Article6 Sec1

The legislative power is vested in the congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a senate
and a house of representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on
initiative and referendum

Legislative power (MAR)

 Authority to Make laws, and to Alter or Repeal them

Bicameralism advantages (NAMS) (NCLT)

 National Perspective – to check on parochial tendencies of representatives elected by district

 Allows more careful study of legislation
 Makes legislature less susceptible to control by the executive
 Serves as training ground for national leaders

Unicameralism advantages (SFA) (SAF)

 Simplicity of organization – resulting in economy and efficiency

 Facility in pinpointing responsibility for legislation
 Avoidance of duplication

Legislative power kinds (generally, two) (OD – OC)

 Original - possessed by sovereign people

 Derivative – delegated by sovereign people to legislative bodies and subordinate to the original
power of the people.
o Also be classified as
 Constituent – Amendatory process
 Ordinary – Through Initiative and Referendum – pass ordinary laws

Limits to legislative power (SP)

 Substantive – Curtail the contents of a law (ex no violation of freedom of speech)

 Procedural – Curtail Manner of passing the law (ex must be signed by pres , published)

DELEGATION OF POWERS

Not allowed but 2 exceptions

1) By Immemorial practice legislative power may be delegated to local governments

2) Constitution itself allow delegation (art 6 sections 23(2) and 28(2)
 RUBI V. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO

 The Provincial Board of Mindoro directed the Mangyans in the province to relocate to a
reservation established in Tigbao, Mindoro. This was pursuant to Sec. 2145 (establishment of
non-christians upon sites selected by provincial governor) of the Administrative Code of 1917,
o  which granted provincial governors the authority to direct “non-Christian” inhabitants to
take up their habitation on unoccupied public lands to be selected by the governor.
o Provincial director issued an executive order 2 – Direct that all mangyan in the vicinities
take up habitation on the site of tigbao, naujan lake
 Who shall refuses, imprisoned subject to sec 2759 of admin code
  An application for habeas corpus was filed in favor of Rubi and the other Mangyans — it was
alleged that they were illegally deprived of their liberty by the provincial officials of Mindoro after
being locked up for 60 days
 The petitioners are now assailing the validity of Sec. 2145 of the Administrative Code

W/N Sec. 2145 of the Administrative Code violated the non-delegability of the legislative
and is unconstitutional – NO

 NO, the resolution of the Provincial Board was pursuant to Sec. 2145 of the Administrative Code,
which is able to delegate legislative power to provincial authorities and is as such constitutional.
o Delegation of power to make a law – discretion as to what it shall be
o Conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution – exercised under and in
pursuance of the law
 To give “necessity of the case”

 Generally, legislative power is non-delegable. However, it may be validly delegated to local

governments and administrative bodies.
o Sanctioned by immemorial practice, permits the central legislative body to delagfte leg
powers to local authorities
 Philippine Legislature has conferred authority upon province of Mindoro, exercised by provincial
governor and board.
o They are better fitted to select sirtes which have the conditions most favorable for
improving the people who have the misfortune of being a backward state.
 Section 2145 of Admin Code not an unlawful delegation of legislative power by PH legislature.

Alyansa para sa bagong Pilipinas, Inc. V Energy Regulatory Commission

 The petition sought to declare ERC Resolution No. 1, Series of 2016 as well as for the Court to direct the ERC
to disapprove the Power Supply Agreements (PSA) of the Distribution Utilities (DUs) submitted after
November 7, 2015 for failure to conduct Competitive Selection Process (CSP).
 The energy regulatorty comuission was created under electric power industry reform act to
promote competition and discourage abuse of market power in the electric industry.
 DOE circular – mandates CSP whenever DUs secure PSA
o ERC task tasked to implement Circular with effectivity on June 30
 1st postponement – jun 30 to nov 7
 2nd postponement – nov 7 april 30
 Given that the ERC postponed  the effectivity date of the CSP twice for a total of 305 days, petitioner claimed
that the ERC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the ERC Clarificatory Resolution
W/N ERC have the statutory authoprity to postpone date of effectivity of the CSP – amending the 2015
DOE circular which requires csp to take effect on jun 30 – no

 ERC’s delegated authority is limited to implementing or executing CSP in according with the
circular – not postponing CSP.
 Mandate of ERC under EPIRA – enforce and implement rules and regulations of epira
o Power involved in ERC in implementation of DOE circular is not quasi-judicial but
executive.
o Nothing states in EPIRA that grants ERC rule-making power
 DOE has rule making power, pursuant to EPIRA – which erc is bound to follow

Department of transportation V. Philippine petroleum sea transport asooc.

 Consitutionality of establishment of Oil pollution management fund under RA9483 (sec 22a)
o Imposing 10c per liter for every delivery of oil by tanker barges/haulers
 With oil spills happening, congress implemented a law which is now oil pollution compensation
act which provides of the Oil pollution management fund
 Respondents assails the law and the IRR
o Argues that provisions provides unde delegation of legislative power
 Soince fixed no parameters given in giving OPMF authority to determine
amount of contribution after 1 year of 10c contribution

W/N the determination of rate for the second year implementation is an undue delegation of legislative
power

NO.
 The law which delegates power is complete and fixes a standard.
o Set forth policy to be executed
o Sets for a sufficiently determinate or determinable limit
 Could be implied
 “as far as practicable – decline of crude oil prices in the world market
Araneta V. Gamaitan ]

 This case is a consolidation of 2 cases where in the latter case questions the authority of the president to
issue EO’s 22, 66, and 80,

