Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

US vs.

ANG TANG HO (February 17, 1922) • The power conferred upon the Legislature to make laws cannot be delegated to
Ponente: Johns, J. the Gov-Gen or anyone else. The Legislature cannot delegate the legislative
power to enact any law; it can only pass a law that does nothing more than to
Facts: authorize the Gov-Gen to make rules and regulations to carry the law into
• 1919: Philippine Legislature passed Act No. 2686 effect.
o penalized the monopoly and hoarding of, as well as speculation in, palay, • Ponente states several US cases… ie. State v. Chicago, Milwaukee and St.
rice and corn under extraordinary circumstances Paul Ry. Co: “The true distinction is between the delegation of power to make
o regulated the distribution and sale thereof the law, which necessarily involves discretion as to what it shall be, and the
o authorized the Governor-General to issue necessary rules and regulations conferring an authority or discretion to be exercised under and in pursuance of
pursuant therefor the law.”
• see p. 3-4 with regard to pertinent sections being assailed
Held: Act No. 2868, insofar as it undertakes to authorize the Gov-Gen in his
• August 1, 1919: Gov-Gen issued proclamation fixing price at which rice should discretion to issue a proclamation, fixing the price of rice, and to make the sale of
be sold (EO #53) rice in violation of the proclamation a crime, is unconstitutional and void
• August 8: complaint was filed against defendant Ang Tang Ho, charging him
with the sale of rice at an excessive price – he was subsequently tried, found
guilty, and sentenced to 5 months’ imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500
• Present case is an appeal, with petitioner alleging that the lower court erred in:
o Finding EO #53 to of any force and effect
o Finding him guilty of the offense charged
o Imposing the sentence

Issue: WON Act No. 2868 delegates legislative power to the Governor-General
(such delegation being violative of the Constitution)  YES, therefore, it is
unconstitutional and void; lower court’s decision was reversed and petitioner was

• In the analysis and construction of Act No. 2868, insofar as it authorizes the
Gov-Gen to fix the price at which rice should be sold, it can be gathered that
legislative power to enact law, which is constitutionally granted to the
Legislature, is lodged in the Executive.
o The promulgation of temporary rules and emergency measures was left to
the discretion of the Gov-Gen
o The Legislature did not specify or define what conditions or for what
reasons the Gov-Gen shall issue the proclamation – the Act states that it
can be issued “for any cause”
o The Legislature did not specify or define what is an “extraordinary rise” in
the price of rice (wow, nag-rhyme), the causes of which shall supposedly
be prevented by such proclamation
o The Act did not specify or define what is a temporary rule or an emergency
measure, or how long such temporary rules or measures shall remain in
force and effect, or when they shall take effect
o In the absence of the proclamation, it was not a crime to sell rice at any
price. It follows that if the defendant committed a crime, it was because
the Gov-Gen issued the proclamation. No act of the Legislature made it
a crime to sell rice at any price, and without the proclamation, the
sale of it at any price was not a crime. It is the violation of the
proclamation, not of Act 2868, which constitutes the crime.
SOLICITOR GENERAL v. MMA (1991) Ordinance No 11 was enacted to promote the comfort and convenience of the public
Petition to review the resolution of the Metropolitan Manila Authority. and to alleviate the worsening traffic problems in Metropolitan Mla due in large part
to violation of traffic rules. The Court holds that indeed there is a valid delegation
FACTS: of legislative power to promulgate such measures, it satisfying the requisites of
The ff cases were consolidated inasmuch as all of them present the same delegation: (1) completeness of the statute making the delegation; and (2) the
fundamental question w/c can be disposed of jointly: presence of a sufficient standard (i.e. the convenience and welfare of the public esp
1. Oct 1990: Rodolfo Malapira’s complaint when he was stopped for an alleged motorists and passengers).
traffic violation and his driver’s license was confiscated by a traffic enforcer in
QC However, what is questioned is the validity of the exercise of such delegated power.
2. Dec 1990: the Caloocan-Mla Drivers & Operators Assoc sent a letter to the Ordinance No 11 is merely an enactment of local govt acting only as agents of the
Court asking whether they could seek damages for confiscation of their driver’s national legislature. Necessarily, its acts must reflect and conform to the will of the
licenses principal. Therefore, a municipal ordinance to be valid: 1) must not contravene
3. Feb 1991: Stephen Monsanto complained against the confiscation of his driver’s the Consti or any statute; 2) must not be unfair or oppressive; 3) must not be
license also for a traffic violation in Mandaluyong partial or discriminatory; 4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; 5) must not
4. March 1991: Atty Calderon, also for the confiscation of his driver’s license in be unreasonable; and 6) must be general and consistent w/ public policy.
5. April 1991: Atty Trieste protested the removal of his front license plate by E. It is clear that Ordinance No 7 and 11 do not pass the first criterion because they do
not conform to the existing law, PD 1605, and in effect partially repeals the law.
Ramos of MMA-Traffic Operations Ctr & subsequent confiscation of his driver’s
The latter prohibits and does not allow either the removal of license plates or the
license by one Emmanuel of the Metropolitan Police Command1.
confiscation of driver'’ licenses for traffic violations committed in Metropolitan Mla.
