VOL.
503, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 139
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC-
DAMA) vs. National Power Corporation (NPC)
*
G.R. No. 156208. September 26, 2006.
NPC DRIVERS AND MECHANICS ASSOCIATION, (NPC DAMA),
represented by Its President ROGER S. SAN JUAN, SR., NPC
EMPLOYEES & WORKERS UNION (NEWU) – NORTHERN LUZON
REGIONAL CENTER, represented by its Regional President JIMMY D.
SALMAN, in their own individual capacities and in behalf of the members of
the associations and all affected officers and employees of National Power
Corporation (NPC), ZOL D. MEDINA, NARCISO M. MAGANTE, VICENTE
B. CIRIO, JR., NECITAS B. CAMAMA, in their individual capacities as
employees of National Power Corporation, petitioners, vs. THE NATIONAL
POWER CORPORATION (NPC), NATIONAL POWER BOARD OF
DIRECTORS (NPB), JOSE ISIDRO N. CAMACHO as Chairman of the
National Power Board of Directors (NPB), ROLANDO S. QUILALA, as
President—Officer-incharge/CEO of National Power Corporation and
Member of National Power Board, and VINCENT S. PEREZ, JR., EMILIA
T. BONCODIN, MARIUS P. CORPUS, RUBEN S. REINOSO, JR.,
GREGORY L. DOMINGO and NIEVES L. OSORIO, respondents.
Administrative Law;  Delegation of Powers;  The department secretaries
composing the National Power Board of Directors (NPB) cannot delegate their duties
as members of the NPB, much less their power to vote and approve board resolutions,
because it is their personal judgment that must be exercised in the fulfillment of such
responsibility.—We agree with petitioners. In enumerating under Section 48 those
who shall compose the National Power Board of Directors, the legislature has vested
upon these persons the power to exercise their judgment and discretion in running
the affairs of the NPC. Discretion may be defined as “the act or the liberty to decide
according to the principles of justice and one’s ideas of what is right and proper
under the circumstances, without willfulness or favor. Discretion, when applied to
public functionaries, means a power or right conferred upon them by law of acting
officially in certain circumstances, according to the dictates of their own judgment
and conscience, uncontrolled by the judgment or conscience of others. It is to be
presumed that in naming the respective department heads as members of the board
of directors, the legislature chose these secretaries
_______________
* FIRST
DIVISION.
139
NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC-
DAMA) vs. National Power Corporation (NPC)
of the various executive departments on the basis of their personal qualifications
and acumen which made them eligible to occupy their present positions as
department heads. Thus, the department secretaries cannot delegate their duties as
members of the NPB, much less their power to vote and approve board resolutions,
because it is their personal judgment that must be exercised in the fulfillment of
such responsibility.
Same; Same; The rule that requires an administrative officer to exercise his own
judgment and discretion does not preclude him from utilizing, as a matter of practical
administrative procedure, the aid of subordinates, so long as it is the legally
authorized official who makes the final decision through the use of his own personal
judgment.—Respondents’ assertion to the contrary is not tenable. The ruling in the
case cited by respondents to support their contention is not applicable in the case at
bar. While it is true that the Court has determined in the case of American Tobacco
Company v. Director of Patents, 67 SCRA 287 (1975), that a delegate may exercise
his authority through persons he appoints to assist him in his functions, it must be
stressed that the Court explicitly stated in the same case that said practice is
permissible only when the judgment and discretion finallyexercised are those
of the officer authorized by law.According to the Court, the rule that requires an
administrative officer to exercise his own judgment and discretion does not preclude
him from utilizing, as a matter of practical administrative procedure, the aid of
subordinates, so long as it is the legally authorized official who makes the  final
decisionthrough the use of his own personal judgment.
Same;  Same;  Where it is the representatives of the secretaries of the different
executive departments and not the secretaries themselves who exercised judgment in
passing the assailed Resolution, this violated the duty imposed upon the specifically
enumerated department heads to employ their own sound discretion in exercising the
corporate powers of the National Power Corporation.—In the case at bar, it is not
difficult to comprehend that in approving NPB Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No.