 In 1953, the Municipal Mayors’ League condemned the operation of trawls in a resolution as it
caused the wanton destruction of shrimp specie in the bay
o They filed a petition to the President of the Philippines to regulate trawl fishing
operations for a certain period of the year. 
 In April 1954, the President issued Executive Order no. 22
 Prohibiting trawls in San Miguel Bay
 In September 1954, Executive Order no. 66 amended EO. 22
 Allowing trawl fishing during typhoon season only
 November 1954, EO. 80 was made
 Revived EO. 22 to take effect Jan 1955 onwards.
 A group of Otter Trawl operators (operators were petitioner-appellees and at this point Araneta
was respondent) filed a complaint for injunction and/or declaratory relief with the CFI of Manila
seeking to restrain the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural resources (SANR) from enforcing EO
80
 CFI decided in favor of trawl operators declaring among other things essentially that the EO’s
were more in the field of legislation, not executive→ thus undue delegation of legislative power
W/N President has Authority to issue the EO’s and if they were issued in accordance with
law → Yes
The solicitor general asserts that the president is empowered by law to issue the executive enactments
based on the Fisheries Law. ( it declares unlawful the destroying and killing of fish fry and eggs and that
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (SANR) is authorized to promulgate regulations
restricting the use of fishing methods, including trawl fishing. 

Congress
a. Declared unlawfyul to take or catch fry or fish eggs in territorial waters
b. Authoriozed secretary of agriculture and natural resources to provide restrictions imposed on use
of any fishing net or fishing device for the protection of fiish fry or fish eggs

ABAKADA GURO PARTYLIST V, PURISIMA

 Petition for prohibition preventing respondents to implement and enforce RA 9335 (attrition act
of 2005)
 Optimize revenue generation capability of the BIR by providing system if rewards
andsanctions true creation of the Rewards and incentives fund (fund) and revenue
performance evaluiation board
 Fund is from execess revenue targets of the year
 Petitioners assert that the law unduly delegates the power to fix revenue targets to the President as it lacks a
sufficient standard on that matter.

W/N there is undue delegation of powers on the president to fix revenue targets – no
 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.
o Sufficient Test
 This test is administered to know if the law provides adequate guidelines or limitations in
the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s
o Completeness Test
 This test sets therein the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate.
RA9335 ADEQUATELY STATES THE POLICY AND STANDARDS TO GUIDE THE PRESIDENT IN
FIXING THE REVENUE TARGETS
 Complete: determine Revenue ttarfgets as determined by development budget and
coordinating committee (DBCC) – refer to original revenue collection estimates expected of
 the BIR and BOC. As STATED IN THE BUDGET OF EXPENDITURES AND SOURCES OF
FINANCING SUBMITTED BY PRESIDENT TO CONGRESS.
 Sufficient Limit: Sec 7 limits the board’s authority tand identifies conditions under which officials
and employees whose revenue collection falls short of target by atleast 7.5% may be removed. –
subject to civil service laws and complioance with subsrtantive and procedural due
process.

PEOPLE V. ROSENTHAL
 Appellants Rosenthal and Osmeña were charged for the violation of Act 2581 or the Blue Sky Law. 2 cases
were filed against them for selling their Speculative shares without the required certification from the
Insular Treasurer of the Commonwealth as provided by the law. 
 Informations were filed against them, which basically states that they were “promoters, founders,
incorporators of O.R.O Oil Co. and South Cebu Oil Co” and they sold shares that were considered as
speculative without the needed certificate from the Insular Treasurer of the Commonwealth (required under
Sec. 2 and 5 of Act No. 2581)
 The lower court found them guilty for both cases. 
 Appellant, Rosenthal, contends that Act 2581 is unconstitutional because of (1) undue delegation of
legislative authority to the insular treasure
W/N there is undue delegation -No

 Act 2581 – furnishes a sufficient standard for the insular treasurer to follow
o Certificate shall be issued when provisions of act 2581 have been complied with.
o Autority of insular treasurer to cancel a certificate or permit is expressly conditioned
upon finding that such cancellation is in the public interest.
 To protect public against speculative schemes.
 “public interest” is a sufficient standard
 Also, 2581 allows an appeal from the decision of the treasurer to the sec of
finance.

TABLARIN V. GUTIERREZ
 The petitioners in this case are questioning the validity of the provisions of the Medical Act as well as
the MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985 which established a uniform admission test called the National
Medical Admission Test (NMAT).
 The petitioners sought admission into colleges or schools of medicine for the S.Y. 1987-88. However, the
petitioners either did not take or did not successfully take the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT)
required by the Board of Medical Education and administered by the Center for Educational Measurement. 
 The petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, a Petition for
Declaratory Judgment and Prohibition with a prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction. After hearing on the petition for issuance of preliminary injunction, the trial court denied said
petition on 20 April 1987. The NMAT was conducted and administered as previously scheduled. Hence, the
current petition for certiorari. 
o Undue delegation of legislative power by failing to establish necessary standard to be
followed by the delegate, board of medical education.

W/N the medical act is unconstitutional for violation of undue delegation – no

 With the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental
regulation, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a constantly growing
tendency toward the delegation of greater power by the legislature, and toward the approval of the
practice by the courts.
 The Court ruled that the necessary standards are set forth in Section 1 of the 1959 Medical Act:
“the standardization and regulation of medical education” and in Section 5(a) and 7 of the same
Act, the body of the statute itself, and that these considered together are sufficient compliance
with the requirements of the non-delegation principle.