Local political subdivisions are able to legislate only by virtue of a valid delegation of
This consolidated case revolves around a discrepancy between two opposing
legislative power from the national legislature. They are mere agents vested w/
sanctions between PD 1605, the principal law, and Ordinance No. 11, Series of
what is called the power of subordinate legislation. As delegates of the Congress,
1991, issued by the MMA, a local govt agency.
the LGU cannot contravene but must obey at all times the will of their principal. To
sustain the local ordinances would open the floodgates to other ordinances
Under PD 1605, the confiscation of driver’s licenses for traffic violations is not
amending and so violating national laws in the guise of implementing them.
directly prescribed nor allowed. It does not allow either the removal of license
plates in Metropolitan Manila. It transfers only the powers of the Land
The enactment in question, therefore, being merely local in origin, cannot prevail
Transportation Commission and the Bd of Transportation to the Metropolitan Mla
against the decree, w/c has the force and effect of a statute. They are declared
Commission inasmuch as the latter is allowed to impose fines and discipline traffic
NULL and VOID. All law enforcement authorities in Metropolitan Mla are enjoined
violators in amounts and penalties prescribed.
from removing license plates of motor vehicles2 and confiscating driver’s licenses for
traffic violation w/in the area.
Under Ordinance No. 7 and 11, specifically Sec 2 of the latter, MMA is authorized to
detach the license plate/tow and impound attended/unattended/abandoned motor
EMMANUEL PELAEZ, petitioner vs. THE AUDITOR GENERAL, respondent
vehicles illegally parked or obstructing the flow of traffic in MMla. The MMA, in its
Original Action in the SC. Prohibition w/Preliminary Injunction [Dec. 24, 1965]
defense, alleges that its powers were conferred upon it by virtue of EO 392.
ISSUE: WON Ord No 7 and 11 are legal and valid
• Sept. 4 – Oct. 29, 1964: Phil Pres purporting to act pursuant to Sec. 68 of
HELD: The present issue of the validity of Ordinance No 7 and 11 can, in principle, Revised Administrative Code (RAC), issued Exec Orders (EO) Nos. 93-121, 124,
be challenged only in a direct action and not collaterally as in this case. However, 126-129, creating 33 municipalities (see footnote #1 in p.573 for complete
that rule is not inflexible and may be relaxed by the Court under exceptional list).
circumstances such as in the present controversy. It has created a great deal of • Sec. 68 of RAC:
confusion among motorists about the state of the law on the questioned sanctions. 1. Gov Gen/Pres of Phil may by EO define boundary or boundaries of prov,
Even though the complainants, especially the lawyers Monsanto and Trieste, failed subprov, municipality, municipal district or other pol subd & increase,
to formally challenge its validity, the Court will suspend the procedural rules in the divide, separate & merge territories, name new subd created & change
interest of substantial justice. seat of gov’t w/in subd as pub welfare may require.
2. Provided that Phil Legislature/Congress of RP’s authorization shall first be
obtained when boundary of prov/subprov is to be defined or prov is to be
divided into 1/more subprov.
Emmanuel averred that he confiscated Atty Trieste’s license pursuant to a memorandum authorizing
such sanction. However, Dir Gen Cesar Nazareno of the PNP in his Comment assured the Court that his
Office has never authorized the removal of the license plates of illegally parked vehicles and he ordered
full compliance of the memorandum. Except when authorized under LOI 43, in cases when stalled vehicles obstruct public streets.
3. Change of territory under jurisdiction of an administrative/judicial officer, Severn). It has been held that municipal corp are purely the creatures of
recommendation & advice of head of dept having exec control over such statutes (Territory ex rel. Kelly vs. Stewart).
officer shall be obtained. • Congress can delegate such pow but it should provide the policy to be
4. Equitable distribution of funds & oblig of divisions affected shall be made as executed, carried out or implemented & fix the standard, w/ sufficiently
recommended by Auditor Gen & approved by Gov Gen/Pres. determinate or determinable standards. Leaving the delegate (to whom pow is
• Nov. 10, 1964: Emmanuel Pelaez, as VP of the Phil & a taxpayer, instituted delegated) only to fill in details in execution, enforcement or admin of law.
action to restrain Auditor Gen & his reps & agents from passing in audit any Without the policy, delegate would be left to make/formulate the policy w/c is
expenditure of public funds in implementation of EOs and/or any disbursement the essence of every law & w/o the standard, we cannot determine
by said municipalities. He claims that law invoked by Pres has been impliedly w/reasonable certainty whether delegate acted w/in or beyond scope of his
repealed by RA No. 2370 & constitutes undue delegation of legislative pow. authority. Delegate might make or even unmake the law by adopting measures
• Pertinent provisions of RA No. 2370 inconsistent w/end sought to be attained by Act of Congress. This would nullify
1. Sec. 3, Par. 1: All barrios at time of passage of this Act shall come under principle of sep of pow & sys of checks & balances, & undermine foundation of
provisions hereof. our Republican sys. Sec. 68 of RAC doesn’t meet aforementioned standards in
2. Sec. 3, Par. 2: New barrio may be created or name of existing one may be delegating pow since it does not provide w/ a policy & standard.
changed by prov’l board of province upon petition of maj of voters in those • Last clause of #1 Sec. 68, RAC using the term “public welfare” pertains only to
areas & upon recommendation of council of municipality/municipalities in changing the seat of gov’t & not to all items in that sentence. This is in
w/c proposed barrio is stipulated. Recommendation must be in a form of accordance w/ orig provision, Sec. 1, Act No. 1748. Although SC ruled in
resolution approved by at least 2/3 of council’s mems. To create a new Calalang vs. Wiliams and People vs. Rosenthal that pub welfare & pub interest
barrio, pop must be at least 500 persons. are valid standards for valid delegation of authority to execute the law, these
3. Sec. 3, Par. 3: Barrios shall not be created/their boundaries altered nor doctrines are only applicable to specific facts & issues involved in said cases.
