CASE

Pichay v.
Office of
Dep
Exec Sec

FACTS
PGMA issued EO 12 creating the Presidential
Anti-Graft Commission, vesting it with the
power to investigate or hear admin cases for
possible graft and corruption. PNoy abolished
PAGC and transferred its functions to ODESLA.
Sec. Purisima filed grave misconduct case
before ODESLA against Chairman Pichay of
LWUA along with his Board of Trustees due to
the purchase of 445k shares of Express
Savings Bank by LWUA. Pichay questions the
validity of EO 13.

Arroyo v.
DOJ

Due to the massive electoral fraud in 2004

and 2007, COMELEC issued Resolution
approving its collaboration with DOJ in
conducting PI on the election anomalies.
COMELEC and DOJ issued a Joint Order
creating a Joint Committee and a Fact-Finding
Team composed of officials from the DOJ and
COMELEC.
GMA
is
assailing
the
constitutionality of the collaboration by the
two committees, specifically the Resolution,
the Joint Order, the Rules of Procedure, and
the Initial Report

People
v. Vera

Mariano was convicted by the TC (Manila).

While awaiting new trial, he appealed for
probation alleging that the he is innocent of
the crime he was convicted of. The City Fiscal
opposed the grant of probation. Among the
arguments raised was that Act 4221 (which
granted probation) was violative of the
Constitution as an undue delegation of

ISSUE
W/N the Pres,
through EO 13,
has (1) usurped
the powers of
congress
to
create a public
office, and (2)
appropriate
funds
and
delegate quasijudicial
functions
to
administrative
agencies
W/N
the
collaboration of
DOJ
and
COMELEC and
the validity of
the
proceedings
undertaken
therein
were
valid- YES

RULING
President has continuing authority to reorganize the
executive department as expressly granted under E.O.
292. The reorganization did not entail the creation of a
new, separate and distinct office. It was merely a transfer
of functions, which is allowed under the Admin Code; and
lastly, there is no usurpation of the legislative power to
appropriate public funds because the funds to be used are
from that of his office. He is explicitly allowed by law to
transfer any fund appropriated for the agencies and
offices of the Executive Department included in the GAA
to any program, project or activity of any of the same
included in the GAA or approved after its enactment.

W/N there was

undue
delegation- YES

The assailed Joint Order did not create new offices

because the Joint Committee and Fact-finding Team
perform functions that they already perform by virtue of
the Constitution, the statutes, and the Rules of Court .
In acting jointly with DOJ, Comelec cannot be considered
to have abdicated its independence in favor of the
executive branch of government. Resolution No. 9266 was
validly issued by the Comelec as a means to fulfill its duty
of ensuring the prompt investigation and prosecution of
election offenses as an adjunct of its mandate of ensuring
a free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.
The role of the DOJ in the conduct of preliminary
investigation of election offenses has long been
recognized by the Comelec because of its lack of funds
and legal officers to conduct investigations and to
prosecute such cases on its own. This is especially true
after R.A. No. 9369 vested in the Comelec and the DOJ the
concurrent
jurisdiction
to
conduct
preliminary
investigation of all election offenses.

The Probation Law does not fix nor impose upon the
provincial boards, any standard or guide in the exercise of
their discretionary power. What is granted is a ROVING
COMMISSION which enables them to exercise arbitrary
discretion. In reality, the Legislature has left the entire matter
to provincial boards to determine. The legislature has not
made the operation of the Law contingent upon any specified
J. Rivera & A. Yogue
ALS (2017)
4A | Article VI, Sec 1

legislative powers to the provincial boards of

several provinces.

facts or conditions to be ascertained by the provincial board.

A provincial board need not investigate conditions or find any
fact or await the happening of any specified contingency. It is
BOUND BY NO RULE, LIMITED BY NO PRINCIPLE OF
EXPEDIENCY.
The statute does not expressly state that the provincial
boards may suspend the operation of the Probation Act in
particular provinces but, considering that, in being vested
with the authority to appropriate or not the necessary funds
for the salaries of probation officers, they thereby are given
absolute discretion to determine whether or not the law
should take effect or operate in their respective provinces,
the provincial boards are in reality empowered by the
legislature to suspend the operation of the Probation Act in
particular provinces, the Act to be held in abeyance until the
provincial boards should decide otherwise by appropriating
the necessary funds. The validity of a law is not tested by
what has been done but by what may be done under its
provisions.

