US VS ANG TANG HO commissioner in respect to matters involving the exercise of a

legislative discretion that could not be delegated, and without which

G.R. No. 17122 43 Phil 1 February 27, 1922 the act could not possibly be put in use. The law must be complete in
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, all its terms and provisions when it leaves the legislative branch of
vs. the government and nothing must be left to the judgment of the
ANG TANG HO, defendant-appellant. electors or other appointee or delegate of the legislature, so that, in
form and substance, it is a law in all its details in presenti, but
which may be left to take effect in future, if necessary, upon the
ascertainment of any prescribed fact or event.
Facts:
During a special session, the Philippine Legislature passed and Rulings:
approved Act No. 2868 entitled An Act Penalizing the Monopoly and
Hoarding of Rice, Palay and Corn. The said act under extraordinary Yes. When Act No. 2868 was analyzed, it is the violation of the
circumstances authorizes the Governor General to issue the proclamation of the Governor-General which constitutes the crime.
necessary Rules and Regulations in regulating the distribution of Without that proclamation, it was no crime to sell rice at any price. In
such products. Pursuant to this Act, the Governor General issued other words, the Legislature left it to the sole discretion of the
Executive Order 53 fixing the price at which rice should be sold. Governor-General to say what was and what was not “any cause” for
enforcing the act, and what was and what was not “an extraordinary
Ang Tang Ho, a rice dealer, voluntarily, criminally and illegally sold a rise in the price of palay, rice or corn,” and under certain undefined
ganta of rice to Pedro Trinidad at the price of eighty centavos. The conditions to fix the price at which rice should be sold, without
said amount was way higher than that prescribed by the Executive regard to grade or quality, also to say whether a proclamation should
Order. He was charged in violation of the said Executive Order and be issued, if so, when, and whether or not the law should be
was found guilty as charged and was sentenced to 5 months enforced, how long it should be enforced, and when the law should be
imprisonment plus a P500.00 fine. He appealed the sentence suspended. The Legislature did not specify or define what was “any
countering that there was an undue delegation of power to the cause,” or what was “an extraordinary rise in the price of rice, palay
Governor General. or corn,” Neither did it specify or define the conditions upon which
the proclamation should be issued. In the absence of the
proclamation no crime was committed. The alleged sale was made a
Issues:
crime, if at all, because the Governor-General issued the
Whether or not there was an undue delegation of power to the proclamation. The act or proclamation does not say anything about
Governor General. the different grades or qualities of rice, and the defendant is charged
with the sale “of one ganta of rice at the price of eighty centavos
(P0.80) which is a price greater than that fixed by Executive order No.
Discussions: 53.”
By the terms of the Organic Act, subject only to constitutional
limitations, the power to legislate and enact laws is vested exclusively
in the Legislative, which is elected by a direct vote of the people of the
Philippine Islands. As to the question here involved, the authority of
the Governor-General to fix the maximum price at which palay, rice
and corn may be sold in the manner power in violation of the organic
law.
Act No. 2868, as analysed by the Court, wholly fails to provide
definitely and clearly what the standard policy should contain, so
that it could be put in use as a uniform policy required to take the
place of all others without the determination of the insurance
G.R. No. L-45685 65 Phil 56 November 16, 1937 of the discretionary powers delegated to it. The probation Act
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and HONGKONG & does not, by the force of any of its provisions, fix and impose
SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, petitioners, upon the provincial boards any standard or guide in the
vs. exercise of their discretionary power. What is granted, as
JOSE O. VERA, Judge . of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and mentioned by Justice Cardozo in the recent case of Schecter,
MARIANO CU UNJIENG, respondents. supra, is a “roving commission” which enables the provincial
boards to exercise arbitrary discretion. By section 11 if the
Act, the legislature does not seemingly on its own authority
Facts: extend the benefits of the Probation Act to the provinces but
in reality leaves the entire matter for the various provincial
Mariano Cu Unjieng was convicted by the trial court in Manila. He boards to determine.
