University of the Philippines College of Law

CPE, 1-D

Topic NON DELEGATION DOCTRINE

Case No. L-58184 / 1981
Case Name FREE TELEPHONE WORKER’S UNION V. MINSTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
Ponente FERNANDO, j.

RELEVANT FACTS

1. On September 14, 1981, there was a notice of strike with the Ministry of Labor for unfair labor practices
stating the following grounds:
a. Unilateral and arbitrary implementation of a Code of Conduct,
b. Illegal terminations and suspensions of officers and members as a result of the implementation
of said Code of Conduct;
c. Unconfirmation (sic) of call sick leaves and its automatic treatment as Absence Without Official
Leave of Absence (AWOL) with corresponding suspensions, in violation of our Collective
Bargaining Agreement.
2. On September 15, 1981, the notification to the Ministry that there was compliance with the two-thirds
strike vote and other formal requirements of the law and Implementing Rules.
3. Several conciliation meetings called by the Ministry followed, with petitioner manifesting its willingness
to have a revised Code of Conduct that would be fair to all concerned but with a plea that in the
meanwhile the Code of Conduct being imposed be suspended a position that failed to meet the
approval of private respondent.
4. Subsequently, respondent, on September 25, 1981, certified the labor dispute to the NLRC for
compulsory arbitration and enjoined any strike at the private respondent's establishment.
5. The labor dispute was set for hearing by respondent NLRC on September 28, 1981.
6. There was in the main an admission of the above relevant facts by public respondents. Private
respondent, following the lead of petitioner labor union, explained its side on the controversy regarding
the Code of Conduct, the provisions of which as alleged in the petition were quite harsh, resulting in
what it deemed indefinite preventive suspension apparently the principal cause of the labor dispute. (At
this stage, as mentioned, it would be premature to discuss the merits, or lack of it, of such claim, the
matter being properly for the Ministry of Labor to determine.)
7. On September 29, 1981 (next day), this Court issued the following resolution:
a. "Considering the allegations contained, the issues raised and the arguments adduced in the
petition for certiorari with prayer for a restraining order, the Court Resolved to (a) require the
respondents to file an [answer], not a motion to dismiss; and (b) [Set] this case for hearing on
Thursday, October 8, 1981 at 11:00 o'clock in the morning.

8. In the present petition, the constitutionality of the amendment to the Article of the Labor Code
regarding strikes "affecting the national interest" is assailed which partakes of the nature of a
prohibition proceeding filed by the Free Telephone Workers Union.
9. As amended, the Article now reads:

"In labor disputes causing or likely to cause strikes or lockouts adversely affecting the national
interest, such as may occur in but not limited to public utilities, companies engaged in the
generation or distribution of energy, banks, hospitals, and those within export processing zones,
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CPE, 1-D

the Minister of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or
certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification
shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout. If
one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out
employees shall immediately return to work and the employers shall immediately resume
operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the
strike or lockout. The Minister may seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure
compliance with this provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same."

10. It is the submission of petitioner labor union that:

a. That BP Blg. 130 in so far as it amends article 264 of the Labor Code delegating to the Hon.
Minister of Labor and Employment the power and discretion to assume jurisdiction and/or
certify strikes for compulsory arbitration to the NLRC, and in effect make or unmake the law on
free collective bargaining, is an undue delegation of legislative powers.
b. That such conferment of authority "may also run contrary to the assurance of the State to the
workers' right to self-organization and collective bargaining.”

NOTE: the SC doesn’t see merit in the current petition because the petitioners were not able to show that there
was undue delegation of legislative powers and that the unconstitutionality of the application has not been
proven/done. Check notes section for the explanation.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
W/N there is an NO.
undue delegation
of legislative 1. The allegation that there is undue delegation of legislative powers cannot stand the
power as claimed test of scrutiny. The power which he would deny the Minister of Labor by virtue of such
by petitioner principle is for petitioner labor union within the competence of the President, who in its
union. opinion can best determine national interests, but only when a strike is in progress.

What possesses significance for the purpose of this litigation is that it is the President
who, shall have control of the ministries

During his incumbency, he exercises supervision over all ministries, a recognition of the
important role he plays in the implementation of the policy of the government, the
legislation duly enacted in pursuance thereof, and the decrees and orders of the
President. To the Prime Minister can thus be delegated the performance of the
administrative functions of the President, who can then devote more time and energy in
the fulfillment of his exacting role as the national leader.

2. A later decision, Villena v. Secretary of Interior, is of greater relevance to this case:

"all executive and administrative organizations are adjuncts of the Executive

Department, the heads of the various executive departments are assistants and agents
of the Chief Executive, and, except in cases where the Chief Executive is required by
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CPE, 1-D

the Constitution or the law to act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand
that he act personally, the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the
Chief Executive are performed by and through the executive departments, and the acts
of the secretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated in the regular
course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive,
presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive”

NOTE: At the time of the adoption of the present Constitution on January 17, 1973, this
Court had cited with approval the above ruling of Villena in twelve cases

An excerpt from those cases:

Chief Justice Taft of the Supreme Court of the United States, each head of a
department is, and must be, the President’s alter ego in the matters of that
department where the President is required by law to exercise authority. * * *
Secretaries of departments, of course, exercise certain powers under the law but the
law cannot impair or in any way affect the constitutional power of control and
direction of the President… The head of a department is a man of his confidence; he
control and directs his acts; he
appoints him and can remove him at pleasure; he is the executive, not any of his
secretaries.

3. Even on the assumption that the authority conferred to the Minister of Labor partakes
of a legislative character, still no case of an unlawful delegation of such power may be
discerned.

As stated in Edu v. Ericta:

“What cannot be delegated is the authority under the Constitution to make laws and to
alter and repeal them; the test is the completeness of the statute in all its term and
provisions when it leaves the hands of the legislature. To determine whether or not there
is an undue delegation of legislative power, the inquiry must be directed to the scope and
definiteness of the measure enacted. The legislature does not abdicate its functions
when it describes what job must be done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of his
authority.”

To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard, which implies at the
very least that the legislature itself determines matters principle and lays down
fundamental policy.

The standard though does not have to be spelled out specifically. It could be implied from
the policy and purpose of the act considered as a whole.

Also, from Justice

J.B.L. Reyes in People v. Exconde: It is well established in this jurisdiction that, while the
making of laws is a nondelegable activity that corresponds exclusively to Congress,
nevertheless the latter may constitutionally delegate authority to promulgate rules and
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CPE, 1-D

regulations to implement a given legislation and effectuate its policies, for the reason that
the legislature often finds it impracticable (if not impossible) to anticipate and provide for
the multifarious and complex situations that may be met in carrying the law into effect.

4. Modern complexities as a way of defending such delegation

Justice Laurel himself in an earlier decision, People v. Rosenthal in 1939, promulgated less
than two years after Vera, pointed out that such doctrine of non-delegation "has been
made to adopt itself to the complexities of modern governments, giving rise to the
adoption, within certain limits, of the principle of 'subordinate legislation' not only in the
United States and England but in practically all modern governments. The difficulty lies in
the fixing of the limit and extent of the authority. While courts have undertaken to lay
down general principles, the safest is to decide each case according to its peculiar
environment, having in mind the wholesome legislative purpose intended to be achieved

in Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration v. Confederation of Unions

in Government Corporations and Offices" the then Justice, now the retired Chief Justice
and presently Speaker, Makalintal had occasion to refer to "the growing complexities of
society" as well as "the increasing social challenges of the times. It would be self-
defeating in the extreme if the legislation intended to cope with the grave social and
economic problems of the present and foreseeable future would founder on the rock of
an unduly restrictive and decidedly unrealistic meaning to be affixed to the doctrine of
non-delegation

A rigid application of the non-delegation doctrine, therefore, would be an obstacle to

national efforts at development and progress. There is accordingly more receptivity to
laws leaving to administrative and executive agencies the adoption of such means as may
be necessary to effectuate a valid legislative purpose

RULING

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit. During the pendency of the compulsory arbitration
proceedings, both petitioner labor union and private respondent are enjoined to good faith compliance with the
provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 130. No costs.

NOTES

1. On the CRUCIAL ISSUE PRESENTED; THE Court holds that petitioner was not able to make out a case of
an undue delegation of legislative power. There could be, however, an unconstitutional application.

For while the Constitution allows compulsory arbitration, it must be stressed that the exercise of such
competence cannot ignore the basic fundamental principle and state policy that the state should afford
protection to labor… thus, the State still is required to "assure the rights of workers to self-organization,
collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CPE, 1-D

At this stage of the litigation, however, in the absence of factual determination by the Ministry of Labor
and the National Labor Relations Commission, this Court is not in a position to rule on whether or not
there is an unconstitutional application. There was not even a categorical assertion to that effect by
petitioner's counsel which was indicative of the care in his choice of words. He only assumed that the
conferment of such authority may run counter to the right of the workers to self-organization and
collective bargaining. The petition then cannot prosper.