Tupas (NFLU) vs.

Ople

Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) and National Federation of Labor Unions
(NFLU) are unions representing the agricultural and industrial sectors. They alleged they represent over a
million workers all over the country. On the other hand, BP 697 is the implementing law of the constitutional
provision which states that 3 sectors are to be represented (youth, agricultural labor, industrial labor). Each
sector must have four representatives, 2 from Luzon, one each from Visayas and Mindanao respectively.
These sectors can submit their nomines to the President for approval/appointment through the Minister of
Labor. TUPAS however questions the constitutionality of the said BP because it allegedly lacks duly
published rules on accreditation, nomination and appointment of industrial labor representatives. Being so,
TUPAS questioned the acts f Ople, then Minister of Labor, in accrediting certain nominations provided by
other industrial labor groups. TUPAS claims that since there is no rules clearly stated in the BP on how the
nominations must be handled, the said law has provided undue delegation to the Minister of Labor and has
left him with absolute discretion in carrying out the duty of accrediting such nominations. TUPAS did not
submit their nomination within the given 20 day period of nominating their representation; they instead
proceeded to question the constitutionality of the said BP and the legality of the acts of Ople.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is undue delegation of power to the Minister of Labor by BP 697.
HELD: The lack of merit of the contention that there is an unlawful delegation of legislative power is quite
obvious. Appointment to office is intrinsically an executive act involving the exercise of discretion.” What is
involved then is not a legislative power but the exercise of competence intrinsically executive. What is more
the official who could make the recommendation is respondent Minister of Labor, an alter ego of the
President. The argument, therefore, that there is an unlawful delegation of legislative power is bereft of any
persuasive force. To further test the validity of the said BP, and to avoid the taint of unlawful delegation,
there must be a standard, which implies at the very least that the legislature itself determines matters of
principle and lays down fundamental policy. Otherwise, the charge of complete abdication may be hard to
repel. A standard thus defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the
public agency to apply it.” The standard “does not even have to be spelled out. It could be implied from the
policy and purpose of the act considered as a whole. Such standard is set forth with clarity in Article III,
Section 6 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 697 which provides in full the limits and scope of the functions of the
Minister of Labor in carrying out the said provisions.
TUPAS and NFLU were free to submit their nominations to the President by merely writing a letter coursed
through respondent, and their nominees should have been submitted to the President. They did not do so.
In fact, as of May 30, 1984, which was still within the 20-day period, they wrote a letter to Ople which in
effect stated that they were not submitting any nomination and informing him that they were questioning the
validity of Sections 4, 5, and 6 of BP 697. Hence, if petitioners were not able to submit any nominee they
had no one to blame but themselves. And the law cannot be declared unconstitutional on such ground.”

Lopez vs. Ericta

Facts: The case is about the ad interim appointment of the Dean of the College of Education in the UP.
Pursuant thereto Dr. Blanco assumed office as ad interim Dean on May 1, 1970. The Board of Regents met
and President Lopez submitted to it the ad interim appointment of Dr. Blanco for reconsideration. The
Board voted to defer action on the matter in view of the objections cited by Regent Kalaw based on the
petition against the appointment, addressed to the Board, from a majority of the faculty and from a number
of alumni. President Lopez extended another ad interim appointment to her with the same conditions as the
first, namely, “unless sooner terminated, and subject to the approval of the Board of Regents and to
pertinent University regulations. Then, the election was held. The roll-call voting on which the Chairman of
the Board of Regents based his ruling aforesaid gave the following results: five (5) votes in favor of Dr.
Blanco’s ad interim appointment, three (3) votes against, and four (4) abstentions — all the twelve
constituting the total membership of the Board of the time. The next day Dr. Blanco addressed a letter to
the Board requesting “a reconsideration of the interpretation made by the Board as to the legal effect of the
vote of five in favor, three against and four abstentions on my ad interimappointment. Dr. Blanco wrote the
President of the University, protesting the appointment of Oseas A. del Rosario as Officer-in-Charge of the
College of Education. Neither communication having elicited any official reply, Dr. Blanco went to the Court
of First Instance of Quezon City.

Issue: What is the legal effect of abstention in the board meetings?

Held: In case of abstention in board meeting on vote taken on any issue, the general rule is that the
abstention is counted in favour of the issue that won a majority vote; since their act of abstention, the
abstaining directors are deemed to abide the rule of majority.