filed for reconsideration and four motions for new trial but all were
denied. He then elevated to the Supreme Court and the Supreme 2. The equal protection of laws is a pledge of the protection of
Court remanded the appeal to the lower court for a new trial. While equal laws. The classification of equal protection, to be
awaiting new trial, he appealed for probation alleging that the he is reasonable, must be based on substantial distinctions which
innocent of the crime he was convicted of. The Judge of the Manila make real differences; it must be germane to the purposes of
CFI directed the appeal to the Insular Probation Office. The IPO the law; it must not be limited to existing conditions only, and
denied the application. However, Judge Vera upon another request by must apply equally to each member of the class.
petitioner allowed the petition to be set for hearing. The City 3.
Prosecutor countered alleging that Vera has no power to place Cu
Unjieng under probation because it is in violation of Sec. 11 Act No. Rulings:
4221 which provides that the act of Legislature granting provincial 1. The Court concludes that section 11 of Act No. 4221
boards the power to provide a system of probation to convicted constitutes an improper and unlawful delegation of legislative
person. Nowhere in the law is stated that the law is applicable to a authority to the provincial boards and is, for this reason,
city like Manila because it is only indicated therein that only unconstitutional and void. There is no set standard provided
provinces are covered. And even if Manila is covered by the law it is by Congress on how provincial boards must act in carrying
unconstitutional because Sec 1 Art 3 of the Constitution provides out a system of probation. The provincial boards are given
equal protection of laws. The said law provides absolute discretion to absolute discretion which is violative of the constitution and
provincial boards and this also constitutes undue delegation of the doctrine of the non delegation of power. Further, it is a
power. Further, the said probation law may be an encroachment of violation of equity so protected by the constitution. The
the power of the executive to provide pardon because providing challenged section of Act No. 4221 in section 11 which reads
probation, in effect, is granting freedom, as in pardon. as follows: This Act shall apply only in those provinces in
which the respective provincial boards have provided for the
salary of a probation officer at rates not lower than those now
Issues: provided for provincial fiscals. Said probation officer shall be
1. Whether or not Act No. 4221 constituted an undue delegation appointed by the Secretary of Justice and shall be subject to
of legislative power the direction of the Probation Office.
2. Whether or not the said act denies the equal protection of the The provincial boards of the various provinces are to determine for
laws themselves, whether the Probation Law shall apply to their provinces
or not at all. The applicability and application of the Probation Act
are entirely placed in the hands of the provincial boards. If the
Discussions: provincial board does not wish to have the Act applied in its province,
all that it has to do is to decline to appropriate the needed amount for
1. An act of the legislature is incomplete and hence invalid if it
the salary of a probation officer.
does not lay down any rule or definite standard by which the
administrative officer or board may be guided in the exercise
 2. It is also contended that the Probation Act violates the any expenditure of public funds in implementation of said executive
provisions of our Bill of Rights which prohibits the denial to orders and/or any disbursement by said municipalities.
any person of the equal protection of the laws. The resultant Petitioner alleges that said executive orders are null and void, upon
inequality may be said to flow from the unwarranted the ground that said Section 68 has been impliedly repealed by
delegation of legislative power, although perhaps this is not Republic Act No. 2370 effective January 1, 1960 and constitutes an
necessarily the result in every case. Adopting the example undue delegation of legislative power. The third paragraph of Section
given by one of the counsel for the petitioners in the course of 3 of Republic Act No. 2370, reads: “Barrios shall not be created or
his oral argument, one province may appropriate the their boundaries altered nor their names changed except under the
necessary fund to defray the salary of a probation officer, provisions of this Act or by Act of Congress.”
while another province may refuse or fail to do so. In such a Issues:
case, the Probation Act would be in operation in the former
province but not in the latter. This means that a person Whether or not Section 68 of Revised Administrative Code constitutes
otherwise coming within the purview of the law would be an undue delegation of legislative power.