2002-125, it is the representatives of the secretaries of the different executive
departments and not the secretaries themselves who exercised judgment in passing
the assailed Resolution, as shown by the fact that it is the signatures of the
respective representatives that are affixed to the questioned Resolutions. This, to our
mind, violates the duty imposed upon the specifically enumerated department heads
to employ their own sound discretion in exercising the corporate powers of the NPC.
Evidently, the votes cast by these mere representatives in favor of the adoption of
the said Resolutions must not be considered in determining whether or not the
necessary number of votes was garnered in order that the assailed
140
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC-
DAMA) vs. National Power Corporation (NPC)
Resolutions may be validly enacted. Hence, there being only three valid votes
cast out of the nine board members, namely those of DOE Secretary Vincent S.

Perez, Jr.; Department of Budget and Management Secretary Emilia T. Boncodin;
and NPC OIC-President Rolando S. Quilala, NPB Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No.
2002-125 are void and are of no legal effect.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Injunction.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
          V.V. Orocio and Associates Law Offices  and  Cornelio P. Aldon  for
petitioners.
     The Solicitor General for respondents.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before Us is a special civil action for Injunction to enjoin public respondents
from implementing the National Power Board (NPB) Resolutions No. 2002-
124 and No. 2002-125, both dated 18 November 2002, directing, among
other things, the termination of all employees of the National Power
Corporation (NPC) on 31 January 2003 in line with the restructuring of the
NPC.
On 8 June 2001, Republic Act No. 9136, otherwise known as the “Electric
Power Industry Reform Act of 2001” (EPIRA Law), was approved and signed
into law by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and took effect on 26 June
2001. Section 2(i) and Section 3 of the EPIRA Law states:
Section 2. Declaration of Policy.—It is hereby declared the policy of the State:
xxxx
(i) To provide for an orderly and transparent privatization of the assets and
liabilities of the National Power Corporation (NPC);
xxxx
Section 3. Scope.—This Act shall provide a framework for the restructuring of the
electric power industry, including the privatization of the assets of NPC, the
transition to the desired competitive structure, and the definition
141
VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 141
NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC-
DAMA) vs. National Power Corporation (NPC)
1 Rule 33  of the IRR, the NPB passed NPB Resolution No. 2002-
of the responsibilities of the various government agencies and private entities.
2
Under the EPIRA Law,   a new National Power Board of Directors was
constituted composed of the Secretary of Finance as Chairman, with the
Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Budget and Management, the
Secretary of Agriculture, the Director-General of the National Economic and
Development Authority, the Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources, the Secretary of Interior and Local Government, the Secretary of
the Department of Trade and Industry, and the President of the National
Power Corporation as members.
On 27 February 2002, the Secretary of the Department of Energy (DOE)
promulgated the Implementing 3
Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the EPIRA
Law, pursuant to Section 77  thereof. Said IRR were approved by the Joint
Congressional Power Commission on even date. Meanwhile, also in
pursuant to the provisions of the EPIRA Law, the DOE created the Energy
Restructuring Steering Committee (Restructuring Committee) to manage
the privatization and restructuring of the NPC, the National Transmission
p g
Corporation (TRANSCO), and the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities
Corporation (PSALM).
_______________
1 Annex “A” of Petition; Rollo, pp. 24-25.
2 Section 48. National Power Board of Directors.—Upon the passage of this Act, Section 6 of
Republic Act No. 6395, as amended, and Section 13 of Republic Act No. 7638, as amended,
referring to the composition of the National Power Board of Directors, are hereby repealed and
a new Board shall be immediately organized. The new Board shall be composed of the Secretary
of Finance as Chairman, with the following as members: the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary
of Budget and Management, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Director-General of the National
Economic and Development Authority, the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources,
the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government, the Secretary of the Department of Trade
and Industry, and the President of the National Power Corporation.
3  Section 77.  Implementing Rules and Regulations.—The DOE shall, in consultation with
relevant government agencies, the electric power industry participants, non-government
organizations and end-users, promulgate the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of this
Act within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act, subject to the approval by the Power
Commission.