their names changed except under provisions of this Act/by Act of They don’t constitute precedents & are not binding. Besides, both cases
Congress. involved grants to administrative officers of pows related to exercise of
• Respondent: action is premature & not all proper parties (officials of newly- administrative functions, calling for determination of ques of fact whereas Sec.
created pol subd) have been impleaded. 68 deals w/legislative functions. Ques of WON pub interest demands ex of such
• Mayors of municipalities from which the barrios w/c formed the new pow is not one of fact, it’s purely a legislative ques (Carolina-Virginia Coastal
municipalities were taken intervened. Highway vs. Coastal Turnpike Authority), political ques (Udall vs. Severn) or
• Attys. Enrique Fernando & Emma Quisumbing-Fernando appeared as amici ques of public policy & statecraft (In Re Village of North Milwaukee).
curiae. • Examples of laws annulled by judiciary due to undue delegation of legislative
Issues & Ratio: 1. law granting judicial dept pow to determine annexing of territories (Udall
1. WON the President’s act constituted an undue delegation of legislative vs. Severn)
pow. – YES. 2. law vesting in a Commission rt to determine plan & frame of gov’t of
• Since Jan. 1, 1960, when RA 2370 took effect, barrios can only be created or proposed villages & functions to be exercised (In re Municipal Charters)
their boundaries be altered or their names changed by Act of Congress or of 3. law allowing courts to incorporate towns/villages & determine metes &
provincial board (Par. 2 & 3 respectively). bounds upon petition of maj of taxable inhabitants setting forth area
a. Petitioner claims if Pres is enjoined fr creating a barrio, all the more that he desired to be included in the village (Territory ex rel Kelly vs. Stewart)
should be prohibited fr creating a municipality w/c is composed of several 4. law w/c allowed courts & inhabitants of a town to incorporate a town (In re
barrios. Villages of North Milwaukee)
b. Respondent: New municipality can be created w/o creating new barrios. 5. creating Municipal Board of Control w/c determines if it’s w/in pub interest
You simply place old barrios under new municipality. (Tsktsk, logical!) to construct/operate a toll road & allowing such board to create & name
But using logic & experience, we can deduce that the statutory denial of pres’l municipal corporations (Carolina-Virginia Coastal Hwy vs. Coastal Turnpike
authority to create a new barrio implies a negation of the bigger power to Authority)
create new municipalities. • Schechter Poultry Corp vs US: involved constitutionality of a law w/c authorized
• Respondent cites Municipality of Cardona vs. Municipality of Binangonan in US Pres to approve codes of fair competition submitted by trade/industrial
claiming that Pres’ act is not an undue delegation of pow. But this is not copr/assoc w/co inequitable restrictions on admission to membership as long as
applicable because it did not involve the creation of a new municipality but a codes are not designed to promote monopolies or eliminate/oppress small
mere transfer of territory (fr Cardona to Binangona). Both territories already enterprises & will not operate to discriminate against them. Court ruled that
existed prior to & during time of transfer. aside from providing w/gen aims of rehab, correction & expansion, the law does
• Remember that power to fix common boundaries as in the cited case are not provide any standards. Instead of prescribing rules of conduct, law
administrative in nature whereas authority to create municipal corp. is authorizes making of codes to prescribe the rules. Pres’ discretion in approving
legislative in nature. Strictly a legislative function (State ex rel. Higgins vs. codes is unregulated/unfettered. Thus, it is an unconstitutional delegation of
Aicklen), solely & exclusively the exercise of legislative power (Udall vs. legislative pow. If Schechter case found term “unfair competition” broad &
vesting pow on Pres would be a virtually unfettered discretion leading to undue
delegation of legislative pow, same should be applied to the term pub welfare
• July 24, 1991: DOF requested the Tariff Commission to initiate the process
w/c has a broader connotation. If we uphold validity of Sec. 68, then that would required by the Tariff and Customs Code for the imposition of a specific levy on
be tantamount to allowing Pres to do anything w/c in his opinion may be for crude oil and other petroleum products (HS Heading Nos. 27.09, 27.10 and
pub interest/welfare. It would be a virtual abdication of pows of Congress in 27.11 of Sec. 104 of said Code, as amended). A public hearing was scheduled
favor of Exec & would bring about total collapse of democratic sys. to give interested parties an opportunity to be heard…
• Note that EOs were issued after legislative bills creating involved municipalities • Aug. 15: EO #475 was issued, reducing the rate of additional duty back to 5%
had failed to pass Congress. ad valorem, except in the cases of crude oil and other oil products
• Sec. 10 (1), Art. VII of Consti only allows Pres to have gen supervision over loc
gov’ts. He can only check whether these governments & their officials are
• Aug. 23: EO #478 was issued, levying a special duty of P0.95 per liter or
performing duties as provided by law & he can’t interfere as long as they’re P151.05 per barrel of imported crude oil and P1.00 per liter of imported oil
acting w/in scope of their authority. He can’t enact an ordinance w/ council products (in addition to the 9% ad valorem and all other existing ad valorem
failed/refused to pass even if such violated an imposed duty for it’s the role of duties)
provincial officials to do so. He can’t vote, set aside or annul an ordinance • Petitioner assails the validity of EO #s 475 & 478, arguing that it is violative of
passed w/in council’s jurisdiction even if such is unwise. He can’t suspend an Sec 24, Art VI of the Consti – since the Consti vests the authority to enact
elective official or take disciplinary action except on appeal fr provincial board’s revenue bills to the Congress, the President may not assume such powers by
decision. If Pres is allowed to create municipalities, then, he could compel loc issuing EO #s 475 & 478, which are in the nature of revenue-generating
officials to submit to his dictation, defying the consti’l provision w/c only grants measures.