US
v.
Barrias

US
v.
Panlilio

Insular Collector of Customs issued circular

prohibiting heavily loaded casco, lighter, or
other similar craft from moving in the Pasig
River without being towed by steam or moved
by other adequate power.
Barrias was
charged with its violation.He attacked the
validity of paragraph 70 of the Circular on the
ground that the Insular Collector of Customs is
unauthorized by section 19 of Act No. 355 in
issuing such; and, second, that if the acts of
the
Philippine
Commission
bear
the
interpretation of authorizing the Collector to
promulgate such a law, they are void, as
constituting an illegal delegation of legislative
power.

W/N CoC has

power
to
promulgate the
Circular?- YES

CFI convicted Panlilio of a violation of the law

[Act No. 1760] relating to the quarantining of

w/not
orders

of

the
the

By sections 1, 2, and 3 of Act No. 1136, the Collector of

Customs (CoC) is authorized to license craft engaged in
the lighterage or other exclusively harbor business of the
ports of the Islands, and, with certain exceptions, all
vessels engaged in lightering are required to be so
licensed. Sec. 5 of the same authorized and directed CoC
to publish suitable rules and regulations.
Under this statute, which was not referred to on the
argument, or in the original briefs, there is no difficulty in
sustaining the regulation of the Collector as coming within
the terms of section 5. Lighterage, mentioned in the Act,
is the very business in which this vessel was engaged,
and when heavily laden with hemp she was navigating the
Pasig River below the Bridge of Spain, in the city of
Manila.
A violation of the orders if Bureau of Agriculture as
authorized by Sec 6 is not a violation of the
J. Rivera & A. Yogue
ALS (2017)
4A | Article VI, Sec 1

animals suffering from dangerous contagious

diseases and sentenced him to pay a fine of
40.
Panlilio alleged that facts alleged in the
Information does not constitute a violation of
Act 1760.

People
v.
Maceren

Fisheries Law prohibits the use of any

poisonous substance in fishing. Fisheries
Admin Order No. 84-1 issued by Sec of Agri
And NR prohibited electro fishing in all fresh
water fisheries in PH. Electro Fishing
catching of fish with the use of electric
current.

Bureau
of
Agriculture is a
violation of Act
1760
and
hence a penal
violation?
[order violated
by
Panlilio
required
animals
suffering from
contagious
diseases
be
quarantined]
w/not the said
Admin Order is
ValidNo!

Macaroni was charged with electro fishing in

Laguna in violation of the said AO.
People
v.
Dacuycu
y

Matondo, Caval and Zanoria [public school

officials of Leyte] were charged of a violation
of the Magna Carta for Pub School Teachers
[RA 4670].
Sec 32 thereof states that a person who
willfully interfere with, restrain or coerce any
teacher in the exercise of rights guaranteed
under this act or who shall in any other
manner commit any act to defeat any of the
provisions of this act shall, upon conviction,
be punished by a F not less that 100 php nor
more that 1 k. or by imprisonment, in the
discretion of the court.
Accused alleged that said section of the law
was unconsti bec it constitutes undue
delegation of legislative power since the
duration of the penalty of imprisonment
was left solely to the discretion of the

w/not Sec 32 is
unconsti YES!

provision of Act No. 1760.

The orders of the said bureau, while they may possibly be
said to have the force of the law, are statutes and
particularly not penal statutes, and a violation of such
orders is not a penal offense, unless the statute itself
somewhere makes a violation thereof unlawful and
penalizes it. Nowhere in Act No. 1760 is a violation of
the orders of the BA made a penal offense, not is
such violation punished in any way therein.
But, Panlilio is still guilty of violating Art 581 (par 2) of the
RPC. [any person who violate the regulations with
reference to any epidemic disease among animals. Fined
si koya]
No, AO is invalid
Sec of Agri and NR and the Commissioner of Fisheries
exceeded their authority in issuing the AO.
Electro Fishing is not banned under RA 351. Hence, sec
was not empowered to penalize it. The Power to define
crimes and the way they are to be punished is a power
reserved exclusively to the legislative body and may not
be delegated.

A judicial determination of what congress intended to be

the duration of the penalty of imprisonment would violate
against undue delegation of legislative power.
It is not for the courts to fix the term of imprisonment
where no points of reference have been provided by the
legis.
What a valid delegation presupposes and sanctions is an
exercise of discretion to fix the length of service/term of
imprisonment which must be encompassed within
specific/designated limits provided by law, the
absence if which designated limits will constitute
undue delegation.
hence, sec 32 is unconsti.

J. Rivera & A. Yogue

ALS (2017)
4A | Article VI, Sec 1

court as if it were part of the legis dept

of the govt.
Ynot
IAC

v.