142
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC-
DAMA) vs. National Power Corporation (NPC)
To serve as the overall organizational framework for the realigned functions
of the NPC mandated under the EPIRA Law, the Restructuring Committee
proposed a new NPC Table of Organization which was approved by the NPB
through NPB Resolution No. 2002-53 dated 11 April 2002. Likewise, the
Restructuring Committee reviewed the proposed 2002 NPC Restructuring
Plan and assisted in the implementation of Phase I (Realignment) of said
Plan, and thereafter recommended to the NPB for approval the adoption of
measures pertaining to the separation and hiring of NPC personnel. The
NPB, taking into consideration the recommendation of the Restructuring
Committee, thus amended the Restructuring Plan approved under NPB
Resolution No. 2002-53. 4
On 185
November 2002, pursuant to Section 63   of the EPIRA Law and
_______________
4 Section 63. Separation Benefits of Officials and Employees of Affected Agencies.—National
Government employees displaced or separated from the service as a result of the restructuring
of the electricity industry and privatization of NPC assets pursuant to this Act, shall be entitled
to either a separation pay and other benefits in accordance with existing laws, rules or
regulations or be entitled to avail of the privileges provided under a separation plan which shall
be one and one-half month salary for every year of service in the government:  Provided,
however, That those who avail of such privileges shall start their government service anew if
absorbed by any government-owned successor company. In no case shall there be any
diminution of benefits under the separation plan until the full implementation of the
restructuring and privatization.
Displaced or separated personnel as a result of the privatization, if qualified, shall be given
preference in the hiring of the manpower requirements of the privatized companies.
The salaries of employees of NPC shall continue to be exempt from the coverage of Republic
Act No. 6758, otherwise known as “The Salary Standardization Act.”
 With respect to employees who are not retained by NPC, the Government, through the
Department of Labor and Employment, shall endeavor to implement re-training, job
counseling, and job placement programs.
5 RULE 33. SEPARATION BENEFITS
Section 1. General Statement on Coverage.—
143
VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 143
NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC-
DAMA) vs. National Power Corporation (NPC)
124 which provided for the Guidelines on the Separation Program of
_______________
This Rule shall apply to all employees in the National Government service as of 26 June 2001 regardless
of position, designation or status, who are displaced or separated from the service as a result of the
Restructuring of the electricity industry and Privatization of NPC assets:  Provided, however, That the
coverage for casual or contractual employees shall be limited to those whose appointments were approved
or attested by the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
Section 2. Scope of Application.—This Rule shall apply to affected personnel of DOE, ERB, NEA and
NPC.
Section 3. Separation and Other Benefits.
(a) The separation benefit shall consist of either a separation pay and other benefits granted in
accordance with existing laws, rules and regulations or a separation plan equivalent to one and
one half (11/2) months’ salary for every year of service in the government, whichever is
higher: Provided, That the separated or displaced employee has rendered at least one (1) year of
service at the time of effectivity of the Act.
(b) The following shall govern the application of Section 3(a) of this Rule:
(i) With respect to NPC officials and employees, they shall be considered legally terminated and shall
be entitled to the benefits or separation pay provided in Section 3(a) herein when the restructuring
plan as approved by the NPC Board shall have been implemented.
(ii) With respect to NEA officials and employees, they shall be considered legally terminated and shall
be entitled to the benefits or separation pay provided in Section 3(a) herein when a restructuring
of NEA is implemented pursuant to a law enacted by Congress or pursuant to Section 5(a)(5) of
Presidential Decree No. 269.
(iii) With respect to the affected Bureaus of the DOE, their officials and employees shall be considered
legally terminated and shall be entitled to the benefits or separation pay provided in Section 3(a)
herein when the re-organizational plan shall have been implemented as a result of the
Restructuring of the electric power industry.
144
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC-
DAMA) vs. National Power Corporation (NPC)
the NPC and the Selection and Placement of Personnel in the NPC Table of
Organization. Under said Resolution, all NPC personnel
_______________
(c) The governing board or authority of the entities enumerated in Section 3(b) hereof shall have the
sole prerogative to hire the separated employees as new employees who start their service anew
for such positions and for such compensation as may be determined by such board or authority
pursuant to its restructuring program. Those who avail of the foregoing privileges shall start their
government service anew if absorbed by any government agency or any governmentowned
successor company.
(d) In no case shall there be any diminution of benefits under the separation plan until the full
implementation of the Restructuring of the electric power industry and the Privatization of NPC
assets in accordance with the approved Restructuring and Privatization schedule.