him gen supervision over loc officials. Also, Pres can’t abolish or create a new • Petitioner also argues that assailed EO’s contravene Sec 401 of the Tariff and
exec dept or bureau. Allowing him to create a municipal corp would give him Customs Code – said section authorizes the President to increase, reduce or
greater control over on loc gov’ts than on exec depts., bureaus, or offices, when remove tariff duties, or to impose additional duties only when necessary to
he should only exercise gen supervision over former. Thus, we can conclude protect local industries or products but not for the purpose of raising additional
that the 1935 Consti also repealed Sec. 68 of RAC since it is incompatible & revenue for the government.
inconsistent w/ the fundamental law.
Issue: WON EO #s 475 & 478 are unconstitutional  NO
2. Whether there are other proper parties to be impleaded. - NONE Ratio:
Records don’t show & parties don’t claim that officers of new municipalities have • Even if the power to enact appropriation, revenue and tariff bills are lodged
been appointed/elected & assumed office. Sol Gen is the officer authorized by law to
with the Legislature, it does not follow that EO #s 475 & 478, assuming they
represent Phil Gov’t, its offices & agents in any proceeding requiring a lawyer
may be characterized as revenue measures, are prohibited to the President,
(Sec.1661, RAC). Loc officials are mere agents or reps of nat’l gov’t. Presence of Sol
that they must instead be enacted by Congress.
Gen is sufficient.
• Sec 28(2), Art VI of the Consti: “The Congress may, by law, authorize the
3. WON present petition is premature. - NO President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and
Even if EOs in dispute have not yet been acted upon, Pres has previously issued restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage
similar EOs which actually organized & operated new municipal corp & thus, and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the
expenditures incidental to such have been sanctioned, approved or passed by Gen national development program of the Government.”  there is explicit
Auditing Officials. No reason that Auditor Gen won’t be acting in the same manner constitutional permission to Congress to authorize the President to fix
on new EOs. within specified limits tariff rates and other duties

Held: EOs are null & void ab initio. Respondent restraint from implementing
• Tariff and Customs Code (TCC) – Sec. 104: “… The rates of duty herein
such. provided or subsequently fixed pursuant to Sec. 401 of this Code shall be
subject to periodic investigation by the Tariff Commission and may be revised
GARCIA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (July 3, 1992) by the President upon recommendation by the NEDA…”
Ponente: Feliciano, J. o Nothing in the language of either Sec. 104 or 401 of the TCC suggests
sharp and absolute limitation of authority
Facts: o The Bureau of Customs, which administers the TCC, is one of the 2
principal generators of governmental revenue, the other being the BIR; it
• Nov. 27, 1990: EO #438 was issued, imposing, in addition to other duties, is, therefore, inevitable that revenue will be collected in the process of
taxes and charges on all articles imported into the Phils. (across the board, imposing such customs duties
including crude oil and other oil products) an additional duty of 5% ad valorem o Customs duties, which are assessed at the prescribed tariff rates, are very
– subsequently increased to 9% ad valorem by the promulgation of EO #443 on much like taxes, which are frequently imposed for both revenue-raising
Jan. 3, 1991 and regulatory purposes. The levying of customs duties on imported goods
may have in some measure the effect of protecting local industries;
simultaneously, such customs duties inevitably have the effect of producing 1. WON the powers granted to the ERB under PD 1956 partake the nature of the
government revenues. taxation power of the State. NO
o The contention of petitioner that “protection of local industries” should be 2. WON the monies collected should be maintained in a special account of the
the only permissible objective that can be secured by the exercise of that general fund. NO
delegated authority is a stiflingly narrow one as to render the assailed EO’s 3. WON the reimbursement made to the oil companies is illegal. YES
Held: Petition dismissed for lack of merit. Constitutionality of EO #s 474 & 1.
478 are upheld.  OPSF was established precisely to protect local consumers from the adverse
consequences that such frequent oil price adjustments may have upon the
Osmena vs. Orbos {March 31, 1993} economy. OPSF serves as a pocket into which a portion of the purchase price of
Original Petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Supreme Court oil and petroleum products paid by consumers as well as some tax revenues
are inputted and from which amounts are drawn from time to time to reimburse
Facts: oil companies, when appropriate situations arise, for increases in, as well as
 October 10, 1984 – Marcos issued PD 1956 creating a Special Account in the underrecovery of, costs of crude importation.
General Fund, designated as the Oil Price Stabilization Fund.  OPSF is a buffer mechanism through which the domestic consumer prices of oil
 OPSF was designed to reimburse oil companies for cost increases in crude oil and petroleum products are stabilized, instead of fluctuating every so often,
and imported petroleum products resulting from exchange rate adjustments and oil companies are allowed to recover given the level of domestic prices
and from increases in the world market prices of crude oil. existing at any given time.
 OPSF was reclassified as a trust liability and ordered released from the National  Establishment and maintenance of the OPSF is well within that pervasive and
Treasury to the Ministry of Energy. non-waivable power and responsibility of the government to secure the physical
and economic survival and well being of the community, POLICE POWER of the
 February 27, 1987 – Aquino amended PD 1956 when she promulgated EO No.
