You are on page 1of 15

1. The Unites States vs.

Ancieto Barrias,
G.R. No. 4349, September 24, 1908
In 1904, Congress, through a law (Act No. 1136), authorized the
Collector of Customs to regulate the business of lighterage. Lighterage
is a business involving the shipping of goods by use of lighters or
cascos (small ships/boats). The said law also provides that the
Collector may promulgate such rules to implement Act No. 1136.
Further, Act No. 1136 provides that in case a fine is to be imposed, it
should not exceed one hundred dollars. Pursuant to this, the Collector
of Customs promulgated Circular No. 397.
Meanwhile, Aniceto Barrias was caught navigating the Pasig River
using a lighter which is manually powered by bamboo poles (sagwan).
Such is a violation of Circular No. 397 because under said Circular,
only steam powered ships should be allowed to navigate the Pasig
River. However, in the information against Barrias, it was alleged that
the imposable penalty against him should be a fine not exceeding
P500.00 at the discretion of the court – this was pursuant to Circular
No. 397 which provides:
For the violation of any part of the foregoing regulations, the persons
offending shall be liable to a fine of not less than P5 and not more
than P500, in the discretion of the court.
Barrias now challenged the validity of such provision of the Circular
as it is entirely different from the penal provision of Act. No. 1136
which only provided a penalty of not exceeding $100.00 (Note at that
time the peso-dollar exchange was more or less equal).
Whether or not Circular No. 397 of the Collector of Customs, imposing
a penalty higher than that provided by Congress in Act No. 1136, is in
accordance with the delegated legislative power.
No. The Commissioner cannot impose a range of penalty different from
that specified by Congress. If the Collector is allowed to do so, then in
effect, it is as if he is being delegated the power to legislate penalties.

6mos and 27days of prision mayor. Where the sovereign power of the State has located the authority. Final judgment was entered. L-45685. Judge ad interim of the Court of First Instance of Manila. then remanded the case to the court of origin for execution of judgment. No.One of the settled maxims in constitutional law is. . and patriotism and of any other body for those to which alone the people have seen fit to confide this sovereign trust. November 16. Cu Unjieng filed an application for probation before the trial court. and MARIANO CU UNJIENG.R. G. The Collector cannot exercise a power exclusively lodged in Congress.00. 1937 A. The power to whose judgment. only by the constitutional agency alone that the laws must be made until the constitution itself is changed. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and the HONG KONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION (HSBC) v. Barrias should be penalized in accordance to the penalty being imposed by Act No. the Supreme Court determined that the proper fine is $25. under the provisions of Act 4221 of the defunct Philippine Legislature. This doctrine is based on the ethical principle that such a delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate by the instrumentality of his own judgment acting immediately upon the matter of legislation and not through the intervening mind of another. wisdom. nor can it substitutes the judgment. JOSE VERA. and patriotism this high prerogative has been entrusted can not relieve itself of the responsibility by choosing other agencies upon which the power shall be developed. In this case. 1136. On appeal. Hence. wisdom. 2. FACTS: Mairano Cu Unjieng was convicted by the CFI of Manila of the crime filed against him. that the power conferred upon the legislature to make laws cannot be delegated by that department to anybody or authority. there it must remain. He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 5yrs and 6mos of prision correccional to 7yrs. the SC denied Cu Unjieng’s petition and likewise his petition for leave to file a second alternative motion for reconsideration or new trial.

questioned the authority of Judge Vera to hold such hearings and assailed the constitutionality of the Probation Act since it violates the equal protection of laws and gives unlawful and improper delegation of legislative power to the provincial boards.He stated that he is innocent of the crime. the private complainant. CFI Manila Judge Jose Vera set the petition for hearing for probation. he has no criminal record. Hence this petition in the Supreme Court. HSBC. and that he would observe good conduct in the future. .