(e) For this purpose, “Salary,” as a rule, refers to the basic pay including the thirteenth (13th) month
pay received by an employee pursuant to his appointment, excluding per diems, bonuses, overtime
pay, honoraria, allowances and any other emoluments received in addition to the basic pay under
existing laws.
(f) Likewise, “Separation” or “Displacement” refers to the severance of employment of any official or
employee, who is neither qualified under existing laws, rules and regulations nor has opted to
retire under existing laws, as a result of the Restructuring of the electric power industry or
Privatization of NPC assets pursuant to the Act.
Section 4. Funding.
Funds necessary to cover the separation pay under this Rule shall be provided either by the
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) or from the corporate funds of the NEA or the NPC, as the
case may be; and in the case of the DOE and the ERB, by the GSIS or from the general fund, as the case
may be. The Buyer or Concessionaire or the successor company shall not be liable for the payment of the
separation pay.
Section 5. Preferential Rights of Employees.
Displaced or separated personnel as a result of the Restructuring of the electric power industry and
Privatization of NPC assets shall be given preference in the hiring of manpower requirements of the
newlycreated offices or the privatized companies:  Provided, That the displaced or separated personnel
meet the prescribed qualifications. With
145
VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 145
NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC-
DAMA) vs. National Power Corporation (NPC)
shall be legally terminated on 31 January 2003, and shall be entitled to
separation benefits. On the same day, the NPB approved NPB Resolution
No. 2002-125, whereby a Transition Team was constituted to manage and
implement the NPC’s Separation Program.
In a Memorandum dated 21 November 2002, the NPC OICPresident and
CEO Rolando S. Quilala circulated the assailed Resolutions and directed the
concerned NPC officials to disseminate and comply with said Resolutions
and implement the same within the period provided for in the timetable set
in NPB Resolution No. 2002125. As a result thereof, Mr. Paquito F. Garcia,
Manager – HRSD and Resources and Administration Coordinator of NPC,
circulated a Memorandum dated 22 November 2002 to all NPC officials and
employees providing for a checklist of the documents required for securing
clearances for the processing of separation benefits of all employees who
shall be terminated under the Restructuring Plan.
Contending that the assailed NPB Resolutions are void and without force
and effect, herein petitioners, in their individual and representative
capacities, filed the present Petition for Injunction to restrain respondents
from implementing NPB Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125. In
support thereof, petitioners invoke Section 78 of the EPIRA Law, to wit:
Section 78.  Injunction and Restraining Order.—The implementation of the
provisions of this Act shall not be restrained or enjoined except by an order issued by
the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
_______________
respect to employees who are not retained by NPC, the government, through the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE), shall endeavor to implement re-training, job counseling, and job placement
programs.
Section 6. Implementation.
The DOE, NEA, and NPC, shall issue guidelines applicable to their respective employees to implement
this Rule within ninety (90) days from effectivity of these Rules: Provided, That in the case of ERC, the
independent quasi-judicial body created under the Act, the manner of, and timetable for, implementation
of its organization shall be governed by Section 38 and Section 39 of the Act.
 146
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC-
DAMA) vs. National Power Corporation (NPC)
In assailing the validity of NPB Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125,
petitioners maintain that said Resolutions were not passed and issued by a
majority of the members of the duly constituted Board 6
of Directors since
only three of its members, as provided under Section 48  of the EPIRA Law,
were present, namely: DOE Secretary Vincent S. Perez, Jr.; Department of
Budget and Management Secretary Emilia T. Boncodin; and NPC OIC-
President Rolando S. Quilala. According to petitioners, the other four
members who were present at the meeting and signed the Resolutions were
not the secretaries of their respective departments but were merely
representatives or designated alternates of the officials who were named
under the EPIRA Law to sit as members of the NPB. Petitioners claim that
the acts of these representatives are violative of the well-settled principle
that “delegated power cannot be further delegated.” Thus, petitioners
conclude that the questioned Resolutions have been illegally issued as it
were not issued by a duly constituted board since no quorum existed because
only three of the nine members, as provided under Section 48 of the EPIRA
Law, were present and qualified to sit and vote.
