHELL and
ive and would prohibit therespondent from giving
CALTEX, the temptation for a dominant player to
the permit prayed for; and (2) that Act No. 3155
engage in predatory pricing and succeed is a
was constitutionaland, therefore, valid. The CFI
chilling reality. Petitioners’ charge that this
dismissed the complaint because of petitioner’s
provision on predatory pricing is anti-competitive
failure to fileanother complaint. The petitioner
is not without reason.
appealed to the Supreme Court. Youngberg
contended that even if Act No. 3155 be declared
unconstitutional by the factalleged by the
[R.A. No. 8180 contained a separability clause, but petitioner in his complaint, still the petitioner can
the High Tribunal held that the offending not be allowed to importcattle from Australia for
provisions of the law so permeated its essence that it the reason that, while Act No. 3155 were declared
had to be struck down entirely. The provisions on unconstitutional,Act No. 3052
tariff differential, inventory and predatory pricing would automatically become effective.
were among the principal props of R.A. No. 8180.
Congress could not have deregulated the ISSUES
downstream oil industry without these provisions.]
:1.WON Act No. 3155 is unconstitutional
G.R. No. L-34674 | October 26, 1931 | MAURICIO
2.WON the lower court erred in not holding that
CRUZ,
the power given by Act No. 3155 to theGovernor-
petitioner-appellant, vs. General to suspend or not, at his discretion, the
prohibition provided in theact constitutes an
STANTON YOUNGBERG, Director of the Burea unlawful delegation of the legislative
u of Animal Industry, powers3.WON Act No. 3155 amended the Tariff
Law
respondent-appellee. |
RULING
OSTRAND, J.:FACTS
1.
:Petitioner Mauricio Cruz brought a petition
before the Court of First Instance of Manila for No. An unconstitutional statute can have no effect
theissuance of a writ of mandatory injunction to repeal former laws or parts of lawsby
against the respondent Director of the Bureau implication. The court will not pass upon the
of Animal Industry, Stanton Youngberg, requiring constitutionality of statutes unless it isnecessary to
him to issue a permit for the landing of tenlarge do so. Aside from the provisions of Act No. 3052,
12
Act 3155 is entirely valid. The latter was passed by
the Legislature to protect the cattle industry of the
countryand to prevent the introduction of cattle
diseases through importation of foreign cattle.It is
now generally recognized that the promotion of
industries affecting the publicwelfare and the
development of the resources of the country are
objects within thescope of the police power. The
Government of the Philippine Islands has the
right to theexercise of the sovereign police power
in the promotion of the general welfare and
thepublic interest. At the time the Act No. 3155
was promulgated there was reasonablenecessity
therefore and it cannot be said that the
Legislature exceeded its power inpassing the Act.
2.
13