11. PANTRANCO vs. Public Service Commission (PSC) G.R. No.

47065 June 26, 1940

TOPIC: Delegation of Powers, Separation of Powers, Certificate of Public Convenience

FACTS:
PANTRANCO, a holder of an existing Certificate of Public Convenience is applying to operate additional buses with
the Public Service Commission (PSC) has been engaged in transporting passengers in certain provinces by means of
public transportation utility. Patranc applied for authorization to operate 10 additional trucks. The PSC granted the
application but added several conditions for PANTRANCO’s compliance. One is that the service can be acquired by
government upon payment of the cost price less depreciation, and that the certificate shall be valid only for a definite
period of time.

ISSUE:
Whether or not PSC can impose said conditions. If so, wouldn’t this power of the PSC constitute undue delegation
of powers?

RULING:
The Supreme Court held that there was valid delegation of powers.
The theory of the separation of powers is designed by its originators to secure action at the same time forestall
overaction which necessarily results from undue concentration of powers and thereby obtain efficiency and prevent
deposition. But due to the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of subjects of governmental
regulation and the increased difficulty of administering laws, there is a constantly growing tendency toward the
delegation of greater powers by the legislature, giving rise to the adoption, within certain limits, of the principle of
“subordinate legislation.”
All that has been delegated to the Commission is the administrative function, involving the use of discretion to carry
out the will of the National Assembly having in view, in addition, the promotion of public interests in a proper and
suitable manner.

12.
13.
14. Sanidad v. COMELEC
FACTS:
On September 27, 1976, Pablo Sanidad and Pablito Sanidad petitioned for prohibition with preliminary injunction
to enjoin COMELEC from holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16; to declare without
force and effect PD Nos. 991 and 1033, as well as PD. 1031. Petitioners contend that the president has no power to
propose amendments to the new constitution, as such, the referendum-plebiscite has no legal basis.

ISSUE:
1. Is the case at bar justiciable?
2. Does the president have the authority to propose amendments to the Constitution?
3. Is the submission to the people of the proposed amendments within the time frame allowed sufficient and
proper submission?

HELD:
The issue of whether the President can assume the power of a constituent assembly is a justiciable question since
it is not the wisdom but the constitutional authority of the president to perform such act is in question. The
president has the authority to propose amendments as the governmental powers are generally concentrated to
the president in times of crisis. The time for deliberation of the referendum-plebiscite questions, 3 weeks, is not
too short especially since the questions are issues of the day and the people have been living with them since the
proclamation of martial law.

15. Eastern Shipping Lines vs POEA

TOPIC: undue delegation of legislative power
Facts:
The petitioner challenge the decision of Philippine Overseas Employment Administration POEA on the principal
ground that the POEA had no jurisdiction over the case of Vitaliano Saco as he was not an overseas worker.
Vitaliano Saco was Chief Officer of the M/V Eastern Polaris when he was killed in an accident in Tokyo, Japan,
March 15, 1985. His widow sued for damages under Executive Order No. 797 and Memorandum Circular No.
2 of the POEA. The petitioner, as owner of the vessel, argued that the complaint was cognizable not by the
POEA but by the Social Security System and should have been filed against the State Insurance Fund. The POEA
nevertheless assumed jurisdiction and after considering the position papers of the parties ruled in favor of the
complainant.
The petitioner argues that the deceased employee should be likened to the employees of the Philippine Air
Lines who, although working abroad in its international flights, are not considered overseas workers.
Moreover, the petitioner questions the validity of Memorandum Circular No. 2 itself as violative of the principle
of non-delegation of legislative power. It contends that no authority had been given the POEA to promulgate
the said regulation; and even with such authorization, the regulation represents an exercise of legislative
discretion which, under the principle, is not subject to delegation.

Issues:
Whether or not Memorandum Circular No. 2 has violated the principle of non-delegation of legislative power.

Discussions:
There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative power:
Completeness test – the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature
such that when it reaches the delegate the only thing he will have to do is enforce it.
Sufficient standard test – there must be adequate guidelines or stations in the law to map out the boundaries
of the delegate’s authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.
Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authority to the delegate, who is not
allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and exercise a power essentially legislative
16. ANGARA V ELECTORAL COMMISSION