Professional Documents
Culture Documents
department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and should be
for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions. By such
regulations, of course, the law itself cannot be extended to amend or expand
the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute.
Page 1 of 25
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the Government.
Not to be confused with the quasi-legislative or rule-making power of an
administrative agency is its quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory
power. This is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the
legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards
laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law. The
administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial power when it performs
in a judicial manner an act which is essentially of an executive or
administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner is
incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the
executive or administrative duty entrusted to it. In carrying out their
quasi-judicial functions, the administrative officers or bodies are
required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold
hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from them as basis for
their official action and exercise of discretion in a judicial nature.
ISSUE:
Whether or not it is constitutional to require COMPANIA GENERAL DE
TABACOS DE FILIPINAS to pass a detailed report to the Board of Public
Utility Commissioners of the Philippine Islands?
Whether the power to require the detailed report is strictly legislative, or
administrative, or merely relates to the execution of the law?
HELD:
The order appealed from is set aside and the cause is returned to the Board
of Public Utility Commissioners with instructions to dismiss the proceeding.
RULING:
The section of Act No. 2307 under which the Board of Public Utility
Commissioners relies for its authority, so far as pertinent to the case at hand,
reads as follows:
Sec. 16. The Board shall have power, after hearing, upon notice, by order in
writing, to require every public utility as herein defined: (e) To furnish
annually a detailed report of finances and operations, in such form and
containing such matters as the Board may from time to time by order
prescribe.
Page 2 of 25
out of details in the exercise of the power so conferred. This, we think, is not
a delegation of legislative authority.
In the case at bar the provision complained of does not law "down the
general rules of action under which the commission shall proceed." nor does
it itself prescribe in detail what those reports shall contain. Practically
everything is left to the judgment and discretion of the Board of Public Utility
Commissioners, which is unrestrained as to when it shall act, why it shall act,
how it shall act, to what extent it shall act, or what it shall act upon.
The Legislature, by the provision in question, has abdicated its powers and
functions in favor of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners with respect to
the matters therein referred to, and that such Act is in violation of the Act of
Congress of July 1, 1902. The Legislature, by the provision referred to, has
not asked for the information which the State wants but has authorized and
board to obtain the information which the board wants.
People vs. Vera, November 16, 1937
LAUREL, J.
Cu Unjieng was convicted by the trial court in Manila. He filed for
reconsideration which was elevated to the SC and the SC remanded the
appeal to the lower court for a new trial. While awaiting new trial, he
appealed for probation alleging that the he is innocent of the crime he was
The Supreme Court held that there was no delegation of legislative power, it
said:
The Congress may not delegate its purely legislative powers to a
commission, but, having laid down the general rules of action under which a
commission shall proceed, it may require of that commission the application
of such rules to particular situations and the investigation of facts, with a view
to making orders in a particular matter within the rules laid down by the
Congress.
In section 20 (of the Commerce Act), Congress has authorized the
commission to require annual reports. The act itself prescribes in detail what
those reports shall contain. In other words, Congress has laid down general
rules for the guidance of the Commission, leaving to it merely the carrying
convicted of. Judge Tuason of the Manila CFI directed the appeal to the
Insular Probation Office. The IPO denied the application. However, Judge
Vera upon another request by petitioner allowed the petition to be set for
hearing. The City Prosecutor countered alleging that Vera has no power to
place Cu Unjieng under probation because it is in violation of Sec. 11 Act No.
4221 which provides that the act of Legislature granting provincial boards the
power to provide a system of probation to convicted person. Nowhere in the
law is stated that the law is applicable to a city like Manila because it is only
indicated therein that only provinces are covered. And even if Manila is
covered by the law it is unconstitutional because Sec 1 Art 3 of the
Constitution provides equal protection of laws. The said law provides
Page 3 of 25
Page 4 of 25
Page 5 of 25
Page 6 of 25
the authority under the Constitution to make laws and to alter and repeal
them; the test is the completeness of the statute in all its term and provisions
when it leaves the hands of the legislature. To determine whether or not
there is an undue delegation of legislative power the inquiry must be directed
to the scope and definiteness of the measure enacted. The legislature does
not abdicate its functions when it describes what job must be done, who is to
do it, and what is the scope of his authority.
