Malaga vs. Penachos (Digest) conducting the bidding and award the project.

The defendants filed a motion to lift the

Ma. Elena Malaga, et. al. vs. Manuel R.
restraining order on the ground that the court
Penachos, Jr., et.al.
is prohibited from issuing such order,

GR No. 86995 03 preliminary injunction and preliminary

September 1992 mandatory injunction in government

infrastructure project under Sec. 1 of P.D.
Chartered Institution and GOCC, defined. 1818. They also contended that the
preliminary injunction had become moot and
FACTS: The Iloilo State College of Fisheries
academic as it was served after the bidding
(ISCOF) through its Pre-qualifications, Bids
had been awarded and closed.
and Awards Committee (PBAC) caused the
publication in the November 25, 26 and 28, On January 2, 1989, the trial court lifted the
1988 issues of the Western Visayas Daily an restraining order and denied the petition for
Invitation to Bid for the construction of a Micro preliminary injunction. It declared that the
Laboratory Building at ISCOF. The notice building sought to be constructed at the
announced that the last day for the ISCOF was an infrastructure project of the
submission of pre-qualification requirements government falling within the coverage of the
was on December 2, 1988, and that the bids subject law.
would be received and opened on December
12, 1988 at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. ISSUE: Whether or not ISCOF is a government
instrumentality subject to the provisions of PD
Petitioners Malaga and Najarro, doing 1818?
business under the name of BE Construction
and Best Built Construction, respectively, RULING: The 1987 Administrative Code

submitted their pre-qualification documents at defines a government instrumentality as

two o'clock in the afternoon of December 2, follows:

1988. Petitioner Occeana submitted his own

Instrumentality refers to any agency of the
PRE-C1 on December 5, 1988. All three of
National Government, not integrated within
them were not allowed to participate in the
the department framework, vested with
bidding as their documents were considered
special functions or jurisdiction by law,
late.
endowed with some if not all corporate

On December 12, 1988, the petitioners filed a powers, administering special funds, and

complaint with the Iloilo RTC against the enjoying operational autonomy, usually

officers of PBAC for their refusal without just through a charter. This term includes

cause to accept them resulting to their non- regulatory agencies, chartered institutions,

inclusion in the list of pre-qualified bidders. and government-owned or controlled

They sought to the resetting of the December corporations. (Sec. 2 (5) Introductory

12, 1988 bidding and the acceptance of their Provisions).

documents. They also asked that if the

The same Code describes a chartered
bidding had already been conducted, the
institution thus:
defendants be directed not to award the
project pending resolution of their complaint. Chartered institution - refers to any agency
organized or operating under a special
On the same date, Judge Lebaquin issued a
charter, and vested by law with functions
restraining order prohibiting PBAC from
relating to specific constitutional policies or
objectives. This term includes the state Facts: De la Llana, et al. filed a Petition for
universities and colleges, and the monetary Declaratory Relief and/or for Prohibition
authority of the state. (Sec. 2 (12) (considered by this Court as an action for
Introductory Provisions). prohibition), seeking to enjoin the Minister of
the Budget, the Chairman of the Commission
It is clear from the above definitions that
on Audit, and the Minister of Justice from
ISCOF is a chartered institution and is
taking any action implementing Batas
therefore covered by P.D. 1818.
Pambansa Blg. 129. BP 129 mandates that

There are also indications in its charter that Justices and judges of inferior courts from the

ISCOF is a government instrumentality. First, it Court of Appeals to municipal circuit courts,

was created in pursuance of the integrated except the occupants of the Sandiganbayan

fisheries development policy of the State, a and the Court of Tax Appeals, unless

priority program of the government to effect appointed to the inferior courts established by

the socio-economic life of the nation. Second, such Act, would be considered separated from

the Treasurer of the Republic of the Philippines the judiciary. It is the termination of their

shall also be the ex-officio Treasurer of the incumbency that for petitioners justifies a suit

state college with its accounts and expenses of this character, it being alleged that thereby

to be audited by the Commission on Audit or the security of tenure provision of the

its duly authorized representative. Third, Constitution has been ignored and

heads of bureaus and offices of the National disregarded. Issue: Whether the abolition of

Government are authorized to loan or transfer the existing inferior courts collides with the

to it, upon request of the president of the security of tenure enjoyed by incumbent

state college, such apparatus, equipment, or Justices and judges Under Article X, Section 7

supplies and even the services of such of the Constitution.

employees as can be spared without serious

Held: The Batasang Pambansa is expressly
detriment to public service. Lastly, an
vested with the authority to reorganize
additional amount of P1.5M had been
inferior courts and in the process to abolish
appropriated out of the funds of the National
existing ones. The termination of office of
Treasury and it was also decreed in its charter
their occupants, as a necessary consequence
that the funds and maintenance of the state
of such abolition, is hardly distinguishable
college would henceforth be included in the
from the practical standpoint from removal, a
General Appropriations Law.
power that is now vested in the Supreme