Ynot was charged of a violation of EO 626-A

which prohibits the interprovincial movement
of carabaos. Said EO further stated that the
carabao/carabeef transported in violation of
such shall be
subject to confiscation and forfeiture by the
government, to be distributed to charitable
institutions and other similar institutions as
the Chairman of the National Meat
Inspection Commission may see fit, in the
case of carabeef, and to deserving farmers
through dispersal as the Director of Animal
Industry may see fit, in the case of
carabaos.

w/not EO 626-A
is
unconsti
YES!

The phrase "may see fit" is an extremely generous and

dangerous condition, if condition it is. It is laden with
perilous opportunities for partiality and abuse, and even
corruption. Sufficient standard and reasonable guidelines
that said officers must observe when they make their
distribution are totally absent. Their options are
apparently boundless. Definitely, there is here a "roving
commission. Hence, an invalid delegation of legislative
powers.

For these reasons, we hereby declare Executive Order No.

626A unconstitutional:
1. It is an invalid exercise of the police power because
the method employed to conserve the carabaos is not
reasonably necessary to the purpose of the law and,
worse, is unduly oppressive.
2. Due process is violated because the owner of the
property confiscated is denied the right to be heard in
his defense and is immediately condemned and
punished.
3. The conferment on the administrative authorities of
the power to adjudge the guilt of the supposed
offender is a clear encroachment on judicial functions
and militates against the doctrine of separation of
powers.
4. There is, finally, also an invalid delegation of
legislative powers to the officers mentioned
therein who are granted unlimited discretion in
the distribution of the properties arbitrarily
taken.
Yes, IRR went beyond the Milk Code in prohibiting
the advertisement of breastmilk subs.
Milk Code invested the regulatory authority over
advertising, promotional and marketing materials to an
Inter-Agency Committee (IAC) with the Minister of health
as the Chairman. Sec 11 of DOH IRR states that no
advertising, promotion, sponsorship or marketing
materials and activities for breast milk subs intended for
infants and young children up to 24 mons.
BY this provision, DOH arrogated to itself not only

Ynot challenged the constitutionality of the EO

626-A

Pharmac
eutical
v. DOH

Cory Aquino issued EO51 [Milk Code] for the

purpose of giving effect to the International
Code of Marketing Breastmilk Substitutes
(ICMBS) which was adopted by the WHA.

w/not IRR is
unconstiYES!

WHA issued several RES which did not permit

breastmilk subs to claim nutrition or health
ben.
DOH issued the IRR of the Milk Code. This

J. Rivera & A. Yogue

ALS (2017)
4A | Article VI, Sec 1

included provisions mandating breastfeeding

from 0-6 mons, continued breastfeeding up to
24
mons,
and
absolutely
prohibiting
advertisements and promotions of breastmilk
sub.
Petitioners assailed the consti of IRR alleging
that it went beyond the Milk Code and hence,
should be invalid.

ABAKAD
A
v.
Purisima

This petition seeks to prevent respondents

from implementing and enforcing the Attrition
Act of 2005. It was enacted to optimize the
revenue-generation capability and collection
of the BIR and BOC by providing a system of
rewards and sanctions. It covers officials of
BIR and BOC with at least 6 mons of service
regardless if employment status.
It is being contended that Sec 12 of said law
is in violation of the separation of powers as it
is an encroachment of judicial power. Sec 12
states that,
SEC. 12. Joint Congressional Oversight
Committee.
There is hereby created a Joint
Congressional Oversight Committee
composed of seven Members from the
Senate and seven Members from the
House of Representatives. xxx After
the Oversight Committee will have
approved the implementing rules
and regulations (IRR) it shall
thereafter
become functus
officio and therefore cease to exist.

w/not there is
undue
delegation
of
legislative
powers Nope.
w/not there is
encroachment
on the power of
the
judiciary?
YES!