it can be broadly asserted that the rationale revolves around the presence or absence of a standard or rule of action – or the sufficiency thereof – in the statute. As a rule.” ISSUE: Whether or not the provision in question unconstitutional delegation of legislative power constitutes an HELD: Yes. FACTS: Mariano Cu Unjieng applied for probation under the provisions of Act No. The challenged provision of the said Act was Section 11 thereof which reads: “This Act shall apply only in those provinces in which the respective provincial boards have provided for the salary of a probation officer at rates not lower than those now provided for provincial fiscals. otherwise known as “The Probation Act” upon the finality of the Judgment of his conviction. Said probation officer shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice and shall be subject to the direction of the Probation Office. the legislature. to aid the delegate in exercising the granted discretion. An examination of a variety of cases on delegation of power to administrative bodies will show that the ratio decidendi is at variance but. 4421. 4421 is unconstitutional for being an undue delegation of legislative power. does not seemingly. Original action for certiorari and prohibition was filed by HSBC to prohibit the Court of First Instance of Manila from taking further action in entertaining the aforementioned application for probation on the ground that Act No. By Section 11 of the Act. on its own authority extend the benefits of . fix and impose upon the provincial boards any standard or guide in the exercise of their discretionary power. The Probation Act does not. an act of the legislature is incomplete and hence invalid if it does not lay down any rule or definite standard by which the administrative officer or board may be guided in the exercise of the discretionary powers delegated to it. the provincial boards may be regarded as administrative bodies endowed with power to determine when the Act should take effect in their respective provinces. For the purpose of the Probation Act. by the force of any of its provisions.B.

It is true that laws may be made effective on certain contingencies. The legislature may delegate a power not legislative which it may itself rightfully exercise. whether the Probation Law shall apply to their provinces or not at all. If the provincial board does not wish to have the Act applied in its province. to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. and conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution. the legislature has not made the operation of the Prohibition Act contingent upon specified facts or conditions to be ascertained by the provincial board. It should be observed that in the case at bar we are not concerned with the simple transference of details of execution or the promulgation by executive or administrative officials of rules and regulations to carry into effect the provisions of a law. says Judge Ranney . The first cannot be done. to the SC justices’ minds. The true distinctions. The power to ascertain facts is such a power which may be delegated. The legislature. But. This. the entire operation or non- .the Probation Act to the provinces but in reality leaves the entire matter for the various provincial boards to determine. then may provide that a law shall take effect upon the happening of future specified contingencies leaving to some other person or body the power to determine when the specified contingencies has arisen. as we have already said. In other words. The plain language of the Act is not susceptible of any other interpretation. all that it has to do is to decline to appropriate the needed amount for the salary of a probation officer. The applicability and application of the Probation Act are entirely placed in the hands of the provincial boards. to the latter no valid objection can be made. in the case at bar. There is nothing essentially legislative in ascertaining the existence of facts or conditions as the basis of the taking into effect of a law. which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be. the provincial boards of the various provinces are to determine for themselves. It leaves. is a virtual surrender of legislative power to the provincial boards. is between the delegation of power to make the law. as by proclamation of the executive or the adoption by the people of a particular community.

again. 797 and Memorandum Circular No. 3. It may take into consideration certain facts or conditions. we reiterate. It is bound by no rule – limited by no principle of expediency announced by the legislature. was killed in an accident in Tokyo. Eastern Shipping Lines questioned the validity of Memorandum Circular No. Inc. The widow filed a complaint for damages against the Eastern Shipping Lines with the POEA.R. 21 itself as violative of the principle of non-delegation of legislative power. it may not. The fact that at some future time – we cannot say when – the provincial boards may appropriate funds for the salaries of probation officers and thus put the law into operation in the various provinces will not save the statute. A provincial board need not investigate conditions or find any fact. Eastern Shipping Lines. 1988 FACTS: Vitaliano Saco. under the principle. 2 issued by the latter. Japan. The time of its taking into effect. It contends that no authority had been given the POEA to promulgate the said regulation. based on Executive Order No. or await the happening of any specified contingency. 1 It prescribed a standard contract to be adopted by both foreign and domestic shipping companies in the hiring of Filipino seamen for overseas employment. or upon the ascertainment of certain facts or conditions by a person or body other than legislature itself. POEA. . et al. would yet be based solely upon the will of the provincial boards and not upon the happening of a certain specified contingency. It need not give any reason whatsoever for refusing or failing to appropriate any funds for the salary of a probation officer. and. A similar contract had earlier been required by the National Seamen Board and had been sustained in a number of cases by this Court. G. This is a matter which rest entirely at its pleasure. vs. 76633 October 18. the Chief Officer of a ship. and even with such authorization. is not subject to delegation. No.operation of the law upon the provincial board. The discretion vested is arbitrary because it is absolute and unlimited. the regulation represents an exercise of legislative discretion which. It may have any purpose or no purpose at all.