Nevertheless, it does not automatically follow Court. Removal is, of course, to be

that ISCOF is covered by the prohibition in the distinguished from termination by virtue of

said decree as there are irregularities present the abolition of the office. There can be no

surrounding the transaction that justified the tenure to a non existent office. After the

injunction issued as regards to the bidding abolition, there is in law no occupant. In case

and the award of the project (citing the case of removal, there is an office with an occupant

of Datiles vs. Sucaldito). who would thereby lose his position. It is in

that sense that from the standpoint of strict
De la Llana vs. Alba [GR 57883, 12 March law, the question of any impairment of
1982] En Banc, Fernando (J): 2 concur, 1 security of tenure does not arise.
concurs with condition, 7 concur in Nonetheless, for the incumbents of inferior
separate opinions, 1 dissents in separate courts abolished, the effect is one of
opinion separation. As to its effect, no distinction
exists between removal and the abolition of Pambansa Blg. 129 could stand the most
the office. Realistically, it is devoid of rigorous test of constitutionality. Further, it is
significance. He ceases to be a member of the of the essence of constitutionalism to assure
judiciary. In the implementation of the that neither agency is precluded from acting
assailed legislation, therefore, it would be in within the boundaries of its conceded
accordance with accepted principles of competence. That is why it has long been
constitutional construction that as far as well-settled under the constitutional system
incumbent justices and judges are concerned, we have adopted that the Supreme Court
the Supreme Court be consulted and that its cannot, whenever appropriate, avoid the task
view be accorded the fullest consideration. No of reconciliation. It is a cardinal article of faith
fear need be entertained that there is a failure of our constitutional regime that it is the
to accord respect to the basic principle that people who are endowed with rights, to
the Supreme Court does not render advisory secure which a government is instituted.
opinions. No question of law is involved. If Acting as it does through public officials, it has
such were the case, certainly the Supreme to grant them either expressly or impliedly
Court could not have its say prior to the action certain powers. Those they exercise not for
taken by either of the two departments. Even their own benefit but for the body politic. The
then, it could do so but only by way of Constitution does not speak in the language
deciding a case where the matter has been of ambiguity: "A public office is a public trust."
put in issue. Neither is there any intrusion into That is more than a moral adjuration. It is a
who shall be appointed to the vacant legal imperative. The law may vest in a public
positions created by the reorganization. That official certain rights. It does so to enable
remains in the hands of the Executive to them to perform his functions and fulfill his
whom it properly belongs. There is no responsibilities more efficiently. It is from that
departure therefore from the tried and tested standpoint that the security of tenure
ways of judicial power. Rather what is sought provision to assure judicial independence is
to be achieved by this liberal interpretation is to be viewed. There is no reason to assume
to preclude any plausibility to the charge that that the failure of this suit to annul BP 129
in the exercise of the conceded power of would be attended with deleterious
reorganizing the inferior courts, the power of consequences to the administration of justice.
removal of the present incumbents vested in It does not follow that the abolition in good
this Tribunal is ignored or disregarded. The faith of the existing inferior courts except the
challenged Act would thus be free from any Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals
unconstitutional taint, even one not readily and the creation of new ones will result in a
discernible except to those predisposed to judiciary unable or unwilling to discharge with
view it with distrust. Moreover, such a independence its solemn duty or one recreant
construction would be in accordance with the to the trust reposed in it. Nor should there be
basic principle that in the choice of any fear that less than good faith will attend
alternatives between one which would save the exercise of the appointing power vested in
and another which would invalidate a statute, the Executive. It cannot be denied that an
the former is to be preferred. There is an independent and efficient judiciary is
obvious way to do so. something to the credit of any administration.
Well and truly has it been said that the
The principle that the Constitution enters into
fundamental principle of separation of powers
and forms part of every act to avoid any
assumes, and justifiably so, that the three
unconstitutional taint must be applied. Batas
departments are as one in their determination circulation of videograms including, among
to pursue the ideals and aspirations and to others, videotapes, discs, cassettes or any
fulfill the hopes of the sovereign people as technical improvement or variation thereof,
expressed in the Constitution. have greatly prejudiced the operations of
movie houses and theaters. Such unregulated
POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
circulation have caused a sharp decline in

TIO VS. VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD theatrical attendance by at least forty percent

[151 SCRA 208; G.R. No. L-75697; 18 Jun (40%) and a tremendous drop in the collection

1987] of sales, contractor's specific, amusement and

other taxes, thereby resulting in substantial
Facts: The case is a petition filed by petitioner losses estimated at P450 Million annually in
on behalf of videogram operators adversely government revenues.
affected by Presidential Decree No. 1987, An
Act Creating the Videogram Regulatory Board" Videogram(s) establishments collectively earn

with broad powers to regulate and supervise around P600 Million per annum from rentals,

the videogram industry. sales and disposition of videograms, and

these earnings have not been subjected to
A month after the promulgation of the said tax, thereby depriving the Government of
Presidential Decree, the amended the approximately P180 Million in taxes each
National Internal Revenue Code provided that: year. The unregulated activities of videogram
establishments have also affected the viability
"SEC. 134. Video Tapes. There shall be
of the movie industry.
collected on each processed video-tape
cassette, ready for playback, regardless of Issues: (1) Whether or not tax imposed by the
length, an annual tax of five pesos; Provided, DECREE is a valid exercise of police power.
That locally manufactured or imported blank
video tapes shall be subject to sales tax." (2) Whether or nor the DECREE is
constitutional.
"Section 10. Tax on Sale, Lease or Disposition
of Videograms. Notwithstanding any Held: Taxation has been made the implement

provision of law to the contrary, the province of the state's police power. The levy of the

shall collect a tax of thirty percent (30%) of 30% tax is for a public purpose. It was

the purchase price orrental rate, as the case imposed primarily to answer the need for

may be, for every sale, lease or disposition of regulating the video industry, particularly

a videogram containing a reproduction of any because of the rampant film piracy, the

motion picture or audio visual program. flagrant violation of intellectual property