It bears repeating that the Reflector Law construed together with the Land
Transportation Code. Republic Act No. 4136, of which it is an amendment,
leaves no doubt as to the stress and emphasis on public safety which is the
prime consideration in statutes of this character. There is likewise a
categorical affirmation Of the power of petitioner as Land Transportation
Commissioner to promulgate rules and regulations to give life to and
translate into actuality such fundamental purpose. His power is clear. There
has been no abuse. His Administrative Order No. 2 can easily survive the
attack, far-from-formidable, launched against it by respondent Galo.
Page 7 of 25
blood banks in the country. One of the provisions of the said act was the
phasing out of commercial blood banks within 2 years from its effectivity.
Petitioners, comprising the majority of the Board of Directors of the Philippine
Association of Blood Banks assail the constitutionality of RA 7719 on the
ground among others that it is an improper and unwarranted delegation of
legislative power. According to petitioners, the Act was incomplete when it
was passed by the Legislature, and the latter failed to fix a standard to which
the Secretary of Health must conform in the performance of his functions.
Petitioners also contend that the two-year extension period that may be
granted by the Secretary of Health for the phasing out of commercial blood
banks pursuant to Section 7 of the Act constrained the Secretary to legislate,
thus constituting undue delegation of legislative power.
Issue: WHETHER OR NOT SECTION 7 OF R.A. 7719 CONSTITUTES
UNDUE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER
Held: In testing whether a statute constitutes an undue delegation of
legislative power or not, it is usual to inquire whether the statute was
complete in all its terms and provisions when it left the hands of the
Legislature so that nothing was left to the judgment of the administrative
body or any other appointee or delegate of the Legislature. Except as to
matters of detail that may be left to be filled in by rules and regulations to be
adopted or promulgated by executive officers and administrative boards, an
act of the Legislature, as a general rule, is incomplete and hence invalid if it
does not lay down any rule or definite standard by which the administrative
board may be guided in the exercise of the discretionary powers delegated to
it.
Republic Act No. 7719 or the National Blood Services Act of 1994 is
complete in itself. It is clear from the provisions of the Act that the Legislature
intended primarily to safeguard the health of the people and has mandated
several measures to attain this objective. One of these is the phase out of
commercial blood banks in the country. The law has sufficiently provided a
definite standard for the guidance of the Secretary of Health in carrying out
its provisions, that is, the promotion of public health by providing a safe and
adequate supply of blood through voluntary blood donation. By its provisions,
it has conferred the power and authority to the Secretary of Health as to its
execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law.
The Secretary of Health has been given, under Republic Act No. 7719, broad
powers to execute the provisions of said Act. Specifically, Section 23 of
Administrative Order No. 9 provides that the phase-out period for commercial
blood banks shall be extended for another two years until May 28, 1998
based on the result of a careful study and review of the blood supply and
demand and public safety. This power to ascertain the existence of facts
and conditions upon which the Secretary may effect a period of extension for
said phase-out can be delegated by Congress. The true distinction between
the power to make laws and discretion as to its execution is illustrated by the
fact that the delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves
a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring an authority or discretion as
to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first
cannot be done; to the latter no valid objection can be made.
BELLOSILLO
Administrative agencies possess quasi-legislative or rule
making powers and quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory
powers. Quasi-legislative or rule making power is the power to
make rules and regulations which results in delegated
legislation that is within the confines of the granting statute and
the doctrine of nondelegability and separability of powers.
Interpretative rule, one of the three (3) types of quasi-legislative
or rule making powers of an administrative agency (the other
two being supplementary or detailed legislation, and contingent
legislation), is promulgated by the administrative agency to
interpret, clarify or explain statutory regulations under which the
administrative body operates. The purpose or objective of an
interpretative rule is merely to construe the statute being
administered. It purports to do no more than interpret the
statute. Simply, the rule tries to say what the statute
means. Generally, it refers to no single person or party in
particular but concerns all those belonging to the same class
which may be covered by the said interpretative rule. It need
not be published and neither is a hearing required since it is
issued by the administrative body as an incident of its power to
enforce the law and is intended merely to clarify statutory
provisions for proper observance by the people. In Taada v.