It is petitioners’ submission that even assuming arguendo that there was
no undue delegation of power to the four representatives who signed the
assailed Resolutions, said Resolutions cannot still be given legal effect
because the same did not comply with the mandatory requirement of
endorsement by the Joint Congressional Power Commission and approval of
the President of the Philippines, as provided under Section 47 of the EPIRA
Law which states that:
Section 47.  NPC Privatization.—Except for the assets of SPUG, the generation
assets, real estate, and other disposable assets as well as IPP contracts of NPC shall
be privatized in accordance with this Act. Within six (6) months from effectivity of
this Act, the PSALM Corp. shall submit a plan for the endorsement by the Joint
Congressional Power Commission and the approval of the President of the
Philippines, on the total privatization of the generation assets, real estate, other
disposable assets as well as existing IPP contracts of NPC and thereafter, implement
the same, in accordance with the following guidelines, except as provided for in
paragraph (f) herein: x x x.
_______________
6 Supra note
2.
147
VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 147
NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC-
DAMA) vs. National Power Corporation (NPC)
Petitioners insist that if ever there exists a valid wholesale abolition of their
positions and their concomitant separation form the service, such a process
is an integral part of “privatization” and “restructuring” as defined under
the EPIRA Law and, therefore, must comply with the above-quoted
provision requiring the endorsement of the Joint Congressional Power
Commission and the approval of the President of the Philippines.
Furthermore, petitioner highlight the fact that said Resolutions will have an
adverse effect on about 5,648 employees of the NPC and will result in the
displacement of some 2,370 employees, which, petitioners argue, is contrary
to the mandate of the Constitution to promote full employment and security
of tenure.
Respondents, on the other hand, uphold the validity of the assailed
Resolutions by arguing that while it is true that four members of the
National Power Board of Directors, particularly the respective Secretaries of
the Department of Interior and Local Government, the Department of Trade
and Industry, and the Department of Finance, as well as the Director-
General of the National Economic and Development Authority, were not the
actual signatories in NPB Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125, they
were, however, ably represented by their respective alternates. Respondents
claim that the validity of such administrative practice whereby an authority
is exercised by persons or subordinates appointed by the responsible official
has long been settled. Respondents further contend that Section 48 of the
EPIRA Law does not in any way prohibit any member of the NPB from
authorizing his representative to sign resolutions adopted by the Board.
From the arguments put forward by herein parties, it is evident that the
pivotal issue to be resolved in this Petition for Injunction is whether or not
NPB Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125 were properly enacted. It
is petitioners’ contention that the failure of the four specifically identified
7
department heads   under Section 48 of the EPIRA Law to personally
approve and sign the assailed Resolutions invalidates the adoption of said
Resolutions. Petitioners maintain
_______________
7 Secretaries of the Department of Interior and Local Government, the Department of Trade
and Industry, and the Department of Finance, and the Director-General of the National
Economic and Development Authority.
148
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC-
DAMA) vs. National Power Corporation (NPC)
that there was undue delegation of delegated power when only the
representatives of certain members of the NPB attended the board meetings
and passed and signed the questioned Resolutions.
We agree with petitioners. In enumerating under Section 48 those who
shall compose the National Power Board of Directors, the legislature has
vested upon these persons the power to exercise their judgment and
discretion in running the affairs of the NPC. Discretion may be defined as
“the act or the liberty to decide according to the principles of justice and
one’s ideas of what8 is right and proper under the circumstances, without
willfulness or favor.  Discretion, when applied to public functionaries, means
a power or right conferred upon them by law of acting officially in certain
circumstances, according to the dictates of their own judgment and
conscience, uncontrolled by the judgment or conscience of others.9 It is to be
presumed that in naming the respective department heads as members of
the board of directors, the legislature chose these secretaries of the various
executive departments on the basis of their personal qualifications and
acumen which made them eligible to occupy their present positions as
department heads. Thus, the department secretaries cannot delegate their
duties as members of the NPB, much less their power to vote and approve
board resolutions, because it is their personal judgment that must be
exercised in the fulfillment of such responsibility.
There is no question that the enactment of the assailed Resolutions
involves the exercise of discretion and not merely a ministerial act that
could be validly performed by10 a delegate, thus, the rule enunciated in the
case of Binamira v. Garrucho   is relevant in the present controversy, to wit:
“An officer to whom a discretion is entrusted cannot delegate it to another, the
presumption being that he was chosen because he was deemed fit and competent to
exercise that judgment and discretion, and unless the power to substitute another in
his place has been given to him, he cannot delegate his duties to another.