rights, and the proliferation of pornographic
Fifty percent (50%) of the proceeds of the tax video tapes. And while it was also an objective
collected shall accrue to the province, and the of the DECREE to protect the movie industry,
other fifty percent (50%) shall accrue to the the tax remains a valid imposition. We find no
municipality where the tax is collected; clear violation of the Constitution which would
PROVIDED, That in Metropolitan Manila, the justify us in pronouncing Presidential Decree
tax shall be shared equally by the No. 1987 as unconstitutional and void. While
City/Municipality and the Metropolitan Manila the underlying objective of the DECREE is to
Commission. protect the moribund movie industry, there is
no question that public welfare is at bottom of
The rationale behind the tax provision is to
its enactment, considering "the unfair
curb the proliferation and unregulated
competition posed by rampant film piracy; the ISSUE: Whether or not there is undue
erosion of the moral fiber of the viewing delegation to the Governor General.
public brought about by the availability of
HELD: First of, Ang Tang Hos conviction must
unclassified and unreviewed video tapes
be reversed because he committed the act
containing pornographic films and films with
prior to the publication of the EO. Hence, he
brutally violent sequences; and losses in
cannot be ex post facto charged of the crime.
government revenues due to the drop in
Further, one cannot be convicted of a
theatrical attendance, not to mention the fact
violation of a law or of an order issued
that the activities of video establishments are
pursuant to the law when both the law and
virtually untaxed since mere payment of
the order fail to set up an ascertainable
Mayor's permit and municipal license fees are
standard of guilt.
required to engage in business." WHEREFORE,
the instant Petition is hereby dismissed. No Anent the issue of undue delegation, the said
costs. Act wholly fails to provide definitely and
clearly what the standard policy should
United States vs Ang Tang Ho
contain, so that it could be put in use as a
December 18, 2011 uniform policy required to take the place of all
others without the determination of the
Administrative Bodies
insurance commissioner in respect to matters

In July 1919, the Philippine Legislature (during involving the exercise of a legislative

special session) passed and approved Act No. discretion that could not be delegated, and

2868 entitled An Act Penalizing the Monopoly without which the act could not possibly be

and Hoarding of Rice, Palay and Corn. The put in use. The law must be complete in all its

said act, under extraordinary circumstances, terms and provisions when it leaves the

authorizes the Governor General (GG) to issue legislative branch of the government and

the necessary Rules and Regulations in nothing must be left to the judgment of the

regulating the distribution of such products. electors or other appointee or delegate of the

Pursuant to this Act, in August 1919, the GG legislature, so that, in form and substance, it

issued Executive Order No. 53 which was is a law in all its details in presenti, but which

published on August 20, 1919. The said EO may be left to take effect in future, if

fixed the price at which rice should be sold. necessary, upon the ascertainment of any

On the other hand, Ang Tang Ho, a rice dealer, prescribed fact or event.

sold a ganta of rice to Pedro Trinidad at the

price of eighty centavos. The said amount was
way higher than that prescribed by the EO. G.R. No. 74457 March 20, 1987
The sale was done on the 6th of August 1919. RESTITUTO YNOT, petitioner, vs.
On August 8, 1919, he was charged for INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, THE
violation of the said EO. He was found guilty STATION COMMANDER, INTEGRATED
as charged and was sentenced to 5 months NATIONAL POLICE, BAROTAC NUEVO,
imprisonment plus a P500.00 fine. He ILOILO and THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
appealed the sentence countering that there BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY, REGION
is an undue delegation of power to the IV, ILOILO CITY, respondents.
Governor General.
On January 13, 1984, the petitioner
transported six carabaos in a pump boat from
Masbate to Iloilo when the same was measure struck at once and pounced upon
confiscated by the police station commander the petitioner without giving him a chance to
of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo for the violation of be heard, thus denying due process.
E.O. 626-A. A case was filed by the petitioner
MARCOS VS MANGLAPUS
questioning the constitutionality of executive
G.R. No. 88211 September 15 1989
order and the recovery of the carabaos. After
considering the merits of the case, the
FACTS:
confiscation was sustained and the court
Former President Marcos, after his and his
declined to rule on the constitutionality issue.
family spent three year exile in Hawaii, USA,
The petitioner appealed the decision to the
sought to return to the Philippines. The call is
Intermediate Appellate Court but it also
about to request of Marcos family to order the
upheld the ruling of RTC.
respondents to issue travel order to them and
Issue:Is E.O. 626-A unconstitutional? to enjoin the petition of the President's
decision to bar their return to the Philippines.
Ruling:

The Respondent contends that it is a valid ISSUE:

exercise of police power to justify EO 626-A Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers

amending EO 626 in asic rule prohibiting the granted by the Constitution, the President

slaughter of carabaos except under certain may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to

conditions. The supreme court said that The the Philippines.

reasonable connection between the means

employed and the purpose sought to be RULING:

achieved by the questioned measure is Yes

missing the Supreme Court do not see how According to Section 1, Article VII of the 1987

the prohibition of the inter-provincial transport Constitution: "The executive power shall be

of carabaos can prevent their indiscriminate vested in the President of the Philippines."

slaughter, considering that they can be killed The phrase, however, does not define what is

anywhere, with no less difficulty in one meant by executive power although the same

province than in another. Obviously, retaining article tackles on exercises of certain powers

the carabaos in one province will not prevent by the President such as appointing power

their slaughter there, any more than moving during recess of the Congress (S.16), control

them to another province will make it easier of all the executive departments, bureaus,

to kill them there. and offices (Section 17), power to grant

reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and
The Supreme Court found E.O. 626-A remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by
unconstitutional. The executive act defined final judgment (Section 19),treaty making
the prohibition, convicted the petitioner and power (Section 21), borrowing power (Section
immediately imposed punishment, which was 20), budgetary power(Section 22), informing
carried out forthright. Due process was not power (Section 23).
properly observed. In the instant case, the The Constitution may have grant powers to
carabaos were arbitrarily confiscated by the the President, it cannot be said to be limited
police station commander, were returned to only to the specific powers enumerated in the
the petitioner only after he had filed a Constitution. Whatever power inherent in the
complaint for recovery and given a government that is neither legislative nor
supersedeas bond of P12,000.00. The judicial has to be executive.
Isidro Cario vs The Commission on FACTS:The Laguna Lake Development
Human Rights Authority (LLDA) was created through
Republic Act No. 4850. It was granted, inter
October 26, 2011
alia, exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for