137. This EO expanded the grounds for reimbursement to oil companies, for
possible cost underrecovery incurred as a result of the reduction of domestic  Gaston v. Republic Planters Bank – Court upheld the legality of the sugar
prices of petroleum products. stabilization fee. Stabilization fees collected are in the nature of a tax which is
within the power of the State to impose for the promotion of the sugar industry.
 March 31, 1991 – OPSF showed a Terminal Fund Balance Deficit amounting to
P12.877 billion. To abate the worsening deficit the ERB issued an order on  Funds collected may be referred to as taxes, they are exacted in the exercise of
December 10, 1990 approving the increase in pump prices of petroleum the police power of the State.
 The petition contends that the creation of the trust fund violates section 29(3),
article VI of the Constitution which provides that:  The provision authorizing the ERB to impose additional amounts could be
o All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated construed to refer to the power of taxation, it cannot be overlooked that the
overriding consideration is to enable the delegate to act with expediency in
as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for
carrying out the objectives of the law which are embraced by the Police Power
which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the
of the State.
balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the
 For a valid delegation of power it is essential that the law delegating the power
must be:
 Petitioner argues that the monies collected pursuant to PD 1956 as amended
o Complete in itself (must set forth the policy to be executed by the
must be treated as a Special Fund not as a trust account or a trust fund and
that if a special tax is collected for a specific purpose, the revenue generated delegate)
therefrom shall be treated as a special fund to be used only for the purpose o Must fix a standard limit (limits are sufficiently determinate or
indicated, and not channelled to another government objective. determinable)
 Petitioner also argues that the delegation of legislative authority to the ERB  Challenged law sets forth a determinable standard which guides the exercise
violated Article VI section 28(2) the power granted to the ERB. What the law intended was to permit the
o The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified additional imposts for as long as there exists a need to protect the general
limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, public and the petroleum industry from the adverse consequences of pump rate
tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and fluctuations.
other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development
program of the Government. 3.
 None of them was incurred as a result of the reduction of domestic prices of
petroleum products
 Petitioner contends that the term ‘other factors’ can only include such other president, as the representative from private sector (See RA3137, Sec.2,
factors which necessarily result in the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum no. 5)
products. • However, another organization, the Phil Chamber of Embroidery & Apparel
 Solicitor General contends that to place the term within the restrictive confines Producers, Inc., to which petitioner was affiliated, questioned the choice of
of the rule of ejusdem generis would reduce EO 137 to a meaningless provision Santiago, because its own nominee was rejected.
 Caltex Philippines v. Honorable Commisioner of Audit – ejusdem generis states • In upholding its original choice, the Board referred to a letter of Sen.
that where words follow an enumeration of persons or things , by words of a Alejandro Almendras, principal author of RA 3137, stating that the
particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in association referred to in Sec. 2 was none other than the PAEAE. On the
their widest extent, but are held to be as applying only to persons or things of basis of this letter, the Board adopted on Sept 15, 1961, Resolution 2:
the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned. stating that PAEAE is the association referred to in Sec. 2 & that it is the
 Reimbursement of financing charges is not authorized paragraph 2 section 8 of only association entitled to representation in the Board from the private
PD 1956 for the reason that they were not incurred as a result of the reduction sector.
of domestic prices of petroleum products. • In the exercise of its powers, the Board on Aug 31, 1961 requested
petitioner to submit pertinent data called for in the attached form of
RAFAEL v. EMBROIDERY & APPAREL CONTROL & INSPECTION BOARD application for license & requested to remit w/ the application P200 in cash
(Sept 29, 1967) Appeal from a decision of CFI of Manila or check drawn in favor of the Board. This amount will be charged against
petitioner’s future assessments as per Sec. 4, par. XVI of RA 3137.

• Unwilling to comply w/ Board’s request, petitioner filed an action for
prohibition w/ preliminary injunction in the court a quo for the purpose of
• In a letter dated Jan 9, 1961, petitioner (who was engaged in the
enjoining/restraining respondents from enforcing RA 3137.
manufacture of embroidery & apparel products for the purpose of
• Petitioner contends that RA 3137 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL & VOID ab initio
exportation, using imported raw materials) was authorized by the Collector
• CFI DECISION: a) Sec. 2 is unconstitutional; b) Board is illegally
of Customs, pursuant to Tariff & Customs Code (RA 1937) to operate
Manufacturing Bonded Warehouse no. 88 at Rizal. constituted, thus its acts & orders are null & void; c) permanently enjoining
• By virtue of such authority, petitioner imported raw materials exempt from respondets from enforcing Sec. 2
duty & manufactured them into finished products for export under the
terms & conditions required & specified in the letter-authority.
1. WON the Act’s prescription that the chairman & members of the Board
• June 17, 1961: RA 3137 was enacted creating “an embroidery & apparel
should come from specified offices is equivalent to a declaration by
control & inspection board (BOARD) covering control, issuance of entry
Congress as to who should be appointed thereby infringing the const’l
permits, & inspection of conditionally tax-free raw material importations by
power of the President to make appointments.
local embroidery apparel manufacturers & the corresponding liquidation of
(Petitioner claims that while Congress may create an office, it cannot
re-exportations thereof as RP-made embroideries & apparels.”
specify who shall be appointed therein; that the members of the Board can
• RA 3137 (Sec.1 – p. 338, not so relevant)
only be appointed by the Pres in accordance w/ Art VII, Sec 10(3),
• RA 3137, Sec. 2: ”This license required hereof under Sec. 1 of this Act shall CONSTI)
be duly issued by an Embroidery and Apparel Control and Inspection Board • NO. RA 3137 not unconstitutional on this point
w/c is hereby created & hereinafter referred to as the Board, composed of • Sec. 2 reveals that for the chairman & members of the Board to qualify,
(1) A representative from BOC to act as Chairman, to be designated by the they need only be designated by the respective dept heads. W/ the
Sec. Of Finance; (2) A rep from Central Bank to be designated by its exception of the rep from private sector, they sit ex-officio.