liable to enjoy the benefits of probation in one province while
another person similarly situated in another province would
be denied those same benefits. This is obnoxious Discussions:
discrimination. Contrariwise, it is also possible for all the Section 10 (1) of Article VII of our fundamental law ordains:
provincial boards to appropriate the necessary funds for the
The President shall have control of all the executive departments,
salaries of the probation officers in their respective provinces,
bureaus, or offices, exercise general supervision over all local
in which case no inequality would result for the obvious
governments as may be provided by law, and take care that the laws
reason that probation would be in operation in each and every
be faithfully executed.
province by the affirmative action of appropriation by all the
provincial boards. The power of control under this provision implies the right of the
President to interfere in the exercise of such discretion as may be
vested by law in the officers of the executive departments, bureaus,
or offices of the national government, as well as to act in lieu of such
.R. No. L-23825 15 SCRA 569 December 24, 1965 officers. This power is denied by the Constitution to the Executive,
insofar as local governments are concerned. With respect to the
EMMANUEL PELAEZ, petitioner, latter, the fundamental law permits him to wield no more authority
vs. than that of checking whether said local governments or the officers
THE AUDITOR GENERAL, respondent. thereof perform their duties as provided by statutory enactments.
Hence, the President cannot interfere with local governments, so long
as the same or its officers act within the scope of their authority.

Facts:
The President of the Philippines, purporting to act pursuant to
Section 68 of the Revised Administrative Code, issued Executive Rulings:
Orders Nos. 93 to 121, 124 and 126 to 129; creating thirty-three (33) Yes. It did entail an undue delegation of legislative powers. The
municipalities enumerated in the margin. Petitioner Emmanuel alleged power of the President to create municipal corporations would
Pelaez, as Vice President of the Philippines and as taxpayer, necessarily connote the exercise by him of an authority even greater
instituted the present special civil action, for a writ of prohibition than that of control which he has over the executive departments,
with preliminary injunction, against the Auditor General, to restrain bureaus or offices. In other words, Section 68 of the Revised
him, as well as his representatives and agents, from passing in audit Administrative Code does not merely fail to comply with the
constitutional mandate. Instead of giving the President less power
over local governments than that vested in him over the executive corporations than that which he has over said executive
departments, bureaus or offices, it reverses the process and does the departments, bureaus or offices.
exact opposite, by conferring upon him more power over municipal Edu v Ericta Digest
Facts: Cardozo: "Needs that were narrow or parochial in the past may be
interwoven in the present with the well-being of the nation.

1. Assailed is the validity of the Reflector Law and Admin Order No. 2
which implements it. Under the law, a vehicle has to comply with the 2. Delegation of Legislative Power
requirements of having reflective device prior to being registered at It is a fundamental principle flowing from the doctrine of separation
the LTO. of powers that Congress may not delegate its legislative power to the
two other branches of the government, subject to the exception that
2. The respondent Galo on his behalf and that of other local governments may over local affairs participate in its exercise.
motorists, filed a suit for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary What cannot be delegated is the authority under the Constitution to
injunction assailing the validity of the challenged Act as an invalid make laws and to alter and repeal them; the test is the completeness
exercise of the police power for being violative of the due process of the statute in all its term and provisions when it leaves the hands
clause. This he followed on May 28, 1970 with a manifestation of the legislature. To determine whether or not there is an undue
wherein he sought as an alternative remedy that, in the event that delegation of legislative power the inquiry must be directed to the
respondent Judge would hold said statute constitutional, scope and definiteness of the measure enacted. The legislature does
Administrative Order No. 2 of the Land Transportation not abdicate its functions when it describes what job must be done,
Commissioner, now petitioner, implementing such legislation be who is to do it, and what is the scope of his authority. For a complex
nullified as an undue exercise of legislative power. economy, that may indeed be the only way in which the legislative
process can go forward. A distinction has rightfully been made
Issue: W/N Reflector Law is unconstitutional, and w/n AO2 is between delegation of power to make the laws which necessarily
valid involves a discretion as to what it shall be, which constitutionally
may not be done, and delegation of authority or discretion as to its
execution to exercised under and in pursuance of the law, to which
YES, both the law and AO 2 are valid. no valid objection call be made. The Constitution is thus not to be
regarded as denying the legislature the necessary resources of
flexibility and practicability.