204 SCRA 483 Political Law Constitutional the use of all surface water for any project or

Law The Constitutional Commissions activity in or affecting the said region

Commission on Human Rights Adjudicatory including navigation, construction, and

Power of the CHR operation of fishpens, fish enclosures, fish

corrals and the like.
On September 17, 1990, some 800 public
school teachers in Manila did not attend work Then came RA 7160, the Local Government

and decided to stage rallies in order to air Code of 1991. The municipalities in the

grievances. As a result thereof, eight teachers Laguna Lake region interpreted its provisions

were suspended from work for 90 days. The to mean that the newly passed law gave

issue was then investigated, and on municipal governments the exclusive

December 17, 1990, DECS Secretary Isidro jurisdiction to issue fishing privileges within

Cario ordered the dismissal from the service their municipal waters.

of one teacher and the suspension of three

ISSUE:
others. The case was appealed to the
Commission on Human Rights. In the Who should exercise jurisdiction over the
meantime, the Solicitor General filed an Laguna Lake and its environs insofar as the
action for certiorari regarding the case and issuance of permits for fishing privileges is
prohibiting the CHR from continuing the case. concerned, the LLDA or the towns and
Nevertheless, CHR continued trial and issued municipalities comprising the region?
a subpoena to Secretary Cario.
HELD:
ISSUE: Whether or not CHR has the power to
LLDA has jurisdiction over such matters
try and decide and determine certain specific
because the charter of the LLDA prevails over
cases such as the alleged human rights
the Local Government Code of 1991. The said
violation involving civil and political rights.
charter constitutes a special law, while the
HELD: No. The CHR is not competent to try latter is a general law. It is basic in statutory
such case. It has no judicial power. It can only construction that the enactment of a later
investigate all forms of human rights violation legislation which is a general law, cannot be
involving civil and political rights but it cannot construed to have repealed a special law. The
and should not try and decide on the merits special law is to be taken as an exception to
and matters involved therein. The CHR is the general law in the absence of special
hence then barred from proceeding with the circumstances forcing a contrary conclusion.
trial.
In addition, the charter of the LLDA embodies
Laguna Lake Development Authority vs a valid exercise of police power for the
CA purpose of protecting and developing the
Laguna Lake region, as opposed to the Local
Natural Resources and Environmental Laws;
Government Code, which grants powers to
Statutory Construction
municipalities to issue fishing permits for

GR No. 120865-71; Dec. 7 1995 revenue purposes.

Thus it has to be concluded that the charter of November 15, 1985 (Ibid, pp. 31-32), the
the LLDA should prevail over the Local appeal was dismissed on the ground that the
Government Code of 1991 on matters same had been filed out of time. Hence, the
affecting Laguna de Bay. instant petition.

RIZAL EMPIRE INSURANCE GROUP AND/OR Issue: Whether or not NLRC committed a
SERGIO CORPUS, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, TEODORICO jurisdiction in dismissing petitioners appeal
L. RUIZ, as Labor Arbiter and ROGELIO R. on a technicality.
CORIA, respondents. G.R. No. 73140 May 29,
Held: Rule VIII of the Revised Rules of the
1987
National Labor Relations Commission on
Facts: In August, 1977, herein private appeal, provides:
respondent Rogelio R. Coria was hired by
SECTION 1. (a) Appeal. Decision or orders
herein petitioner Rizal Empire Insurance
of a labor Arbiter shall be final and executory
Group as a casual employee with a salary of
unless appealed to the Commission by any or
P10.00 a day. On January 1, 1978, he was
both of the parties within ten (10) calendar
made a regular employee, having been
days from receipt of notice thereof.
appointed as clerk-typist, with a monthly
salary of P300.00. Being a permanent SECTION 6. No extension of period. No
employee, he was furnished a copy of motion or request for extension of the period
petitioner company's "General Information, within which to perfect an appeal shall be
Office Behavior and Other Rules and entertained. The record shows that the
Regulations." In the same year, without employer (petitioner herein) received a copy
change in his position-designation, he was of the decision of the Labor Arbiter on April 1,
transferred to the Claims Department and his 1985. It filed a Motion for Extension of Time to
salary was increased to P450.00 a month. In File Memorandum of Appeal on April 11, 1985
1980, he was transferred to the Underwriting and filed the Memorandum of Appeal on April
Department and his salary was increased to 22, 1985. Pursuant to the "no extension
P580.00 a month plus cost of living allowance, policy" of the National Labor Relations
until he was transferred to the Fire Commission, aforesaid motion for extension of
Department as filing clerk. In July, 1983, he time was denied in its resolution dated
was made an inspector of the Fire Division November 15, 1985 and the appeal was
with a monthly salary of P685.00 plus dismissed for having been filed out of time.
allowances and other benefits.
The Revised Rules of the National Labor
On October 15, 1983, private respondent Relations Commission are clear and explicit
Rogelio R. Coria was dismissed from work, and leave no room for interpretation.
allegedly, on the grounds of tardiness and Moreover, it is an elementary rule in
unexcused absences. Accordingly, he filed a administrative law that administrative
complaint with the Ministry of Labor and regulations and policies enacted by
Employment (MOLE), and in a Decision dated administrative bodies to interpret the law
March 14, 1985 (Record, pp. 80-87), Labor which they are entrusted to enforce, have the
Arbiter Teodorico L. Ruiz reinstated him to his force of law, and are entitled to great respect
position with back wages. Petitioner filed an (Espanol v. Philippine Veterans Administration,
appeal with the National labor Relations 137 SCRA 314 [1985]). Under the above-
Commission (NLRC) but, in a Resolution dated
quoted provisions of the Revised NLRC Rules, without encroaching on the legislative powers
the decision appealed from in this case has of congress.
become final and executory and can no longer
ISSUE:Whether the issuance of A.O. No. 308 is
be subject to appeal.
an unconstitutional usurpation of the power of
Even on the merits, the ruling of the Labor Congress to legislate.
Arbiter appears to be correct; the consistent
RULING:Legislative power is the authority to
promotions in rank and salary of the private
make laws, and to alter and repeal them. The
respondent indicate he must have been a
Constitution has vested this power in the
highly efficient worker, who should be
Congress. The grant of legislative power to
retained despite occasional lapses in
Congress is broad, general, and
punctuality and attendance. Perfection cannot
comprehensive. Any power deemed to be
after all be demanded.
legislative by usage and tradition, is
WHEREFORE, this petition is DISMISSED. necessarily possessed by Congress, unless
the Constitution has lodged it elsewhere.
Blas F. Ople vs Ruben D. Torres, et al.
The executive power, on the other hand, is
293 SCRA 141 / GR No. 127685, 23 July 1998,
vested in the President. It is generally defined
J. Puno
as the power to enforce and administer the

FACTS:Administrative Order No. 308, entitled laws. It is the power of carrying the laws into

"Adoption of a National Computerized practical operation and enforcing their due

Identification Reference System," was issued observance. As head of the Executive

by President Fidel Ramos On December 12, Department, the President is the Chief

1996. Executive. He represents the government as a

whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced
Senator Blas F. Ople filed a petition seeking to by the officials and employees of his
invalidate A.O. No. 308 on several grounds. department. He has control over the
One of them is that: The establishment of a executive department, bureaus and offices.
National Computerized Identification Corollary to the power of control, the
Reference System requires a legislative act. President also has the duty of supervising the
The issuance of A.O. No. 308 by the President enforcement of laws for the maintenance of
is an unconstitutional usurpation of the general peace and public order. Thus, he is
legislative powers of congress. Petitioner granted administrative power over bureaus
claims that A.O. No. 308 is not a mere and offices under his control to enable him to
administrative order but a law and hence, discharge his duties effectively.
beyond the power of the President to issue.
He alleges that A.O. No. 308 establishes a Administrative power is concerned with the

system of identification that is all- work of applying policies and enforcing orders

encompassing in scope, affects the life and as determined by proper governmental

liberty of every Filipino citizen and foreign organs. It enables the President to fix a

resident, and more particularly, violates their uniform standard of administrative efficiency

right to privacy. and check the official conduct of his agents.

To this end, he can issue administrative
On this point, respondents counter-argue that: orders, rules and regulations.
A.O. No. 308 was issued within the executive
and administrative powers of the president
From these precepts, the Court holds that A.O. Petition is granted and A.O. No. 308 is
No. 308 involves a subject that is not declared null and void for being
appropriate to be covered by an unconstitutional.
administrative order.
ECHEGARAY v. SEC. OF JUSTICE
The Administrative Code of 1987 provides:

January 19, 1999 (G.R. No. 132601)

Sec. 3. Administrative Orders. Acts
of the President which relate to
PARTIES:
particular aspects of governmental
Petitioner: LEO ECHEGARAY
operation in pursuance of his duties as
Respondents: SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL
administrative head shall be
promulgated in administrative orders. FACTS:
On January 4, 1999, the SC issued a TRO
An administrative order is an ordinance issued
staying the execution of petitioner Leo
by the President which relates to specific
Echegaray scheduled on that same day. The
aspects in the administrative operation of
public respondent Justice Secretary assailed
government. It must be in harmony with the
the issuance of the TRO arguing that the
law and should be for the sole purpose of
action of the SC not only violated the rule on
implementing the law and carrying out the
finality of judgment but also encroached on
legislative policy. The Court rejects the
the power of the executive to grant reprieve.
argument that A.O. No. 308 implements the
legislative policy of the Administrative Code of
ISSUE: Whether or not the court abused its
1987. The Code is a general law and
discretion in granting a Temporary Restraining
incorporates in a unified document the major
Order (TRO) on the execution of Echegaray
structural, functional and procedural
despite the fact that the finality of judgment
principles of governance and embodies
has already been rendered that by granting
changes in administrative structure and
the TRO, the Honorable Court has in effect
procedures designed to serve the people.
granted reprieve which is an executive
It cannot be simplistically argued that A.O. No. function.
308 merely implements the Administrative
Code of 1987. It establishes for the first time a HELD:No. Respondents cited sec 19, art VII.
National Computerized Identification The provision is simply the source of power of
Reference System. Such a System requires a the President to grant reprieves,
delicate adjustment of various contending commutations, and pardons and remit fines
state policies the primacy of national and forfeitures after conviction by final
security, the extent of privacy interest against judgment. The provision, however, cannot be
dossier-gathering by government, the choice interpreted as denying the power of courts to
of policies, etc. As said administrative order control the enforcement of their decisions
redefines the parameters of some basic rights after their finality.
of our citizenry vis-a-vis the State as well as The powers of the Executive, the Legislative
the line that separates the administrative and the Judiciary to save the life of a death
power of the President to make rules and the convict do not exclude each other for the
legislative power of Congress, it ought to be simple reason that there is no higher right
evident that it deals with a subject that should than the right to life.
be covered by law. For the public respondents therefore to
contend that only the Executive can protect Facts:
the right to life of an accused after his final Sugar Regulatory Administration and Republic
conviction is to violate the principle of co- Planters Bank questioned the decision of the
equal and coordinate powers of the three CA which dismissed the petition of the former
branches of our government. on the ground of lack of capacity to sue.

Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. Issue:

No. 132601, Oct. 12, 1998 WON administrative agency has only such
powers as expressly granted to it by law and
TESTS FOR VALID DELEGATION: those that are necessarily implied in the
exercise thereof?
Although Congress may delegate to another
branch of the Government the power to fill in Held:

the details in the execution, enforcement or The SC ruled in the negative.

administration of a law, it is essential, to In this case, administrative agency is

forestall a violation of the principle of judicially defined as government body

separation of powers, that said law: (a) be charged with the administering and

complete in itself it must set forth therein implementing particular legislation

the policy to be executed, carried out or examples are workers compensation

implemented by the delegate and (b) fix a commissions and the like. The

standard the limits of which are sufficiently term agencyincludes any department,

determinate or determinable to which the independent establishment, commission,

delegate must conform in the performance of administration, authority or bureau.

his functions.

IS IT COMPLETE? KMU vs Garcia Case Digest

Considering the scope and the definiteness of Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center vs Garcia

RA 8177, which changed the mode of carrying 239 SCRA 538 (1994)

out the death penalty, the Court finds that the

Facts: The Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center
law sufficiently describes what job must be
(KMU) assails the constitutionality and validity
done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of
of a memorandum which, among others,
his authority.
authorize provincial bus and jeepney
operators to increase or decrease the
DOES IT HAVE SUFFICIENT STANDARDS?
prescribed transportation fares without
application therefore with the LTFRB, and
RA 8177 likewise provides the standards
without hearing and approval thereof by said
which define the legislative policy, mark its
agency.
limits, map out its boundaries, and specify the
public agencies which will apply it. It indicates Issue: Whether or not the absence of notice
the circumstances under which the legislative and hearing and the delegation of authority in
purpose may be carried out. the increase or decrease of transportation
fares to provincial bus and jeepney operators
Republic v. Court of Appeals
is illegal?

200 SCRA 226

Held: Under Section 16 (c) of the Public
Service Act, as amended, the legislature The authority given by the LTFRB to the
delegated to the defunct Public Service provincial bus operators to set a fare range
Commission the power of fixing the rates of over and above the authorized existing fare is
public services. LTFRB, the existing regulatory illegal and invalid as it is tantamount to an
body today, is likewise vested with the same undue delegation of legislative authority.
under Executive Order 202. The authority Potestas delegate non delegari potest. What
given by the LTFRB to the bus operators to set has been delegated cannot be delegated. This
fares over and above the authorized existing doctrine is based on the ethical principle that
fare is illegal and invalid, as it is tantamount such a delegated power constitutes not only a
to undue delegation of legislative authority. right but a duty to be performed by the
Under the maxim potestas delegate non delegate through the instrumentality of his
delegari potest what has been delegated own judgment and not through the
cannot be delegated. The policy allowing intervening mind of another. A further
provincial bus operators to change and delegation of such power would indeed
increase their fares would result not only to a constitute a negation of the duty in violation
chaotic situation but to an anarchic state of of the trust reposed in the delegate mandated
affairs. This would leave the riding public at to discharge it directly. The policy of allowing
the mercy of transport operators who may the provincial bus operators to change and
increase fares, every hour, every day, every increase their fares at will would result not
month or every year, whenever it pleases only to a chaotic situation but to an anarchic
them or whenever they deem it necessary to state of affairs. This would leave the riding
do so. Furthermore, under the Section 16 (a) public at the mercy of transport operators
of Public Service Act, there must be proper who may increase fares every hour, every
notice and hearing in the fixing of rates, to day, every month or every year, whenever it
arrive at a just and reasonable rate pleases them or whenever they deem it
acceptable to both the public utility and the necessary to do so.
public.
Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. vs. de la
Doctrine of Potestas delegata non Serna228 SCRA 329, Dec. 10, 1993
delegari potest; Exception
Facts: P.D. No. 851 provides for the Thirteen-
Month Pay Law. Under Sec. 1 of said law,
Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center vs. Garcia,
allemployers are required to pay all their
Jr., 239 SCRA 386 (1994)
employees receiving basic salary of not more
than P1,000.00 a month, regardless of the
An administrative body may implement broad
nature of the employment, and such should
policies laid down in a statute by filling in
be paid onDecember 24 of every year.
the details which the Legislature may neither
have time nor competence to provide. The Rules and Regulations Implementing P.D.
However, nowhere under the aforesaid 851 containedprovisions defining 13-month
provisions of law are the regulatory bodies pay and basic salary and the employers
authorized to delegate that power to a exempted fromgiving it and to whom it is
common carrier, a transport operator or other made applicable. Supplementary Rules and
public service. RegulationsImplementing P.D. 851 were
subsequently issued by Minister Ople which
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: inter alia set items of compensation not
included in the computation of 13-month pay. and its implementing guidelines) shall be
(overtime pay, earnings andother excluded in the computation of the 13-month
remunerations which are not part of basic pay.Similar routine inspection was conducted
salary shall not be included in thecomputation in the premises of Phil. Fuji Xerox where itwas
of 13-month pay). Pres. Corazon Aquino found there was underpayment of 13th month
promulgated on August 13, 1985 M.O.No. 28, pay since commissions were not included.In
containing a single provision that modifies their almost identically-worded petitioner,
P.D. 851 by removing the salary ceiling of petitioners, through common counsel,
P1,000.00 a month. More than a year later, attribute grave abuse of discretion to
Revised Guidelines on the Implementation of respondent labor officials Hon. Dionisio dela
the13-month pay law was promulgated by the Serna and Undersecretary Cresenciano B.
then Labor Secretary Franklin Drilon, among Trajano.
otherthings, defined particularly what
remunerative items were and were not
Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. vs. de la
included in theconcept of 13-month pay, and
Serna, 228 SCRA 329
specifically dealt with employees who are paid
a fixed orguaranteed wage plus commission
It is a fundamental rule that implementing
or commissions were included in the
rules cannot add to or detract from the
computation of 13thmonth pay)
provisions of the law it is designed to
A routine inspection was conducted in the implement. Administrative regulations
premises of petitioner. Finding that petitioner adopted under legislative authority by a
had not been including the commissions particular department must be in harmony
earned by its medical representatives in the with the provisions of the law they are
computation of their 1-month pay, a Notice of intended to carry into effect. They cannot
Inspection Result was served on petitioner to widen its scope. An administrative agency
effect restitution or correction of the cannot amend an act of Congress.
underpayment of 13-month pay for the years,
1986 to1988 of Medical representatives. Romulo, Mabana, Buenaventura, Sayoc &
Petitioner wrote the Labor Department de los Angeles vs. Home Development
contesting the Notice of Inspection Results, Mutual Fund, 333 SCRA 777
and expressing the view that the commission
paid to its medical representatives are not to The HDMF cannot, in the exercise of its rule-
be included in the computation of the 13- making power, issue a regulation not
moth pay since the law and its implementing consistent with the law it seeks to apply.
rules speak of REGULAR or BASIC salary and Indeed, administrative issuances must not
therefore exclude all remunerations which are override, supplant or modify the law, but must
not part of the REGULAR salary. Regional Dir. remain consistent with the law they intend to
Luna Piezas issued anorder for the payment of carry out. Only Congress can repeal or amend
underpaid 13-month pay for the years 1986, the law.
1987 and 1988. Amotion for reconsideration
was filed and the then Acting labor Secretary A department zeal may not be permitted to
Dionisio de la Serna affirmed the order with outrun the authority conferred by the statute.
modification that the sales commission
PHIL. ASSOC. SERVICE EXPORTERS INC.
earned of medical representatives before
vs TORRES
August 13, 1989 (effectivity date of MO 28
212 SCRA 298, G.R. No. 101279, August 6, implication conferred" upon the respondents
1992 (People vs. Maceren, 79 SCRA 450).

