Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 28 views

    Structure of The Philippine Government

    Uploaded by

    Joseph Gaviola
    The Philippine government has three branches that separate powers: the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This case involves Pangasinan Transportation Co. (PANTRANCO), which operates public transportation vehicles under a certificate from the Public Service Commission (PSC). PANTRANCO applied to the PSC for authorization to operate 10 additional vehicles. The PSC granted authorization but added conditions, like the vehicles could be acquired by the government for a price and the certificate would only be valid for a set time period. The issue is whether the PSC has the power to impose such conditions. The Supreme Court ruled that the PSC's power in this regard is a valid delegation of power from the legislature, as the PSC is only

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Structure of The Philippine Government

    Uploaded by

    Joseph Gaviola
    28 views3 pages
    The Philippine government has three branches that separate powers: the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This case involves Pangasinan Transportation Co. (PANTRANCO), which operates public transportation vehicles under a certificate from the Public Service Commission (PSC). PANTRANCO applied to the PSC for authorization to operate 10 additional vehicles. The PSC granted authorization but added conditions, like the vehicles could be acquired by the government for a price and the certificate would only be valid for a set time period. The issue is whether the PSC has the power to impose such conditions. The Supreme Court ruled that the PSC's power in this regard is a valid delegation of power from the legislature, as the PSC is only

    Original Description:

    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW DIGEST

    Original Title

    DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Philippine government has three branches that separate powers: the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This case involves Pangasinan Transportation Co. (PANTRANCO), which operates public transportation vehicles under a certificate from the Public Service Commission (PSC). PANTRANCO applied to the PSC for authorization to operate 10 additional vehicles. The PSC granted authorization but added conditions, like the vehicles could be acquired by the government for a price and the certificate would only be valid for a set time period. The issue is whether the PSC has the power to impose such conditions. The Supreme Court ruled that the PSC's power in this regard is a valid delegation of power from the legislature, as the PSC is only

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    28 views3 pages

    Structure of The Philippine Government

    Uploaded by

    Joseph Gaviola
    The Philippine government has three branches that separate powers: the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This case involves Pangasinan Transportation Co. (PANTRANCO), which operates public transportation vehicles under a certificate from the Public Service Commission (PSC). PANTRANCO applied to the PSC for authorization to operate 10 additional vehicles. The PSC granted authorization but added conditions, like the vehicles could be acquired by the government for a price and the certificate would only be valid for a set time period. The issue is whether the PSC has the power to impose such conditions. The Supreme Court ruled that the PSC's power in this regard is a valid delegation of power from the legislature, as the PSC is only

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    STRUCTURE OF

    THE PHILIPPINE
    GOVERNMENT
    CASE: PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., petitioner, vs. THE PUBLIC
    SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.
    G.R. No. 47065 June 26, 1940
    TOPIC: Separation of powers
    FACTS:
    FACTS:
    The petitioner has been engaged for the past twenty years in the business of transporting
    passengers in the Province of Pangasinan and Tarlac and, to a certain extent, in the Province of
    Nueva Ecija and Zambales, by means of motor vehicles commonly known as TPU buses, in
    accordance with the terms and conditions of the certificates of public convenience issued in its
    favor by the former Public Utility Commission in cases Nos. 24948, 30973, 36830, 32014 and
    53090.
    On August 26, 1939, the petitioner filed with the Public Service Commission an
    application for authorization to operate ten additional new Brockway trucks (case No. 56641), on
    the ground that they were needed to comply with the terms and conditions of its existing
    certificates and as a result of the application of the Eight Hour Labor Law. In the decision of
    September 26, 1939, granting the petitioner's application for increase of equipment.
    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/S:
    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.
    In the language of this Court in Edwards vs. McCoy (22 Phil., 598), "the right to adduce
    evidence, without the corresponding duty on the part of the board to consider it, is vain. Such right
    is conspicuously futile if the person or persons to whom the evidence is presented can thrust it
    aside without or consideration." While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to
    decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having
    something to support its decision. A decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity, at
    least when directly attacked. (Edwards vs. McCoy, supra.) This principle emanates from the more
    fundamental principle that the genius of constitutional government is contrary to the vesting of
    unlimited power anywhere. Law is both a grant and a limitation upon power.
    The decision appealed from is hereby reversed and the case remanded to the Public Service
    Commission for further proceedings in accordance with law and this decision, without any
    pronouncement regarding costs. So ordered.

    You might also like