Whether or not Eastern Shipping was denied due process because the same POEA which issued Memorandum Circular No. 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. Too many of the problems attendant upon present-day undertakings. There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative power. 2 has also sustained and applied it. Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authority to the delegate. 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. This had led to the observation that the delegation of legislative power has become the rule and its non-delegation the exception. Specialization even in legislation has become necessary. The growth of society has ramified its activities and created peculiar and sophisticated problems that the legislature cannot be expected reasonably to comprehend. viz. Under the first test. HELD: None. who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and exercise a power essentially legislative. the . The occasions are rare when executive or judicial powers have to be delegated by the authorities to which they legally pertain. 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 enforce it.ISSUES: Whether or not there was a violation of the principle of non-delegation of legislative power. Under the sufficient standard test. In the case of the legislative power. the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. if not necessary. The principle of non-delegation of powers is applicable to all the three major powers of the Government but is especially important in the case of the legislative power because of the many instances when its delegation is permitted. such occasions have become more and more frequent. however.

This is called the "power of subordinate legislation. and the second enables them to interpret and apply such regulations. With the proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant peculiar problems. The model contract prescribed thereby has been applied in a significant number of cases without challenge by the employer. 2 is one such administrative regulation. the Securities and Exchange ." Administrative agencies are vested with two basic powers. such as the implementing rules issued by the Department of Labor on the new Labor Code.legislature may not have the competence to provide the required direct and efficacious. however. mandated it to protect the rights of overseas Filipino workers to "fair and equitable employment practices. in creating the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. 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. Examples abound: the Bureau of Internal Revenue adjudicates on its own revenue regulations. The first enables them to promulgate implementing rules and regulations." With this power. the Central Bank on its own circulars. be expected from its delegates. These regulations have the force and effect of law. The reasons given above for the delegation of legislative powers in general are particularly applicable to administrative bodies. Memorandum Circular No. administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid down in a statute by "filling in' the details which the Congress may not have the opportunity or competence to provide. not to say. That standard is discoverable in the executive order itself which. who are supposed to be experts in the particular fields assigned to them. The power of the POEA (and before it the National Seamen Board) in requiring the model contract is not unlimited as there is a sufficient standard guiding the delegate in the exercise of the said authority. These solutions may. This is effected by their promulgation of what are known as supplementary regulations. the quasilegislative and the quasi-judicial. specific solutions.

investigate. Pagatpatan. Rabor responded to this advice by exhibiting a "Certificate of Membership" issued by the Government Service Insurance System ("GSIS") where at the bottom is a typewritten statement of the following tenor: "Service extended to comply 15 years service reqts. Rabor’s extension of service is contrary to Memorandum Circular No. the provisions of CA 103." This statement is followed by a non-legible initial with the following date "2/28/91. and regulates the relations between them. as will appear from perusal of its organic law is more active. with thirteen (13) years and one (1) month of government service. to consider. It is not intended to be a mere receptive organ of the government. There are cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character: . affirmative and dynamic. 1995 FACTS: Dionisio Rabor was advised by Ms. It has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines. It is more an administrative board than a part of the integrated judicial system of the nation. Unlike a court of justice which is essentially passive. decide. Civil Service Commission G. as so too do the Philippine Patent Office and the Videogram Regulatory Board and the Civil Aeronautics Administration and the Department of Natural Resources and so on ad infinitum on their respective administrative regulations. The CIR is free from rigidity of certain procedural requirements. It not only exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions in the determination of disputes between employers and employees but its functions are far more comprehensive and extensive. and settle any question. and in accordance with. 4. and/ or affecting employers and employees or laborers. May 31. an official of the Office of the Mayor of Davao City. No. and landlords and tenants or farm-laborers. entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character." Mayor Rodrigo Duterte was advised by Director Cawad (CSRO-XI) that Mr. 103). 65 of the Office of the President providing the compulsory 2 The CIR is a special court whose functions are specifically stated in the law of its creation which is the Commonwealth Act No.R. but this not mean that it can in justiciable cases coming before it. considering that he had already reached the age of sixty-eight (68) years and seven (7) months. subject to. to apply for retirement. 111812. matter controversy or disputes arising between.Commission on its own rules. acting only when its jurisdiction is invoked and deciding only cases that are presented to it by the parties litigant. Such an arrangement has been accepted as a fact of life of modern governments and cannot be considered violative of due process as long as the cardinal rights laid down by Justice Laurel in the landmark case of Ang Tibay v. the function of the CIR. Court of Industrial Relations2 are observed. Dionisio Rabor v.