It is thus obvious that the challenged statute is a legislation enacted
under the police power to promote public safety. What is delegated is
authority which is non-legislative in character, the completeness of To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard,
the statute when it leaves the hands of Congress being assumed. which implies at the very least that the legislature itself determines
matters of principle and lay down fundamental policy. Otherwise, the
charge of complete abdication may be hard to repel. A standard thus
1. Police Power defines legislative policy, marks its limits, its maps out its boundaries
and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the
It is in the above sense the greatest and most powerful attribute of
circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected.
government. "the most essential, insistent, and at least illimitable of
It is the criterion by which legislative purpose may be carried out.
powers," (Justice Holmes) aptly pointed out "to all the great public
Thereafter, the executive or administrative office designated may in
needs."
pursuance of the above guidelines promulgate supplemental rules
Its scope, ever-expanding to meet the exigencies of the times, even to and regulations.
anticipate the future where it could be done, provides enough room
for an efficient and flexible response to conditions and circumstances
thus assuring the greatest benefits. In the language of Justice
The standard may be either express or implied. If the former, the and purpose of the act considered as a whole. In the Reflector Law,
non-delegation objection is easily met. The standard though does not clearly the legislative objective is public safety.
have to be spelled out specifically. It could be implied from the policy
AGUSTIN V. EDU - CASE DIGEST - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
AGUSTIN V. EDU G.R. No. L-49112 February 2, 1979 international bodies concerned with traffic safety. The Philippines is a
signatory of the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals
FACTS: and the United Nations Organizations and the said Vienna
Petitioner, Agustin assails the validity of the Letter of Instruction No. Convention was ratified by the Philippine Government under PD 207.
229 which requires an early warning device to be carried by users of
ISSUE:
motor vehicles as being violative of the constitutional guarantee of
due process and transgresses the fundamental principle of non- WON the LOI 229 is invalid and violated constitutional guarantees of
delegation of legislative power. due process.
Herein respondent Romeo Edu in his capacity as Land HELD:
Transportation Commisioner set forth the implementing rules and NO. The assailed Letter of Instruction was a valid exercise of police
regulations of the said instruction. power and there was no unlawful delegation of legislative power on
Petitioner make known that he "is the owner of a Volkswagen Beetle the part of the respondent. As identified, police power is a state
Car, Model 13035, already properly equipped when it came out from authority to enact legislation that may interfere personal liberty or
the assembly lines with blinking lights fore and aft, which could very property in order to promote the general welfare. In this case, the
well serve as an early warning device in case of the emergencies particular exercise of police power was clearly intended to promote
mentioned in Letter of Instructions No. 229, as amended, as well as public safety.
the implementing rules and regulations in Administrative Order No. 1 It cannot be disputed that the Declaration of Principle found in the
issued by the land transportation Commission," Constitution possesses relevance: “The Philippines adopts the
Furthermore, he contends that the law is "one-sided, onerous and generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
patently illegal and immoral because [they] will make manufacturers the nation.”
and dealers instant millionaires at the expense of car owners who are Thus, as impressed in the 1968 Vienna Convention it is not for this
compelled to buy a set of the so-called early warning device at the country to repudiate a commitment to which it had pledged its word.
rate of P 56.00 to P72.00 per set." are unlawful and unconstitutional Our country’s word was resembled in our own act of legislative
and contrary to the precepts of a compassionate New Society [as ratification of the said Hague and Vienna Conventions thru P.D. No.
being] compulsory and confiscatory on the part of the motorists who 207 .
