TOPIC: Non-delegability of legislative power

CASE TITLE: PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION, vs.

HON. PRESIDING JUDGE ZOSIMO Z. ANGELES, BRANCH 58, RTC, MAKATI;
REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION; AND FIRESTONE CERAMIC, INC.

DOCTRINE: PITC , a line agency of DTI was legally empowered to issue Administrative Orders, as a
valid exercise of a power ancillary to legislation.

FACTS:
Philippine International Trading Corporation (PITC) issued Administrative Order No. SOCPEC
89-08-01, under which, applications to the PITC for importation from the People's Republic of China
(PROC, for brevity) must be accompanied by a viable and confirmed Export Program of Philippine
Products to PROC carried out by the improper himself or through a tie-up with a legitimate importer in an
amount equivalent to the value of the importation from PROC being applied for, or, simply, at one is to
one ratio.

Remington and Firestone, both domestic corporations, iapplied for authority to import from
PROC with the petitioner. They were granted such authority after satisfying the requirements for
importers. Remington was allowed to import tools, machineries and other similar goods. Firestone, on the
other hand, imported Calcine Vauxite, which it used for the manufacture of fire bricks, one of its
products.

However, they are latter barred from importing goods from PROC for failing to comply with their
undertakings to submit export credits equivalent to the value of their importations where further import
applications were withheld by petitioner PITC from private respondents.

Consequently, Remington filed a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus, with prayer for
issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction against PITC. RTC
declared null and void Administrative Order for having been promulgated in pursuance of an international
agreement which has not been ratified by 2.3 members of the Senate, for being issued in restraint of trade
and for being contrary to Art.2 of NCC.

A Petition for Review on Certiorari was filed by the petitioner questioning the court's decision on
the validity of Administrative Order No. 89-08-01.

Subsequent events transpired. Pres. Ramos entered into a new trade agreement between PH and
PROC. It ceased implementing the Administrative Order. PITC allowed the private respondents to import
anew from the PROC, without being required to comply anymore with the lifted requirement of balancing
its imports with exports of Philippine products to PROC.

CONTENTIONS:

PETITIONER RESPONDENT
The Administrative Order is not abrogated since Contends that is moot and academic citing EO
Remington 244 issued by Pres. Ramos which abrogated the
Administrative Order
ISSUES:  Whether or not Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01 is constitutional

RULING: The administrative order issued is not valid for failure to cause the publication in the Official
Gazette or newspaper of general circulation.

The PITC is attached to the DTI as an implementing arm of the said department. DTI is the primary
coordinative, promotive, facilitative and regulatory arm of government for the country's trade, industry
and investment activities. The PITC is an integral part to the said department as one of its line
agencies,29 and given the focal task of implementing the department's programs.

The grant of quasi-legislative powers in administrative bodies is not unconstitutional. Thus, as a result of
the growing complexity of the modern society, it has become necessary to create more and more
administrative bodies to help in the regulation of its ramified activities. Specialized in the particular field
assigned to them, they can deal within the problems t

In sum, the PITC was legally empowered to issue Administrative Orders, as a valid exercise of a power
ancillary to legislation.

This does not imply however, that the subject Administrative Order is a valid exercise of such quasi-
legislative power. The original Administrative Order issued on August 30, 1989, under which the
respondents filed their applications for importation, was not published in the Official Gazette or in a
newspaper of general circulation. The questioned Administrative Order, legally, until it is published, is
invalid within the context of Article 2 of Civil Code