Art 6 Digests

of 5
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
  G.R. No. 111230 September 30, 1994 ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF MORONG, BATAAN, respondents. FACTS:  On May 24, 1993, petitioners filed a petition with the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong to annul Pambansang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993 which includes the Municipaloty of Morong as part of the Subic Special Economic Zone in accord with the RA No. 7227. The municipality did not take any action on the petition within 30 days after its submission; so, they resorted to their power of initiative under the Local Government Code of 1991. They solicited the required number of signatures to repeal the said resolution. However, the Vice Mayor, Hon. Edilberto de Leon, and the Presiding Office of the Sangguniang Bayan ng Morong wrote a letter dated June 11, 1993 to deny the petition for local initiative and/or referendum. On July 6, 1993, the Comelec denied the petition for local initiative because its subject is “merely a resolution and not an ordinan ce.”   ISSUE:  w/n the Pambansang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993 is the proper subject of an initiative? Sub-issue: w/n the decision of the Comelec to deny the petition be set aside? HELD:  The petition is granted and the decision of the Comelec on July 6, 1993 is annulled and set aside. RULING:  The 1987 Constitution installed back the power to the people regarding legislation because of the event in February 1986. The new Constitution became “less trusting of public officials.”  Through initiative, the people were given the power to amend the Constitution under Sec. 2 Art. 17 which provides “amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least 12% of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the registered voter therein.”  The Comelec was also empowered to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an initiative and referendum. On Aug. 4, 1989, the Congress approved RA No. 6735 entitled “An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum and Appropriating Funds Therefor.”   YES. Sec. 32 of Art. 6 provides “ the Congress shall provide for a system of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local legislative body. Under Sec. 32(a) of RA No. 6735 it provided the 3 systems of initiative, namely: 1. Initiative on the Constitution  –  petition to amend the Constitution 2. Initiative on statutes  –  petition proposing to enact a national legislation 3. Initiative on local legislation  –  petition proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, or barangay law, resolution or ordinance Under its Sec.16(a), it provided the limitations on local initiatives, which is “the power of local initiative shall not be exercised more than once a year.”   G.R. No. 76633 October 18, 1988 EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION (POEA), MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, HEARING OFFICER ABDUL BASAR and KATHLEEN D. SACO, respondents. FACTS: Vitaliano Saco, the Chief Officer of a ship, was killed in an accident in Tokyo, Japan. The widow filed a complaint for damages against the Eastern Shipping Lines with the POEA, based on Memorandum Circular No. 2 issued by the latter which stipulated death benefits and burial expenses for the family of an overseas worker. Eastern Shipping Lines questioned the validity of the memorandum circular. Nevertheless, the POEA assumed jurisdiction and decided the case. ISSUE:   o   W/N the issuance of Memorandum Circular No. 2 is a violation of non-delegation of powers   HELD: SC held that there was valid delegation of powers. In questioning the validity of the memorandum circular, Eastern Shipping Lines contended that POEA was given no authority to promulgate the regulation, and even with such authorization, the regulation represents an exercise of  legislative discretion which, under the principle, is not subject to delegation. GENERAL RULE: Non-delegation of powers; exception   It is true that legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be delegated. What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may be enforced, not what the law shall be. The ascertainment of the latter subject is a prerogative of the legislature. This prerogative cannot be abdicated or surrendered by the legislature to the delegate. Two Tests of Valid Delegation of Legislative Power   There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative power, viz, the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. Under the first test, the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate the only thing he will have to do is to enforce it. Under the sufficient standard test, there must be adequate guidelines or stations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority and prevent the delegation from 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 legislative. Xxx The delegation of legislative power has become the rule and its non-delegation the exception. Rationale for Delegation of Legislative Power   The reason is the increasing complexity of the task of government and the growing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the myriad problems demanding its attention. The growth of society has ramified its activities and created peculiar and sophisticated problems that the legislature cannot be expected to reasonably comprehend. Specialization even in legislation has become necessary. Too many of the problems attendant upon present-day undertakings, the legislature may not have the competence to provide the required direct and efficacious, not to say, specific solutions. These solutions may, however, be expected from its delegates, who are supposed to be experts in the particular fields. Power of Subordinate Legislation   The reasons given above for the delegation of legislative powers in general are particularly applicable to administrative bodies. With the proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant peculiar problems, the national legislature has found it more and more necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the authority to issue rules to carry out the general provisions of the statute. This is called the “power of subordinate legislation.”  With this power, administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid down in statute by “filling in” the details which the Congress may not have the opportunity or competence to provide. Memorandum Circular No. 2 is one such administrative regulation. G.R. No. 78164 July 31, 1987   TERESITA TABLARIN, MA, LUZ CIRIACO, MA NIMFA B. ROVIRA, EVANGELINA S. LABAO, in their behalf and in behalf of applicants for admission into the Medical Colleges during the school year 1987-88 and future years who have not taken or successfully hurdled tile National Medical Admission Test (NMAT). petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE ANGELINA S. GUTIERREZ, Presiding Judge of Branch XXXVII of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region with seat at Manila, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY LOURDES QUISUMBING, in her capacity as Chairman of the BOARD OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, and THE CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT (CEM),  respondents. Facts:  The petitioners sought admission into colleges or schools of medicine for the school year 1987-1988. However, the petitioners either did not take or did not successfully take the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) required by the Board of Medical Education, one of the public respondents, and administered by the private respondent, the Center for Educational Measurement (CEM). On 5 March 1987, the petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Prohibition with a prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The petitioners sought to enjoin the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports, the Board of Medical Education and the Center for Educational Measurement from enforcing Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act No. 2382, as amended, and MECS Order No. 52, series of 1985, dated 23 August 1985 and from requiring the taking and passing of the NMAT as a condition for securing certificates of eligibility for admission, from proceeding with accepting applications for taking the NMAT and from administering the NMAT as scheduled on 26 April 1987 and in the future. After hearing on the petition for issuance of preliminary injunction, the trial court denied said petition. The NMAT was conducted and administered as previously scheduled.  Issue:  whether Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act No. 2382, as amended, offend against the constitutional principle which forbids the undue delegation of legislative power, by failing to establish the necessary standard to be followed by the delegate, the Board of Medical Education Held:  The standards set for subordinate legislation in the exercise of rule making authority by an administrative agency like the Board of Medical Education are necessarily broad and highly abstract. The standard may be either expressed or implied. If the former, the non-delegation objection is easily met. The standard though does not have to be spelled out specifically. It could be implied from the policy and purpose of the act considered as a whole. In the Reflector Law, clearly the legislative objective is public safety.  In this case, the necessary standards are set forth in Section 1 of the 1959 Medical Act: “the standardization and regulation of medical education” and in Section 5 (a) and 7 of the same Act, the body of the statute itself, and that these considered together are sufficient compliance with the requirements of the non-delegation principle. G.R. No. L-58184 October 30, 1981 FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, and THE PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, respondents. FACTS: On September 14, 1981, there was a notice of strike with the Ministry of Labor for unfair labor practices stating the following grounds 1) Unilateral and arbitrary implementation of a Code of Conduct to the detriment of the interest of our members; 2) Illegal terminations and suspensions of our officers and members as a result of the implementation of said Code of Conduct; and 3) Unconfirmation of call sick leaves and its automatic treatment as Absence Without Official Leave of Absence (AWOL) with corresponding suspensions, in violation of our Collective Bargaining Agreement. Several conciliation meetings called by the Ministry followed, with petitioner manifesting its willingness to have a revised Code of Conduct that would be fair to all concerned but with a plea that in the meanwhile the Code of Conduct being imposed be suspended a position that failed to meet the approval of private respondent. Subsequently, respondent Ministry, certified the labor dispute to the National Labor Relations Commission for compulsory arbitration and enjoined any strike at the private respondent's establishment. The labor dispute was set for hearing by respondent National Labor Relations Commission. Private respondent, following the lead of petitioner labor union, explained its side on the controversy regarding the Code of Conduct, the provisions of which as alleged in the petition were quite harsh, resulting in what it deemed indefinite preventive suspension apparently the principal cause of the labor dispute. It is now the submission of petitioner labor union Free Telephone Workers Union that Batas Pambansa Blg. 130 in so far as it amends article 264 of the Labor Code delegating to the Honorable Minister of Labor and Employment the power and discretion to assume jurisdiction and/or certify strikes for compulsory arbitration to the National Labor Relations Commission, and in effect make or unmake the law on free collective bargaining, is an undue delegation of legislative powers. There is likewise the assertion that such conferment of authority may also ran contrary to the assurance of the State to the workers' right to self-organization and collective bargaining. ISSUE: Whether BP 130 amending Art. 264 of the Labor Code is an undue delegation of legislative powers? HELD: Batas Pambansa Blg. 130 insofar as it empowers the Minister of Labor to assume jurisdiction over labor disputes causing or likely to cause strikes or lockouts adversely affecting the national interest and thereafter decide it or certify the same the National Labor Relations Commission is not on its face unconstitutional for being violative of the doctrine of non-delegation of legislative power. To repeat, there is no ruling on the question of whether or not it has been unconstitutionally applied in this case, for being repugnant to the regime of self-organization and free collective bargaining, as on the facts alleged, disputed