could very well provide a practical alternative road safety device, or a
better substitute to the specified set of Early Warning Device (EWD)." The concept of Pacta sunt servanda stands in the way of such an
attitude which is, moreoever, at war with the principle of
This instruction, signed by President Marcos, aims to prevent international morality.
accidents on streets and highways, including expressways or limited
access roads caused by the presence of disabled, stalled or parked Petition dismissed.
motor vehicles without appropriate early warning devices. The
hazards posed by these disabled vehicles are recognized by
CASE DIGEST : PHILCOMSAT VS. ALCUAZ
G.R. No. 84818 December 18, 1989 PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS Facts: The petition before us seeks to annul and set aside an Order 1
SATELLITE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. JOSE LUIS A. ALCUAZ, as issued by respondent Commissioner Jose Luis Alcuaz of the National
NTC Commissioner, and NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS Telecommunications Commission
COMMISSION, respondents.
Herein petitioner is engaged in providing for services involving
telecommunications. Charging rates for certain specified lines that
were reduced by order of herein respondent Jose may partake of a legislative character. Respondent Alcuaz no doubt
AlcuazCommissioner of the National Telecommunications contains all the attributes of a quasi-judicial adjudication. Foremost
Commission. The rates were ordered to be reduced by fifteen percent is the fact that said order pertains exclusively to petitioner and to no
(15%) due to Executive Order No. 546 which granted the NTC the other
power to fix rates. Said order was issued without prior notice and
hearing. The respondent admits that the questioned order was issued
pursuant to its quasi-judicial functions. It, however, insists that
Under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 5514, petitioner was exempt notice and hearing are not necessary since the assailed order is
from the jurisdiction of the then Public Service Commission, now merely incidental to the entire proceedings and, therefore, temporary
respondent NTC. However, pursuant to Executive Order No. 196 in nature but the supreme court said that While respondents may fix
issued on June 17, 1987, petitioner was placed under the a temporary rate pending final determination of the application of
jurisdiction, control and regulation of respondent NTC petitioner, such rate-fixing order, temporary though it may be, is not
exempt from the statutory procedural requirements of notice and
hearing
Issue: Whether or Not E.O. 546 is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court Said that it is clear that with regard to rate-
fixing, respondent has no authority to make such order without first
Held: In Vigan Electric Light Co., Inc. vs. Public Service Commission giving petitioner a hearing, whether the order be temporary or
the Supreme Court said that although the rule-making power and permanent. In the Case at bar the NTC didn’t scheduled hearing nor
even the power to fix rates- when such rules and/or rates are meant it did give any notice to the petitioner
to apply to all enterprises of a given kind throughout the Philippines-
Chiongbian vs. Orbos
G.R. No. 96754 June 22, 1995 CHIONGBIAN, et.al. v. ORBOS Mindanao and certainly not to transfer the regional center of Region
et.al. IX from Zamboanga City to Pagadian City.

FACTS: ISSUE:
Pursuant to the Constitution, Congress passed R.A 6734, the Organic Whether or not the R.A 6734 is invalid because it contains
Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao calling for a no standard to guide the President’s discretion.
plebiscite to create an autonomous region. The provinces of Lanao
Del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi, which voted for the
creation of such region were later on known as the Autonomous HELD:
Region in Muslim Mindanao. Consistent with the authority granted No, in conferring on the President the power to merge by
by Article XIX, Section 13 of RA 6734 which authorizes the President administrative determination the existing regions following
to merge the existing regions, President Corazon Aquino issued E.O the establishment of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao,
No. 429 providing for the Reorganization of the Administrative Congress merely followed the pattern set in previous legislation
Regions in Mindanao. Petitioners contend that Art. XIX, Section 13 of dating back to the initial organization of administrative regions in
R.A. No. 6734 is unconstitutional because it unduly delegates 1972. The choice of the President as delegate is logical because the
legislative power to the President by authorizing him to merge by division of the country into regions is intended to facilitate not only
administrative determination the existing regions or at any rate the administration of local governments but also the direction of
provides no standard for the exercise of the power delegated and that executive departments which the law requires should have
the power granted is not expressed in the title of the law.aw They also regional offices. While the power to merge administrative regions
challenge the validity of E.O. No. 429 on the ground that the power is not expressly provided for in the Constitution, it is a power which
granted by RA 6734 to the President is only to merge regions IX and has traditionally been lodged with the President to facilitate the
XII but not to reorganize the entire administrative regions in exercise of the power of general supervision over local governments.