Tuvera,[6] this Court expressly said that "[i]nterpretative
regulations x x x need not be published."
Page 10 of 25
(2)
The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to
fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and
restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export
quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or
imposts within the framework of the national development
program of the Government.[19] (Emphasis supplied)
plaintiffs-appelleesvs.
HON. FLORENCIO MORENO, as Secretary of Public Works
and Communications, and BENJAMINYONZON,
defendants-appellants
Facts:Numerous
residents
of
Macabebe,
Pampanga complained that appellees had blocked the "Sapang
Bulati", a navigable river in the same municipality and asked
that the obstructions be ordered removed, under the provisions
of Republic Act No. 2056. After notice and hearing to the
parties,
the
said
Secretary
of Public
Works
and
Communications found the constructions to be a public
nuisance in navigable waters, and ordered the land owners,
spouses Lovina, to remove five (5) closures of Sapang Bulati.
After receipt of the decision, the appellees filed a petition in CFI
of Manila to restrain the Secretary from enforcing his decision.
The trial court, after due hearing, granted a permanent
injunction. It held that Republic Act No. 2056 is unconstitutional
and that Sapang Bulati is not a navigable river but a private
stream.The appellees contention is that Republic Act No. 2056
is unconstitutional because it invests the Secretary of
PublicWorks and Communications with sweeping, unrestrained,
final and unappealable authority to pass upon the issues of
whether a river or stream is public and navigable, whether a
dam encroaches upon such waters and is constitutive as a
public nuisance, and whether the law applies to the state of
facts, thereby Constituting an alleged unlawful delegation of
judicial power to the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications.
Issue: Whether or not there is an unlawful delegation of judicial
power.
Page 12 of 25
Page 17 of 25
Collector
1956
Facts:
Emilio Hilado filed his income tax return for 1951 with the
treasurer of Bacolod City, claiming a deductible item of
P12,837.65 from his gross income pursuant to General Circular
V-123 issued by the Collector of Internal Revenue. The
Secretary of Finance, through the Collector, issued General
Circular V-139 which revoked and declared void Circular V-123;
and laid down the rule[s] that losses of property which occurred
in World War II from fires, storms, shipwreck or other casualty,
Page 20 of 25
Page 21 of 25
G. Penal Regulations
US vs. Panlilio, December 08, 1914
The orders (rules and regulations) of an administrative officers
or body issued pursuant to a statute have the force of law but
are not penal in nature and a violation of such orders is not a
offense punishable by law unless the statute expressly
penalizes such violation.
FACTS: The accused was convicted of violation of Act 1760
relating to the quarantining of animals suffering from dangerous
communicable or contagious diseases and sentencing him to
pay a fine of P40 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency and to pay the costs of trial. It is alleged that the
accused illegally and without being authorized to do so, and
while quarantine against the said carabaos exposed to
rinderpest was still in effect, permitted and ordered said
carabaous to be taken from the corral in which they were
quarantined and drove them from one place to another. The
accused contends that the facts alleged in the information and
proved on the trial do not constitute a violation of Act No. 1760
ISSUE: Whether accused can be penalized for violation of the
order of the Bureau of Agriculture?
HELD: NO. Nowhere in the law is the violation of the orders of
the Bureau of Agriculture prohibited or made unlawful, nor is
there provided any punishment for a violation of such orders.
Section 8 of Act No. 1760 provides that any person violating any
of the provisions of the Act shall, upon conviction, be punished.
However, the only sections of the Act which prohibit acts and
pronounce them as unlawful are Sections 3, 4 and 5. This case
does not fall within any of them. A violation of the orders of the
Page 22 of 25
Provided, That boats not subject to license under Act No. 4003
and this order may fish within the areas mentioned above
(within 3 kilometers of the shore line of islands and reservations
over which jurisdiction is exercised by naval and military
authorities of the United States, particularly Corregidor) only
upon receiving written permission therefor, which permission
may be granted by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce
upon recommendation of the military and naval authorities of
concerned
Page 25 of 25