Governor; (3) A rep from Dept of Commerce & Industry; (4) A
representative from the Nat’l Economic Council to be designated by its
• In order to be designated, they must already be holding positions in the
offices mentioned in the law. No need for new appointments because the
Chairman; (5) A representative from the private sector coming from
reps so designated merely perform duties in the Board in addition to those
the Association of Embroidery & Apparel Exporters of the Phil. The
they already perform under their original appointments.
Board shall have the over-all control & shall administer the checks &
• Nothing in the Act suggest that the designated reps will lose or forfeit their
counter-checks of consigned textile, leather gloves, raw materials &/or
supplies to embroidery & apparel manufacturers & corresponding counter- orig appointments in their “parent offices”
checks for liquidations of said goods prior to re-exportations… (p.339) • Sec. 2 is not incompatible w/ or violative of the doctrine that “the
• In compliance w/ these provisions, the Board was constituted, each of the appointing power is the exclusive prerogative of the President, upon w/c,
members having been previously designated by their respective no limitations maybe imposed by Congress, except those resulting from the
department heads. need of securing the concurrence of COA & from the exercise of the limited
power to prescribe the qualifications to a given appointive office.”
• Upon recommendation of the Phil Association of Embroidery & Apparel • CONG took care to specify that the reps should come from BOC, CB, Dept
Exporters, Inc. (PAEAE), the DOF named Quintin Santiago, association of Commerce & Industry & NEC BECAUSE these departments &/or bureaus
perform functions w/c have a direct relation to the importation of raw
materials, the manufacture thereof into embroidery & apparel products & HELD: CFI decision REVERSED. RA 3137, particularly Sec. 2 is CONSTITUTIONAL;
their subsequent exportation abroad. There is no attempt in RA 3137 to permanent injunction SET ASIDE
deprive the President of his power to make appointments
Arnault v. Nazareno
2. WON Act constitutes class legislation & WON it has deprived petitioner of
equal protection of laws (because Congress has vested the appointment of Facts:
the representative of the private sector in respondent Board, a private non- This case is a petition for habeas corpus to relieve petitioner Jean Arnault from
govtl entity) confinement in the New Bilibid prison. Arnault was confined to the institution after
• NO. he refused to reveal the name of a person during a senate hearing. The facts
preceding this case are as follows:
• PAEAE was not singled out by the law in order to favor it over & above
others but rather because it is the dominant organization in the field. In the latter part of October, 1949, the Philippine Government, through the Rural
• General rule: legislation w/c affects alike all persons pursuing the same Progress Administration, bought two estates known as Buenavista and Tambobong
business under the same conditions is not such class legislation as is for the sums of P4,500,000 and P500,000, respectively. P1,000,000 was paid for
prohibited by const’l provisions. The discrimination w/c are open to the first sum and P 500,000 to the second sum both to Ernest H. Burt, a
objection are those in w/c persons engaged in the same business are nonresident American, thru his two attorney-in-fact in the Philippines, as
subjected to different restrictions or are held entitled to different privileges represented by Jean L. Arnault, for both estates respectively.
under the same conditions
3. WON Sec. 4, XVI, par.2 of the Act constitutes an undue delegation of However, Ernest H. Burt was not the original owner of the estate. He bought the
legislative power because the Act does not provide sufficient standards first from San Juan de Dios hospital and the second from the Philippine trust
under w/c the Board may base its assessment. company. In both instances, Burt was not able to pay the necessary amount of
• NO. money to complete his payments. As such, his contract with said owners were
• Sec.4, XVI, par.2: “A special assessment shall be levied upon all persons, cancelled.
corporations, or firms engaged in the embroidery & apparel manufacturing
On September 4, 1947, the Philippine Trust Company sold, conveyed, and delivered
industry in an amount to be fixed by the Board not exceeding 1% of the
the Tambobong Estate to the Rural Progress Administration by an abolute deed of
value of the labor, processing or finishing costs realized from the processed
sale in consideration of the sum of P750,000. The Philippine Government then,
or finished goods exported. The funds collected hereunder shall accrue to
through the Secretary of Justice as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Rural
the Board & shall be used exclusively for carrying out its functions & duties.
Progress Administration and as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Philippine
• This paragraph has a direct relation to the immediately preceding
National Bank, from which the money was borrowed, accomplished the purchase of
the two estates in the latter part of October, 1949, as stated at the outset.