the regulatory authority given to the IAC but also

imposed absolute prohibition on advertising,
promotion, and marketing. This is wrong as it is
contrary to the Milk Code which gives the IAC such
authority.
DOH's power under the Milk Code to control
information
regarding
breastmilk
vis-.a-.vis
breastmilk substitutes is not absolute as the power
to control does not encompass the power to
absolutely prohibit the advertising, marketing, and
promotion of breastmilk substitutes.
Further, in this case, neither the Milk Code nor the Revised
Administrative Code nor ANY law for that matter grants
the DOH the power to impose sanctions and fines. What
the Milk Code provides is the authority given to DOH to
"cause the prosecution of the violators of this Code and
other pertinent laws on products covered by this Code."
1. VALID DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS
Two tests determine the validity of delegation of legislative
power: (1) the completeness test and (2) the sufficient
standard test.
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. It in no way violates the security of tenure of
officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC.
It lays down a reasonable yardstick for removal (when
the revenue collection falls short of the target by at
least 7.5%) with due consideration of all relevant
factors affecting the level of collection.
This standard is analogous to inefficiency and
incompetence in the performance of official duties, a
ground for disciplinary action under civil service laws.
The action for removal is also subject to civil service
laws, rules and regs and compliance with substantive
and procedural due process.
2. SEC
12
OF
RA
9335
CREATING
A
JOINT
CONGRESSIONAL
OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE
TO
APPROVE THE IRR OF THE LAW IS UNCONSTI AND
HENCE NULL AND VOID.
Administrative regulations enacted by administrative
agencies to implement and interpret the law which
they are entrusted to enforce have the force of law
J. Rivera & A. Yogue
ALS (2017)
4A | Article VI, Sec 1

Phil
Coconut
v.
Republic

This case concerns the coco levy fund.

Basically the coco levy fund was a tax
imposed on coconut farmers for the benefit of
the coconut industry. One of the projects was
to use the fund to purchase a bank (UCPB) so
that farmers can get loans free of interest and
other benefits. Shares will be distributed to
the farmers.
Section 1 of PD 755 states that,
It is hereby declared that the policy of the
State is to provide readily available credit
facilities to the coconut farmers at a
preferential rates; that this policy can be
expeditiously and efficiently realized by the
implementation of the "Agreement for the
Acquisition of a Commercial Bank for the
benefit of Coconut Farmers" executed by the
[PCA]...; and that the [PCA] is hereby
authorized to distribute, for free, the shares of
stock of the bank it acquired to the coconut
farmers....

Belgica

The 2013 PDAF Article in the GAA allowed

w/not Sec 1 of
PD
755
constitutes an
undue
delegation for
legislative
power insofar
as it authorizes
the
PCA
to
promulgate
rules
and
regulations
governing the
distribution of
the
UCPB
shares to the
coconut
farmers.

yes!

Whether or not

and are entitled to respect. 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. As such, 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.
Congress, in the guise of assuming the role of
an overseer, 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. 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 arrogated judicial power unto
itself, a power exclusively vested in this Court
by the Constitution.
Two tests determine the validity of delegation of legislative
power: (1) the completeness test and (2) the sufficient
standard test. Law has no sufficient standard.
Under PD 755, the law authorized the PCA to distribute for
free the shares of stock of the bank it is acquired from the
farmers. Consequently, the PCA issued regulations to effect
this authority.
SC ruled that it is undue delegation of legislative
power because it lacked standards for valid
delegation. It gave unbridled authority to the PCA to
exercise discretion as to who, how, and when these shares
should be distributed. The distribution was described as a
bonanza.
The actual distribution of the bank shares was admittedly an
enormous operational problem which resulted in the failure of
the intended beneficiaries to receive their shares of stocks in
the bank, as shown by the rules and regulations, issued by
the PCA, w/o adequate guidelines being provided to it by PD
No. 755. [it paved the way to playing favorites]
The 2013 PDAF Article, insofar as it confers post-enactment
J. Rivera & A. Yogue
ALS (2017)
4A | Article VI, Sec 1

v. Ochoa

LGUs to be identified as implementing

agencies.
Legislators were also allowed to identify
programs/projects
outside
of
his
legislative district.
Realignment of funds and release of funds
were required to be favorably endorsed by the
House Committee on Appropriations and the
Senate Committee on Finance, as the case
may be.
In July 2013, the National Bureau of
Investigation probed the allegation that a
syndicate defrauded the government of P10
billion using funds from the pork barrel of
lawmakers and various government agencies
for scores of ghost projects.

the 2013 PDAF

Article and all
other
Congressional
Pork Barrel
laws are
unconstitutiona
l for violating
the
constitutional
provisions on
nondelegability of
legislative
power YES!

identification authority to individual legislators, violates the

principle of non-delegability since said legislators are
effectively allowed to individually exercise the power
of appropriation, which as settled in Philconsa is
lodged in Congress.
That the power to appropriate must be exercised
only through legislation is clear from Section 29(1),
Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which states that:
No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in
pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
The legislators are individually exercising the power of
appropriation because each of them determines (a)
how much of their PDAF fund would go to and (b) a
specific project or beneficiary that they themselves
also determine.

J. Rivera & A. Yogue

ALS (2017)
4A | Article VI, Sec 1