(Abbas v. COMELEC) The regions themselves are not territorial and regrouping is done only on paper. It involves no more than are
political divisions like provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays definition or redrawing of the lines separating administrative regions
but are "mere groupings of contiguous provinces for administrative for the purpose of facilitating the administrative supervision of
purposes. The power conferred on the President is similar to the local government units by the President and insuring the efficient
power to adjust municipal boundaries which has been described as delivery of essential services
"administrative in nature.” (Pelaez v. Auditor General)Thus, the
Held:
Santiago v. Comelec (1) Sec. 2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not self executory, thus,
without implementing legislation the same cannot operate. Although
Fact: the Constitution has recognized or granted the right, the people
Atty. Jesus Delfin, president of People’s Initiative for Reforms, cannot exercise it if Congress does not provide for its implementation.
Modernization and Action (PIRMA), filed with Comelec a petition to
amend the Constitution to lift the term limits of elective officials, (2) The portion of Comelec Resolution No. 2300 which prescribes
through People’s Initiative. He based this petition on Article XVII, Sec. rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to
2 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for the right of the people the Constitution, is void. It has been an established rule that what
to exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the has been delegated, cannot be delegated (potestas delegata non
Constitution. Subsequently the Comelec issued an order directing the delegari potest). The delegation of the power to the COMELEC being
publication of the petition and of the notice of hearing and thereafter invalid, the latter cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to
set the case for hearing. implement the exercise of the right to people’s initiative.

At the hearing, Senator Roco, the IBP, Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang (3) The lifting of the term limits was held to be that of a revision,
Konstitusyon, Public Interest Law Center, and Laban ng as it would affect other provisions of the Constitution such as
Demokratikong Pilipino appeared as intervenors-oppositors. Senator the synchronization of elections, the constitutional guarantee
Roco filed a motion to dismiss the Delfin petition on the ground that of equal access to opportunities for public service, and
one which is cognizable by the Comelec. prohibiting political dynasties. A revision cannot be done by
initiative. However, considering the Court’s decision in the
The petitioners herein Senator Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and above Issue, the issue of whether or not the petition is a
Isabel Ongpin filed this civil action for prohibition under Rule 65 of revision or amendment has become academic.
the Rules of Court against Comelec and the Delfin petition rising the
several arguments, such as the following:
o The constitutional provision on people’s initiative to amend the
constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by
Congress. No such law has been passed; (2) The people’s initiative is
limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to revision thereof.
Lifting of the term limits constitutes a revision, therefore it is outside
the power of people’s initiative.
The Supreme Court granted the Motions for Intervention.
Issue:
(1) w/n Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing
provision.
(2) w/n Comelce Resolution No. 2300 regarding the conduct of
initiative on amendments to the Constitution is valid, considering the
absence in the law of specific provisions on the conduct of such
initiative.
(3) w/n the lifting of term limits of elective officials would constitute a
revision or an amendment of the Constitution.
ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY President since the former is a mere alter ego of the latter, such that,
G.R. No. 168056 September 1, 2005 ultimately, it is the President who decides whether to impose the
increased tax rate or not.
ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST (Formerly AASJAS) OFFICERS
SAMSON S. ALCANTARA and ED VINCENT S. ALBANO, Petitioners,
vs. Issues:
THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA; 1. Whether or not R.A. No. 9337 has violated the provisions in
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Article VI, Section 24, and Article VI, Section 26 (2) of the
CESAR PURISIMA; and HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF Constitution.