_______________
8 Lamb v. Phipps, 22 Phil. 456, 488-489 (1912).
9 Id.,at p. 489.
10 G.R. No. 92008, 30 July 1990, 188 SCRA 154, 159-160.
149
VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 149
NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC-
DAMA) vs. National Power Corporation (NPC)
In those cases in which the proper execution of the office requires, on the part of the
officer, the exercise of judgment or discretion, the presumption is that he was chosen
because he was deemed fit and competent to exercise that judgment and discretion,
and, unless power to substitute another in his place has been given to him, he cannot
delegate his duties to another.”
Respondents’ assertion to the contrary is not tenable. The ruling in the case
cited by respondents to support their contention is not applicable in the case
at bar. While it is true that the Court has determined 11
in the case
of American Tobacco Company v. Director of Patents   that a delegate may
exercise his authority through persons he appoints to assist him in his
functions, it must be stressed that the Court explicitly stated in the same
case that said practice is permissible only when  the judgment and
discretionfinally  exercised are those of the officer authorized by
law. According to the Court, the rule that requires an administrative officer
to exercise his own judgment and discretion does not preclude him from
utilizing, as a matter of practical administrative procedure, the aid of
subordinates, so long as it is the legally authorized official who makes
the final decision through the use of his own personal judgment.
In the case at bar, it is not difficult to comprehend that in approving NPB
Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125, it is the representatives of the
secretaries of the different executive departments and not the secretaries
themselves who exercised judgment in passing the assailed Resolution, as
shown by the fact that it is the signatures of the respective representatives
that are affixed to the questioned Resolutions. This, to our mind, violates
the duty imposed upon the specifically enumerated department heads to
employ their own sound discretion in exercising the corporate powers of the
NPC. Evidently, the votes cast by these mere representatives in favor of the
adoption of the said Resolutions must not be considered in determining
whether or not the necessary number of votes was garnered in order that
the assailed Resolutions may be validly enacted. Hence, there being only
three valid votes cast out of the nine board members, namely those of DOE
Secretary Vincent S. Perez, Jr.; Department of
_______________
11 G.R. No. L-26803, 14 October 1975, 67 SCRA 287, 295.
150
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC-
DAMA) vs. National Power Corporation (NPC)
Budget and Management Secretary Emilia T. Boncodin; and NPC OIC-
President Rolando S. Quilala, NPB Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No. 2002-
125 are void and are of no legal effect.
Having determined that the assailed Resolutions are void as they lack
the necessary number of votes for their adoption, We no longer deem it
necessary to pass upon the other issues raised in the instant petition.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, National Power Board Resolutions
No. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125 are hereby declared VOID and WITHOUT
LEGAL EFFECT. The Petition for Injunction is hereby GRANTED and
respondents are hereby ENJOINED from implementing said NPB
Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125.
SO ORDERED.
          Panganiban  (C.J., Chairperson),  Ynares-
Santiago, AustriaMartinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
National Power Board Resolutions declared void and without legal effect.
Petition for injunction granted.
Notes.—The Court is not unmindful that there is a trend towards
delegating the legislative power to authorize the operation of certain public
utilities to administrative agencies and dispensing with the requirement of
a congressional franchise, but this matter should be addressed to Congress
for the Court’s function is to interpret, not to rewrite the law. (Associated
Communications & Wireless ServicesUnited Broadcasting Networks vs.
National Telecommunications Commission, 397 SCRA 574 [2003])
Since Administrative Order No. 2 (the new Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Proclamation No. 347) merely allows the ex officio  members
of the National Amnesty Commission to designate their representatives to
NAC meetings but not to decide for them while attending such meetings,
and although said administrative order does not preclude the
representatives from attending the NAC meetings, they may do so only as
guests or witnesses to the proceedings. They cannot substitute for the  ex
officiomembers for purposes of
 151

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 151

Young vs. Sy

determining quorum, participating in deliberations and making decisions.

(National Amnesty Commission vs. Commission on Audit,  437 SCRA
655 [2004])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.