Facts: The power to "restrict and regulate conferred

by Article 36 of the Labor Code involves a
As a result of published stories regarding the
grant of police power (City of Naga vs. Court
abuses suffered by Filipino housemaids
of Appeals, 24 SCRA 898). To "restrict" means
employed in Hong Kong, then DOLE Secretary
"to confine, limit or stop" and whereas the
Ruben Torres issued Department Order No. 16,
power to "regulate" means "the power to
Series of 1991, temporarily suspending the
protect, foster, promote, preserve, and control
recruitment by private employment agencies
with due regard for the interests, first and
of Filipino domestic helpers going to Hong
foremost, of the public, then of the utility and
Kong. The DOLE itself, through the POEA took
of its patrons" (Philippine Communications
over the business of deploying such Hong
Satellite Corporation vs. Alcuaz, 180 SCRA
Kong-bound workers. The POEA Administrator
218).
also issued Memorandum Circular No. 37,
Series of 1991, on the processing of The questioned circulars are therefore a valid
employment contracts of domestic workers exercise of the police power as delegated to
for Hong Kong. the executive branch of Government.
Nevertheless, they are legally invalid,
PASEI filed a petition for prohibition to annul
defective and unenforceable for lack of power
the aforementioned DOLE and POEA circulars
publication and filing in the Office of the
and to prohibit their implementation on the
National Administrative Register as required in
grounds that DOLE and POEA acted with
Article 2 of the Civil Code, Article 5 of the
grave abuse of discretion and/or in excess of
Labor Code and Sections 3(1) and 4, Chapter
their rule-making authority in issuing said
2, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987
circulars; that the assailed DOLE and POEA
which provide:
circulars are contrary to the Constitution, are
unreasonable, unfair and oppressive; and that Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen (15)
the requirements of publication and filing with days following the completion of their
the Office of the National Administrative publication in the Official Gazatte, unless it is
Register were not complied with. otherwise provided. . . . (Civil Code.)

Issue:Whether or not the questioned circulars Art. 5.Rules and Regulations

are a valid exercise of the police power as
. The Department of Labor and other
delegated to the executive branch of
government agencies charged with the
Government.
administration and enforcement of this Code
Held: or any of its parts shall promulgate the
necessary implementing rules and
Yes. It is noteworthy that the assailed circulars
regulations. Such rules and regulations shall
do not prohibit the petitioner from engaging in
become effective fifteen (15) days after
the recruitment and deployment of Filipino
announcement of their adoption in
landbased workers for overseas employment.
newspapers of general circulation. (Emphasis
A careful reading of the challenged
supplied, Labor Code, as amended.)
administrative issuances discloses that the
same fall within the "administrative and Sec. 3.Filing
policing powers expressly or by necessary
(1)Every agency shall file with the University Yutangco, were conducted and was held in
of the Philippines Law Center, three (3) favor of petitioner.
certified copies of every rule adopted by it .
Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this Days later, the Economic Intelligence and
Code which are not filed within three (3) Investigation Board (EIIB) filed a Motion for
months shall not thereafter be the basis of Reconsideration , for "further hearing on the
any sanction against any party or persons. merits", based on evidence that the seized
(Emphasis supplied, Chapter 2, Book VII of the sugar was of foreign origin. The case was
Administrative Code of 1987.) indorsed to Customs Commisioner, Mison.
Petitioner opposed the motion for being
Sec. 4.Effectivity
merely pro forma and/or that the same was, in

In addition to other rule-making requirements effect, a motion for new trial. Petitioner also

provided by law not inconsistent with this applied for and secured a writ of replevin from

Book, each rule shall become effective fifteen the RTC.