INTERNAL REVENUE GUILLERMO PARAYNO, JR., Respondent.
2. Whether or not there was an undue delegation of legislative
power in violation of Article VI Sec 28 Par 1 and 2 of the
Facts: Constitution.
Petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List challenged the 3. Whether or not there was a violation of the due process and
constitutionality of R.A. No. 9337 particularly Sections 4, 5 and 6, equal protection under Article III Sec. 1 of the Constitution.
amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the National
Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). These questioned provisions contain a
uniform proviso authorizing the President, upon recommendation of Discussions:
the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective 1. Basing from the ruling of Tolentino case, it is not the law, but
January 1, 2006, after any of the following conditions have been the revenue bill which is required by the Constitution to
satisfied, to wit: “originate exclusively” in the House of Representatives, but
. . . That the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Senate has the power not only to propose amendments, but
Finance, shall, effective January 1, 2006, raise the rate of value- also to propose its own version even with respect to bills
added tax to twelve percent (12%), after any of the following which are required by the Constitution to originate in the
conditions has been satisfied: House. the Constitution simply means is that the initiative for
filing revenue, tariff or tax bills, bills authorizing an increase
(i) Value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic of the public debt, private bills and bills of local application
Product (GDP) of the previous year exceeds two and four-fifth percent must come from the House of Representatives on the theory
(2 4/5%); or that, elected as they are from the districts, the members of the
(ii) National government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous House can be expected to be more sensitive to the local needs
year exceeds one and one-half percent (1 ½%). and problems. On the other hand, the senators, who are
Petitioners argue that the law is unconstitutional, as it constitutes elected at large, are expected to approach the same problems
abandonment by Congress of its exclusive authority to fix the rate of from the national perspective. Both views are thereby made to
taxes under Article VI, Section 28(2) of the 1987 Philippine bear on the enactment of such laws.
Constitution. They further argue that VAT is a tax levied on the sale 2. In testing whether a statute constitutes an undue delegation
or exchange of goods and services and cannot be included within the of legislative power or not, it is usual to inquire whether the
purview of tariffs under the exemption delegation since this refers to statute was complete in all its terms and provisions when it
customs duties, tolls or tribute payable upon merchandise to the left the hands of the legislature so that nothing was left to the
government and usually imposed on imported/exported goods. They judgment of any other appointee or delegate of the legislature.
also said that the President has powers to cause, influence or create 3. The equal protection clause under the Constitution means
the conditions provided by law to bring about the conditions that “no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the
precedent. Moreover, they allege that no guiding standards are made same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or
by law as to how the Secretary of Finance will make the other classes in the same place and in like circumstances.”
recommendation. They claim, nonetheless, that any recommendation
of the Secretary of Finance can easily be brushed aside by the
Rulings:
1. R.A. No. 9337 has not violated the provisions. The revenue bill
exclusively originated in the House of Representatives, the
Senate was acting within its constitutional power to introduce
amendments to the House bill when it included provisions in
Senate Bill No. 1950 amending corporate income taxes,
percentage, excise and franchise taxes. Verily, Article VI,
Section 24 of the Constitution does not contain any
prohibition or limitation on the extent of the amendments that
may be introduced by the Senate to the House revenue bill.
2. There is no undue delegation of legislative power but only of
the discretion as to the execution of a law. This is
constitutionally permissible. Congress does not abdicate its
functions or unduly delegate power when it describes what job
must be done, who must do it, and what is the scope of his
authority; in our complex economy that is frequently the only
way in which the legislative process can go forward.
3. Supreme Court held no decision on this matter. The power of
the State to make reasonable and natural classifications for
the purposes of taxation has long been established. Whether it
relates to the subject of taxation, the kind of property, the
rates to be levied, or the amounts to be raised, the methods of
assessment, valuation and collection, the State’s power is
entitled to presumption of validity. As a rule, the judiciary will
not interfere with such power absent a clear showing of
unreasonableness, discrimination, or arbitrariness.