For the matter of extension of service of retirees who have reached sixty-five (65) years of age is an area that is covered by both statutes and not alone by Section 11 (b) of P. Mr. The SC considered Administrative Code of 1987 (Civil Service Law) and PD No. ISSUE: Whether or not CSC Memorandum Circular No. Rabor was advised to stop reporting for work in accordance with the letter of Director Cawad. nevertheless. Rabor’s service is already non-extendible. Section 12 of the present Civil Service law set out in the 1987 Administrative Code provides the powers and function of the CSC and . Director Cawad further advised Mayor Duterte that Mr. This is crystal clear from examination of many provisions of the present civil service law. 1146 as the enabling statutes that should be approximately examined. 27. 27 is a valid exercise of delegated legislative power HELD: Yes. this petition. Mr. that the regulation be not in contradiction with it. All that is required is that the regulation should be germane to the objects and purposes of the law. Hence." This is the test that is appropriately applied in respect to CSC MC No. "It is well established in this jurisdiction that. while the making of laws is a non-delegable activity that corresponds exclusively to Congress.retirement age of 65 years old for government officials and employees and that they should not be retained in the service except for extremely meritorious reasons in which case the retention shall not exceed six (6) months. the latter may constitutionally delegate authority and promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given legislation and effectuate its policies. Rabor sought reconsideration invoking the Cena doctrine. 1146. Accordingly. for the reason that the legislature often finds it impracticable (if not impossible) to anticipate and provide for the multifarious and complex situations that may be met in carrying the law into effect.D. but the same was denied. but conform to the standards that the law prescribes.

the Civil Service Commission is charged by the 1987 Administrative Code with providing leadership and assistance "in the development and retention of qualified and efficient work force in the Civil Service" (Section 16 [10]) and with the "enforcement of the constitutional and statutory provisions. responsive and effective personnel administration in the government. The policy considerations which guided the Civil Service Commission in limiting the maximum extension of service allowable for compulsory retirees. and (3) prejudice the chances for employment of qualified young civil service applicants who have already passed the various government examination but must wait for jobs to be vacated by "extendees" who have long passed the mandatory retirement age but are enjoying extension of their government service to complete 15 years so they may qualify for old-age pension. relative to retirement and the regulation for the effective implementation of the retirement of government officials and employees" (Section 16 [14])." It was also discharging its function of "administering the retirement program for government officials and employees" and of "evaluat[ing] qualifications for retirement. . were summarized by Griño-Aquino. in her dissenting opinion in Cena: Worth pondering also are the points raised by the Civil Service Commission that extending the service of compulsory retirees for longer than one (1) year would: (1) give a premium to late-comers in the government service and in effect discriminate against those who enter the service at a younger age. the Commission was acting as "the central personnel agency of the government empowered to promulgate policies." In addition. 27. standards and guidelines for efficient. In doing so. The SC find it very difficult to suppose that the limitation of permissible extensions of service after an employee has reached sixty-five (65) years of age has no reasonable relationship or is not germane to the [foregoing] provisions of the present Civil Service Law. was on the bases of said powers and functions of the 1987 Administrative Code that the Civil Service Commission promulgated its Memorandum Circular No. (2) delay the promotion of the latter and of next-in-rank employees. The physiological and psychological processes associated with ageing in human beings are in fact related to the efficiency and quality of the service that may be expected from individual persons.

D. the holding in Cena that the head of the government agency concerned is vested with discretionary authority to allow or disallow extension of the service of an official or employee who has reached sixty-five (65) years of age without completing fifteen (15) years of government service. specially to younger people. this discretion is.. That general statutory policy may be seen to embody the notion that there should be a certain minimum turnover in the government service and that opportunities for government service should be distributed as broadly as possible. 166715. accordingly. ABAKADA vs. he would retire at age seventy-nine (79).g. a person sixty-four (64) years of age may be appointed to the government service and one (1) year later may demand extension of his service for the next fourteen (14) years. That same general policy also reflects the life expectancy of our people which is still significantly lower than the life expectancy of. No. Under these combined doctrines. however. Section 11 (b) of P. 27. people in Northern and Western Europe. be read together with Memorandum Circular No. very strange results follow. North America and Japan. PURISIMA G. 2008 FACTS: RA 9335 was enacted to optimize the revenue-generation capability and collection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau . Series of 1990. August 14. to be exercised conformably with the provisions of Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. Series of 1990. 27. We reiterate. Our conclusion is that the doctrine of Cena should be and is hereby modified to this extent: that Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. more specifically paragraph (1) thereof. 27.R. The net effect is thus that the general statutory policy of compulsory retirement at sixty-five (65) years is heavily eroded and effectively becomes unenforceable. is hereby declared valid and effective. considering that the bulk of our population is below thirty (30) years of age. nevertheless. 1146 must.When one combines the doctrine of Toledo with the ruling in Cena. 5. e. No.