(15) days from the date of filing as above

provided
On July 1988, Mison, reconsidered the June

unless a different date is fixed by law, or 1988 decision, now in favor of the

specified in the rule in cases of imminent government.

danger to public health, safety and welfare,

the existence of which must be expressed in a Petitioner now contendsthat the June 1988

statement accompanying the rule. The decision became final and executory, in view

agency shall take appropriate measures to of the absence of an appeal therefrom by the

make emergency rules known to persons who "aggrieved party" (himself) within the 15-day

may be affected by them. (Emphasis supplied, period provided for in Sec. 2313 of the Tariff

Chapter 2, Book VII of the Administrative Code and Customs Code

of 1987.
.

YAOKASIN V. COMMISSIONER OF The Customs argue that since the June 1988

CUSTOMS (1989) decision is adverse to the government, the

case should go to Mison on automatic review,
FACTS: pursuant to Memorandum Order No. 20-87.
ISSUE: Whether the June 1983 decision
On May 1988, the Philippine Coast Guard became final and executory.
seized sacks of refined sugar, which were RULING:
being unloaded from the M/V Tacloban, and
turned them over to the custody of the NO. The memorandum order implements
Bureau of Customs. Section 12 of the Integrated Reorganization
Plan (IRP) which provides that where a
Petitioner presented a sales invoice to prove decision of a Collector of Customs in such
that the sugar was purchased locally. The seizure and protest cases is adverse to the
District Collector of Customs, Yutangco, government, it shall automatically be
however, proceeded with the seizure of the reviewed by the Commissioner of Customs
bags of sugar. which, if affirmed, shall automatically be
elevated for final review by the Secretary of
On June 1988, show-cause hearings with Finance.
 therefore need not be published in the Official
Section 12 of the IRP applies in this case. Gazette.
Section 12 of the IRP and Section 2313 of the
ISSUE:
Tariff and Customs Code do not conflict with
each other. They may co-exist. Section 2313 Whether or not administrative issuances are
of the Code provides for the procedure for the considered laws which require publication in
review of the decision of a collector in seizure the
and protest cases upon appeal by the
Official Gazette for their effectivity.
aggrieved party. On the other hand, Section
12 of the IRP refers to the general procedure RULING:
in appeals in seizure and protest cases with a
It depends. Article 2 of the Civil Code, which
special proviso on automatic review when the
requires laws to be published in the Official
collector's decision is adverse to the
Gazette, does not apply to CMO No. 20-87
government. Section 2313 and the proviso in
which is only an administrative order of the
Section 12, although they both relate to the
Commissioner of Customs addressed to his
review of seizure and protest cases, refer to
subordinates, the customs
two different situations when the collector's
collectors.Commonwealth Act No. 638 (an Act
decision is adverse to the importer or owner
to Provide for the Uniform Publication and
of the goods, and when the decision is
Distribution of the Official Gazette)
adverse to the government.
enumerates what shall be published in the

ISSUE: Official Gazette besides legislative acts and

Is the enforcement of the Sec. 12 of the resolutions of a public nature of the Congress

Integrated Reorganization Plan and thereafter of the Philippines. Executive and

CMO No. 20-87 valid when these laws have administrative orders and proclamations, shall

not been published in the Official Gazette? also be published in the Official Gazette,
except such as have no general applicability.
CMO No. 20-87 requiring collectors of customs
DECISION:
to comply strictly with Section 12 of the Plan,
Yes. CMO and Sec 12 of the Integrated
is an issuance which is addressed only to
Reorganization Plan is enforceable. The
particular persons or a class of persons (the
requirement of Art. 2 of the Civil Code does
customs collectors). It need not be published,
not apply to CMO No. 20-87 since it is only an
on the assumption that it has been
administrative order of the Commissioner of
circularized to all concerned
Customs to his subordinates, namely the
customs collectors. Also in the
Commonwealth Act No. 638, which
ISSUE: Whether or not commissions are
enumerates what shall be published in the
included in the computation of 13-month pay
Official Gazette, states that administrative
orders and proclamations shall be published
except when these have no general
applicability. CMO No. 20-87 requiring
collectors of customs to comply strictly with
Section 12 of the Plan, is an issuance which is
addressed only to particular persons or a class
of persons, hence no general applicability
HELD: NO. Contrary to respondents salary for this is what the employee receives
contention, M.O No. 28 did not repeal, for a standard work period. Commissions are
supersede or abrogate P.D. 851. As may be given for extra efforts exerted in
gleaned from the language of MO No. 28, it consummating sales of other related
merely modified Section 1 of the decree by transactions. They are, as such, additional
removing the P 1,000.00 salary ceiling. The pay, which the SC has made clear do not from
concept of 13th Month pay as envisioned, part of the basic salary. Moreover, the
defined and implemented under P.D. 851 Supreme Court said that, including
remained unaltered, and while entitlement to commissions in the computation of the
said benefit was no longer limited to 13thmonth pay, the second paragraph of
employees receiving a monthly basic salary of Section 5(a) of the Revised Guidelines on the
not more than P 1,000.00 said benefit was, Implementation of the 13th Month Pay Law
and still is, to be computed on the basic unduly expanded the concept of "basic
salary of the employee-recipient as provided salary" asdefined in P.D. 851. It is a
under P.D. 851. Thus, the interpretation given fundamental rule that implementing rules
tothe term basic salary was defined in PD cannot add to or detractfrom the provisions of
851 applies equally to basic salary under the law it is designed to implement.
M.O. No.28. The term basic salary is to be Administrative regulations adoptedunder
understood in its common, generally accepted legislative authority by a particular
meaning,i.e., as a rate of pay for a standard department must be in harmony with the
work period exclusive of such additional provisionsof the law they are intended to
payments as bonuses and overtime. In carry into effect. They cannot widen its scope.
remunerative schemes consists of a fixed or Anadministrative agency cannot amend an
guaranteed wage plus commission, the fixed act of Congress.
or guaranteed wage is patently the basic