• “XVI: Every manufacturer who intends to remove manufactured products
for export shall make a written request to the Board for exportation of the On February 27, 1950, the Senate adopted its Resolution No. 8, which created a
articles intended for removal, giving the kinds, quantity of yardage, used special committee to investigate the transactions surrounding the estates. The
gross & net weights, & the value of the articles to be exported & the special committee created by the resolution called and examined various witnesses,
number or numbers of Import entry or entries involved…” (p. 344) among the most important of whom was Jean L. Arnault. An intriguing question
which the committee sought to resolve was the apparent unnecessariness and
• Evidently, the special assessment referred to in the 2nd paragraph applies to
irregularity of the Government's paying to Burt the total sum of P1,500,000 for his
manufactured products w/c a manufacturer intends to remove from the alleged interest of only P20,000 in the two estates, which he seemed to have
bonded warehouse for exportation. forfeited anyway long before October, 1949. The committee sought to determine
• Far from empowering the Board to levy w/o sufficient standard, the law who were responsible for and who benefited from the transaction at the expense of
sets a reasonable basis under w/c the special assessment may be imposed: the Government.
(1) that such special assessment be levied on manufactured goods
intended to be removed for exportation (2) that such special assessment Arnault testified that two checks payable to Burt aggregating P1,500,000 were
should not exceed 1% of the value of labor, processing or finishing costs delivered to him on the afternoon of October 29, 1949; that on the same date he
realized from the processed or finished goods exported. opened a new account in the name of Ernest H. Burt with the Philippine National
• TRUE DISTINCTION: DELEGATION OF POWER TO LEGISLATE: involves a Bank in which he deposited the two checks aggregating P1,500,000; and that on
discretion as to what the law shall be; CONFERRING OF AUTHORITY OR the same occasion he drew on said account two checks; one for P500,000, which he
DISCRETION AS TO THE EXECUTION OF THE LAW: authority or discretion transferred to the account of the Associated Agencies, Inc., with the Philippine
as to its execution has to be exercised under & in pursuance of the law. National Bank, and another for P440,000 payable to cash, which he himself cashed.
THE FORMER CANNOT BE DONE. It was the desire of the committee to determine the ultimate recipient of this sum of
P440,000 that gave rise to the present case.
“The resolution of commitment here in question was adopted by the Senate, which
As Arnault resisted to name the recipient of the money, the senate then approved a is a continuing body and which does not cease to exist upon the periodical
resolution that cited him for contempt. It is this resolution which brought him to jail dissolution of the Congress or of the House of Representatives. There is no
and is being contested in this petition. limit as to time to the Senate's power to punish for contempt in cases where that
power may constitutionally be exerted as in the present case.”
1. WON the Senate has the power to punish Arnault for contempt for refusing to “As against the foregoing conclusion it is argued for the petitioner that the power
reveal the name of the person to whom he gave the P440,000. may be abusively and oppressively exerted by the Senate which might keep the
2. WON the Senate lacks authority to commit him for contempt for a term beyond witness in prison for life. But we must assume that the Senate will not be disposed
its period of legislative session, which ended on May 18, 1950. to exert the power beyond its proper bounds. And if, contrary to this assumption,
3. WON the privilege against self incrimination protects the petitioner from being proper limitations are disregarded, the portals of this Court are always open to
questioned. those whose rights might thus be transgressed.”

Holding/ Ratio: Petition Denied. 3. No.

1. Yes.
We are satisfied that those answers of the witness to the important question,
“Once an inquiry is admitted or established to be within the jurisdiction of a What is the name of that person to whom you gave the P440,000? were obviously
legislative body to make, we think the investigating committee has the power false. His insistent claim before the bar of the Senate that if he should reveal the
to require a witness to answer any question pertinent to that inquiry, name he would incriminate himself, necessarily implied that he knew the name.
subject of course to his constitutional right against self-incrimination. The inquiry, to Moreover, it is unbelievable that he gave P440,000 to a person to him unknown.
be within the jurisdiction of the legislative body to make, must be material or "Testimony which is obviously false or evasive is equivalent to a refusal to
necessary to the exercise of a power in it vested by the Constitution, such as to testify and is punishable as contempt, assuming that a refusal to testify
legislate, or to expel a Member; and every question which the investigator is would be so punishable." (12 Am. Jur., sec. 15, Contempt, pp. 399-400.)
empowered to coerce a witness to answer must be material or pertinent to the
subject of the inquiry or investigation. So a witness may not be coerced to Since according to the witness himself the transaction was legal, and that he gave
answer a question that obviously has no relation to the subject of the the P440,000 to a representative of Burt in compliance with the latter's verbal
inquiry. But from this it does not follow that every question that may be instruction, we find no basis upon which to sustain his claim that to reveal
propounded to a witness must be material to any proposed or possible the name of that person might incriminate him.

“In other words, the materiality of the question must be determined by its direct Note:
relation to the subject of the inquiry and not by its indirect relation to any proposed The court also refuted cases cited by petitioner on p. 52, last paragraph
or possible legislation. The reason is, that the necessity or lack of necessity for and p. 55, last paragraph.
legislative action and the form and character of the action itself are determined by There is a discussion of the general principles of the law including
the sum total of the information to be gathered as a result of the investigation, and separation of powers in p. 44-46
not by a fraction of such information elicited from a single question.”