by private respondent, the matter is not ripe for judicial determination. It must be stressed anew, however, that the power of compulsory arbitration, while allowable under the Constitution and quite understandable in labor disputes affected with a national interest, to be free from the taint of unconstitutionality, must be exercised in accordance with the constitutional mandate of protection to labor. The arbiter then is called upon to take due care that in the decision to be reached, there is no violation of the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work. It is of course manifest that there is such unconstitutional application if a law fair on its face and impartial in appearance is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand. It does not even have to go that far. An instance of unconstitutional application would be discernible if what is ordained by the fundamental law, the protection of labor, is ignored or disregarded. WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit. During the pendency of the compulsory arbitration proceedings, both petitioner labor union and private  respondent are enjoined to good faith compliance with the provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 130. No costs. G.R. No. 82849 August 2, 1989 CEBU OXYGEN & ACETYLENE CO., INC. (COACO) petitioner, vs. SECRETARY FRANKLIN M. DRILON OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR CANDIDO CUMBA OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 7 AND CEBU OXYGEN-ACETYLENE & CENTRAL VISAYAS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (COACVEA) respondents. FACTS : Petitioner entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with its employees, increasing the salaries by P200 for the years 1986 and 1987 and P300 for 1989. It was stipulated in the contract that if ever there were legislations passed that would increase salaries greater than the one in the CBA, the company would pay the difference. RA 6640 was passed which directs minimum daily wage to be increased by P10 per day. The Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Drilon promulgated Implementing Rules and Regulations for RA 6640, Section 8 of which provides that increases by companies will not be credited as compliance if these weren’t stated in the CBA in anticipation of RA 6640. The petitioners argue that the provision is null and void on the ground that it unduly expands the provisions of the said law. ISSUE : Whether or not an Implementing Order of the Secretary of Labor and Employment (DOLE) can provide for a prohibition not contemplated by the law it seeks to implement. HELD : No. Implementing rules cannot provide for a prohibition not contemplated by the law. Administrative regulations must harmonize with the law and not unduly expand it. An administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Order of the respondent Assistant Regional Director dated April 7, 1988 is modified in that petitioner is directed to pay its 208 employees so entitled the amount of P62.00 each as salary differential for two (2) months and P31.00 as 13th month pay differential in full compliance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 6640. Section 8 of the rules implementing Republic 6640, is hereby declared null and void in so far as it excludes the anniversary wage increases negotiated under collective bargaining agreements from being credited to the wage increase provided for under Republic Act No. 6440. This decision is immediately executory. G.R. No. 124360 November 5, 1997 FRANCISCO S. TATAD, petitioner, vs. THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, respondents. Facts:  In December 9, 1992, the Department of Energy was created (through the enactment of R.A. No. 7638) to control energy-related government activities. In March 1996, R.A. No. 8180 (Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act of 1996) was enacted in pursuance to the deregulation of the power and energy thrust under R.A. 7638. Under the R.A. No. 8180, any person or entity was allowed to import and market crude oil and petroleum products, and to lease or own and operate refineries and other downstream oil facilities. Petitioner Francisco Tatad questions the constitutionality of Section 5 of R.A. No. 8180 since the imposition of tarrif violates the equal protection clause and bars the entry of others in the oil industry business. Also, the inclusion of tarrif violates Section 26 (1) of Article VI of the constitution requiring every law to have only one subject which shall be expressed in its title. In a separate petition (G.R. 127867), petitioners Edcel Lagman, Joker Arroyo, Enrique Garcia, Wigberto Tanada, Flag Human Rights Foundation, Inc., Freedom from Debt Coalition and Sanlakas argued that R.A. No. 8180, specifically Section 15 is unconstitutional because it: (1) gives undue delegation of legislative power to the President and the Secretary of Energy by not providing a determinate or determinable standard to guide the Executive Branch in determining when to implement the full deregulation of the downstream oil industry; (2) Executive Order No. 392, an order declaring the implementation of the full deregulation of the downstream oil industry, is arbitrary and unreasonable because it was enacted due to the alleged depletion of the Oil Price Stabilization Plan- a condition not found in R.A. No. 8180; and (3) Section 15 of R.A. No. 8180 and E.O. No. 392 allow the formation of a de facto cartel among Petron, Caltex and Shell in violation of constitutional prohibition against monopolies, combinations in restraint of trade and unfair competition. Respondents, on the other hand, declares the petitions not  justiciable (cannot be settled by the court) and that the petitioners have no locus standi since they did not sustain direct injury as a result of the implementation of R.A. No. 8180. Issues:  1. Whether or not R.A. no. 8180 is unconstitutional. 2. Whether or not E. O. no. 392 is arbitrary and unreasonable. 3. Whether or not Section 5 of R.A. no. 8180 violates Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution. 4. Whether or not Section 15 of R.A. no. 8180 constitutes undue delegation of legislative power. Held:  1. No, R.A. No. 8180 is unconstitutional. It violated Section 19, Article XII of the Constitution prohibiting monopolies, combinations in restraint of trade and unfair competition.
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!