Admin and Election Law Digest

Radio Communications (RCPI) vs NTC

FACTS:

Private respondent Juan A. Alegre's wife, Dr. Jimena Alegre, sent two (2) RUSH telegrams through
petitioner RCPI's. Both telegrams did not reach their destinations on the expected dates. Private
respondent filed a letter-complaint against the RCPI with the National Telecommunications Commission
(NTC) for poor service, with a request for the imposition of the appropriate punitive sanction against the
company.

NTC directed RCPI to answer the complaint and set the initial hearing of the case to 2 May 1989. RCPI
moved to dismiss the case on the following grounds:

1. Juan Alegre is not the real party in interest;

2. NTC has no jurisdiction over the case;

3. the continued hearing of the case violates its constitutional right to due process of law.

Hearings resumed in the absence of petitioner RCPI. NTC resolved the issue, found the respondent
administratively liable for deficient and inadequate service, and imposed the penalty of FINE.

ISSUE: Whether or not NTC has the jurisdiction to administratively impose fines on a telegraph
company which fails to render adequate service to a consumer.

HELD:

No, jurisdiction and powers of administrative agencies, like respondent Commission, are limited to those
expressly granted or necessarily implied from those granted in the legislation creating such body; and
any order without or beyond such jurisdiction is void and ineffective

the NTC stepped "into the shoes" of the Board of Communications which exercised powers pursuant to
the Public Service Act. The Board in other words, did not possess the power to impose administrative
fines on public services rendering deficient service to customers, ergo its successor cannot arrogate
unto itself such power, in the absence of legislation. Communications can impose fines if the public
service entity violates or fails to comply with the terms and conditions of any certificate or any order,
decision or regulation of the Commission.

Masangcay vs. COE

FACTS:

Benjamin Masangcay, with several others, was on October 14, 1957 charged before the Commission on
Election with contempt for having opened three boxes bearing serial numbers l-8071, l-8072 and l-8073
containing official and sample ballots for the municipalities of the province of Aklan. the Commission
rendered its decision finding Masangcay and his co-respondent Molo guilty as charged and sentencing
each of them to suffer three months imprisonment and pay a fine of P500, with subsidiary
imprisonment of two months in case of insolvency, to be served in the provincial jail of Aklan.

Masangcay brought the present petition for review raising as main issue the constitutionality of Section
5 of the Revised Election Code which grants the Commission on Elections as well as its members the
power to punish acts of contempt against said body under the same procedure and with the same
penalties provided for in Rule 64 of the Rules of Court in that the portion of said section which grants to
the Commission and members the power to punish for contempt is unconstitutional for it infringes the
principle underlying the separation of powers that exists among the three departments of our
constitutional form of government. In other words, it is contended that, even if petitioner can be held
guilty of the act of contempt charged, the decision is null and void for lack of valid power on the part
of the Commission to impose such disciplinary penalty under the principle of separation of powers.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Commission has the power to impose disciplinary penalty.

HELD:

No, Under the law and the constitution, the Comelec has not only the duty to enforce and administer all
laws relative to the conduct of elections, but also the power to try, hear and decide any controversy that
may be submitted to it in connection with the elections.

The Comelec lacks power to impose the disciplinary penalty meted out to Masangcay in the decision
subject of review. When the Commission exercises a ministerial function it cannot exercise the power to
punish for contempt because such power is inherently judicial in nature.

DISCUSSION:

The power to punish for contempt is not in the power of the Comelec

Belgica v. Executive Secretary,

G.R. No. 208566, 19 November 2013

FACTS:

Belgica, et al filed an Urgent Petition For Certiorari and Prohibition With Prayer For The Immediate
Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction seeking that the annual
"Pork Barrel System," presently embodied in the provisions of the GAA of 2013 which provided for the
2013 PDAF, and the Executive‘s lump-sum, discretionary funds, such as the Malampaya Funds and the
Presidential Social Fund, be declared unconstitutional and null and void for being acts constituting grave
abuse of discretion. Also, they pray that the Court issue a TRO against respondents

ISSUE:

Whether or not the phrases (under Section 8 of PD 910 relating to the Malampaya Funds, and under
Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, relating to the Presidential Social Fund, are
unconstitutional insofar as they constitute undue delegations of legislative power.
HELD:

Yes. Sec 8 of PD 910- the phrase “and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the
President” constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power insofar as it does not lay down a
sufficient standard to adequately determine the limits of the President‘s authority with respect to the
purpose for which the Malampaya Funds may be used. It gives the President wide latitude to use the
Malampaya Funds for any other purpose he may direct and, in effect, allows him to unilaterally
appropriate public funds beyond the purview of the law.”

Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993- the phrases:

(b) "to finance the priority infrastructure development projects” was declared constitutional. IT
INDICATED PURPOSE ADEQUATELY CURTAILS THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT TO SPEND THE
PRESIDENTIAL SOCIAL FUND ONLY FOR RESTORATION PURPOSES WHICH ARISE FROM CALAMITIES.

(b)” and to finance the restoration of damaged or destroyed facilities due to calamities, as may be
directed and authorized by the Office of the President of the Philippines” was declared
unconstitutional.IT GIVES THE PRESIDENT CARTE BLANCHE AUTHORITY TO USE THE SAME FUND FOR
ANY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT HE MAY SO DETERMINE AS A ―PRIORITY‖. VERILY, THE LAW DOES NOT
SUPPLY A DEFINITION OF ―PRIORITY INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS‖ AND HENCE, LEAVES
THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT ANY GUIDELINE TO CONSTRUE THE SAME.

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:
FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:
FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD: