Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA

Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., petitioner v.
Philippine Overseas Employment

Administration (POEA), Minister of Labor and Employment, Hearing Officer Abdul
Basar and Kathleen D. Saco, respondents, G.R. No. 76633, 166 SCRA 533, October
18, 1988
Facts:
The petitioner challenge the decision of Philippine Overseas Employment Administration

POEA on the principal ground that the POEA had no jurisdiction over the case of Vitaliano
Saco as he was not an overseas worker. Vitaliano Saco was Chief Officer of the M/V
Eastern Polaris when he was killed in an accident in Tokyo, Japan, March 15, 1985. His
widow sued for damages under Executive Order No. 797 and Memorandum Circular No.
2 of the POEA. The petitioner, as owner of the vessel, argued that the complaint was
cognizable not by the POEA but by the Social Security System and should have been
filed against the State Insurance Fund. The POEA nevertheless assumed jurisdiction and
after considering the position papers of the parties ruled in favor of the complainant. The
petitioner argues that the deceased employee should be likened to the employees of the
Philippine Air Lines who, although working abroad in its international flights, are not
considered overseas workers.
Moreover, the petitioner questions the validity of Memorandum Circular No. 2 itself as
violative of the principle of non-delegation of legislative power. It contends that no
authority had been given the POEA to promulgate the said regulation; and even with such
authorization, the regulation represents an exercise of legislative discretion which, under
the principle, is not subject to delegation.
Issue/s:
Whether or not Memorandum Circular No. 2 has violated the principle of non-delegation
of legislative power.
Rulings:
No. There was no principles violated. The authority to issue the said regulation is clearly
provided in Section 4(a) of Executive Order No. 797. “The governing Board of the
Administration (POEA), as hereunder provided shall promulgate the necessary rules and
regulations to govern the exercise of the adjudicatory functions of the Administration
(POEA).” It is true that legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law
cannot be delegated. What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law
may be enforced, not what the law shall be. The ascertainment of the latter subject is a
prerogative of the legislature. This prerogative cannot be abdicated or surrendered by the
legislature to the delegate.
The reasons given above for the delegation of legislative powers in general are
particularly applicable to administrative bodies. With the proliferation of specialized
activities and their attendant peculiar problems, the national legislature has found it more
and more necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the authority to issue rules to
carry out the general provisions of the statute. This is called the “power of subordinate
legislation.”
With this power, administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid down in a
statute by “filling in’ the details which the Congress may not have the opportunity or
competence to provide. This is effected by their promulgation of what are known as
supplementary regulations, such as the implementing rules issued by the Department of
Labor on the new Labor Code. These regulations have the force and effect of law.
Discussions:
There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of
legislative power:
1. Completeness test – the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions
when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate the only thing
he will have to do is enforce it.
2. Sufficient standard test – there must be adequate guidelines or stations in the
law to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority and prevent the
delegation from running riot.
Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authority to the
delegate, who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and exercise a power
essentially legislative.

Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., petitioner v.

Philippine Overseas Employment

The petitioner challenge the decision of Philippine Overseas Employment Administration

You might also like