however. et al. that the law unduly delegates the power to fix revenue targets to the President as it lacks a sufficient standard on that matter. The Department Of Finance (DOF). of Budget and Management (DBM). National Economic Development Authority (NEDA). Any incentive or reward is taken from the fund and allocated to the BIR and the BOC in proportion to their contribution in the excess collection of the targeted amount of tax revenue.of Customs (BOC). among others.4 The Fund is sourced from the collection of the BIR and the BOC in excess of their revenue targets for the year. Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).5%. ABAKADA Guro Party list. Further. to be approved by a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created for such purpose. Bureau Of Customs (BOC) and the Civil Service Commission (CSC) were tasked to promulgate and issue the implementing rules and regulations of RA 9335. ABAKADA Guro Party List assailed the creation of a congressional oversight committee on the ground that it violates the doctrine of separation of powers. as determined by the Development Budget and Coordinating Committee (DBCC). It will therefore be easy for the President to fix an unrealistic and unattainable target in order to dismiss BIR or BOC personnel. the creation of the congressional oversight committee permits legislative participation in the implementation and enforcement of the law. regardless of employment status.3 It covers all officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC with at least six months of service.. fix the revenue targets to be achieved. Dept. Instead. While the legislative function is deemed accomplished and completed upon the enactment and approval of the law. the law does not. the fixing of revenue targets has been delegated to the President without sufficient standards. They contend. The law intends to encourage BIR and BOC officials and employees to exceed their revenue targets by providing a system of rewards and sanctions through the creation of a Rewards and Incentives Fund (Fund) and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board (Board). a tax reform legislation. . invoking their right as taxpayers filed this petition challenging the constitutionality of RA 9335. While Section 7(b) and (c) of RA 9335 provides that BIR and BOC officials may be dismissed from the service if their revenue collections fall short of the target by at least 7.

a legislative veto in the form of a congressional oversight committee is in the form of an inward-turning delegation designed to attach a congressional leash (other than through scrutiny and investigation) to an agency to which Congress has by law initially delegated broad powers. retains a "right" or "power" to approve or disapprove such regulations before they take effect. To be sufficient. It radically changes the design or structure of the Constitution’s diagram of power as it entrusts to Congress a direct role in enforcing. announce the legislative policy and identify the conditions under which it is to be implemented.5% may be removed from the service. It can itself formulate the details or it can assign to the executive branch the responsibility for making necessary managerial decisions in . As such. Congress has two options when enacting legislation to define national policy within the broad horizons of its legislative competence. It lays down a sufficient standard when it provides adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. applying or implementing its own laws. Legislative veto is a statutory provision requiring the President or an administrative agency to present the proposed implementing rules and regulations of a law to Congress which. Two tests determine the validity of delegation of legislative power: (1) the completeness test and (2) the sufficient standard test. Section 2 spells out the policy of the law.ISSUES: Whether or not there was an undue delegation of legislative power to the President HELD: No. RA 9335 adequately states the policy and standards to guide the President in fixing revenue targets and the implementing agencies in carrying out the provisions of the law. the standard must specify the limits of the delegate’s authority. by itself or through a committee formed by it. A law is complete when it sets forth therein the policy to be executed. carried out or implemented by the delegate. while Section 7 specifies the limits of the Board’s authority and identifies the conditions under which officials and employees whose revenue collection falls short of the target by at least 7. Section 4 fix revenue targets.

Such rules and regulations partake of the nature of a statute and are just as binding as if they have been written in the statute itself. may not pass upon their legality by subjecting them to its stamp of approval without disturbing the calculated balance of powers established by the Constitution. As such. in the guise of assuming the role of an overseer. Thus. the law must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it leaves the hands of the legislature. what is left for the executive branch or the concerned administrative agency when it formulates rules and regulations implementing the law is to fill up details (supplementary rule-making) or ascertain facts necessary to bring the law into actual operation (contingent rule-making). Congress arrogated judicial power unto itself. they have the force and effect of law and enjoy the presumption of constitutionality and legality until they are set aside with finality in an appropriate case by a competent court. a power exclusively vested in this Court by the Constitution. In the latter case. .conformity with those standards. In exercising discretion to approve or disapprove the IRR based on a determination of whether or not they conformed with the provisions of RA 9335. Congress. Administrative regulations enacted by administrative agencies to implement and interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce have the force of law and are entitled to respect.