“Our form of government being patterned after the American system-the
“The contention is not that the question is impertinent to the subject of the inquiry framers of our Constitution having drawn largely from American institutions and
but that it has no relation or materiality to any proposed legislation. We have practices-we can, in this case, properly draw also from American precedents in
already indicated that it is not necessary for the legislative body to show interpreting analogous provisions of our Constitution, as we have done in other
that every question propounded to a witness is material to any proposed or cases in the past.”
possible legislation; what is required is that it be pertinent to the matter
under inquiry. “Although there is no provision in the Constitution expressly investing either House
The Court cannot determine, any more than it can direct Congress, what legislation of Congress with power to make investigations and exact testimony to the end that
to approve or not to approve; that would be an invasion of the legislative it may exercise its legislative functions advisedly and effectively, such power is so
prerogative. The Court, therefore, may not say that the information sought from the far incidental to the legislative function as to be implied. In other words, the power
witness which is material to the subject of the legislative inquiry is immaterial to of inquiry with process to enforce it-is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the
any proposed or possible legislation.” legislative function. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the
absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to
2. No. affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite
information which is not infrequently true-recourse must be had to others who do
possess it. … The fact that the Constitution expressly gives to Congress the power
to punish its Members for disorderly behaviour, does not by necessary implication
exclude the power to punish for contempt any other person. (Anderson vs. Dunn, 6
Wheaton, 204; 5 L. ed., 242.)
But no person can be punished for contumacy as a witness before either House, 1. As the court held in Angara vs. Electoral Commission, the Constitution
unless his testimony is required in a matter into which that House has jurisdiction to provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure coordination in
inquire. (Kilbourn vs. Thompson, 26 L. ed., 377.) the workings of the departments of the government, and it is the judiciary that was
vested of the powers to determine the scope, nature and extent of such powers.
“Since, as we have noted, the Congress of the Philippines has a wider range of
legislative field than either the Congress of the United States or a State Legislature, 2 and 3. The speech of Sen. Enrile contained no suggestion on contemplated
we think it is correct to say that the field of inquiry into which (ooppss..putol…I legislation; he merely called upon the Senate to look into a possible violation of Sec.
wasn’t able to copy everything) 5 of RA 3019. The purpose of the inquiry to be conducted by respondent SBRC was
to find out WON the relatives of President Aquino, particularly Ricardo Lopa, had
Bengson, Jr. vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee violated the law in connection with the alleged sale of the 36/39 corporations of
20 November 1991. En Banc. Padilla, J. Kokoy Romualdez to the Lopa Group. There appears, therefore, no intended
legislation involved.
Petition for prohibition to review the decision of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. The inquiry also is not conducted pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 212 3
PETITIONERS: Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr, et. al. (SR 212), as the committee alleges. The inquiry under SR 212 is to look into the
RESPONDENTS: Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, Hon. Wigberto Tañada (Chairman) charges against PCGG filed by stockholders of Oriental Petroleum in connection with
INTERVENOR: Jose S. Sandejas the implementation of Section 26 Article XVIII of the Constitution. Mr. Lopa and the
petitioners are not connected with the government and did their acts as private
FACTS: citizens, hence such a case of alleged graft and corruption is within the jurisdiction,
On 30 July 1987, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the not of the SBRC, but of the courts. In fact, the Sandiganbayan already took
Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG), filed a complaint with jurisdiction of this issue before the SBRC did. The inquiry of the respondent
Sandiganbayan against the petitioners of this case. PCGG allege, among others, committee into the same justiciable controversy already before the Sandiganbayan
that: defendants (petitioners therein) Benjamin “Kokoy” Romualdez and Juliette would be an encroachment of into the exclusive domain of judicial jurisdiction.
Gomez Romualdez, alleged “cronies” of former President Marcos and First Lady
Imelda Romualdez Marcos, engaged in schemes and stratagems to unjustly enrich 4. The Constitution provides the right of an accused of a crime to remain
themselves at the expense of the Filipino people. Among these stratagems are (1) silent; this extends also to respondents in administrative investigation but only if
obtained control of some big business enterprises such as MERALCO, Pilipinas Shell, they partake of the nature of a criminal proceeding. This is not so in this case. BUT
and PCI Bank, (2) manipulated the formation of Erectors Holding Inc, to appear since the court already held that the inquiry is not in aid of legislation, the
viable and borrow more capital, reaching a total of more that P2 billion, (3) petitioners therein cannot be compelled to testify.
collaborated with lawyers (petitioners therein) of the Bengzon Law Offices in
concealing funds and properties, in maneuvering the purported sale of interests in RULING: Petition is GRANTED. The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee is hereby
certain corporations, in misusing the Meralco Pension Fund worth P25 million, and in enjoined from compelling the petitioners and intervenor to testify before it and
cleverly hiding behind the veil of corporate entity. produce evidence at the said inquiry.
On 13 September 1988, Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile delivered a speech before
the Senate on the alleged take-over of SolOil Incorporated by Ricardo Lopa (who
died during the pendency of this case) and called upon the senate to look into
possible violation of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act or RA 3019. The Senate
Committee on Accountability of Public Officers or Blue Ribbon Committee (SBRC)
started its investigation through a hearing on 23 May 1989, but Lopa and Bengzon
declined to testify. The SBRC rejected petitioner Bengzon’s plea and voted to pursue
its investigation. Petitioner claims that the SBRC, in requiring their attendance and
testimony, acted in excess of its jurisdiction and legislative purpose. Hence this

1. WON the court has jurisdiction over this case. YES.
2. WON the SBRC’s inquiry has a valid legislative purpose. NO.
3. WON the sale or disposition of the Romualdez corporations is a purely
private transaction which is beyond the power of the SBRC to inquire into. 3
Senate Resolution wherein the activities of PCGG be investigated on the ground, among
YES. others, that the Sandiganbayan has ordered the PCGG to answered charges filed by three
4. WON the inquiry violates the petitioners’ right to due process. NO. stockholders of Oriental Petroleum that it has adopted a “get-rich quick” scheme.