8/9/2019 LegResHW06_20_2012

1/9

Paolo Antoniou Trinidad1F

CASE DIGESTS

1.) Article VI, Section 1. Legislative Power

The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of thePhilippines, which shall consist of a Senate and a o!se of"epresentatives, e#cept to the e#tent reserved to the people b$ theprovision on initiative and referend!%.

&.) 'rant of (!asi Legislative Power* In general* L'+ "!bi v. Provincial-oard of indoro /0 Phil 2 31014 10)

(!asi legislative or r!le %a5ing power is the power to %a5e

r!les and reg!lations that res!lts in delegated legislation that is withinthe con6nes of the granting stat!te and the doctrine of nondelegabilit$ and separabilit$ of powers.

The r!les and reg!lations that ad%inistrative agenciespro%!lgate, which are the prod!ct of a delegated legislative power tocreate new and additional legal provisions that have the e7ect of law,sho!ld be within the scope of the stat!tor$ a!thorit$ granted b$ thelegislat!re to the ad%inistrative agenc$. It is re8!ired that thereg!lation be relevant to the ob9ects and p!rposes of the law, and benot in contradiction to, b!t in confor%it$ with, the standards prescribed

b$ law. The$ %!st confor% to and be consistent with the provisions ofthe enabling stat!te in order for s!ch r!le or reg!lation to be valid.Constit!tional and stat!tor$ provisions control with respect to whatr!les and reg!lations %a$ be pro%!lgated b$ an ad%inistrative bod$,as well as with respect to what 6elds are s!b9ect to reg!lation b$ it. It%a$ not %a5e r!les and reg!lations which are inconsistent with theprovisions of the Constit!tion or a stat!te, partic!larl$ the stat!te it isad%inistering or which created it, or which are in derogation of, ordefeat, the p!rpose of a stat!te. In case of con:ict between a stat!teand an ad%inistrative order, the for%er %!st prevail.

Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro39 P il !!" #Marc $% 1919&

;ACTS "esol!tion ed tribes within their 9!risdiction to betransferred into !nocc!pied lands delegated b$ the provincialgovern%ent. In this case, 422 hectares of land in Sitio Tigbao, Provinceof indoro is provided for the ang!ianes as per%anent settle%ent. In

8/9/2019 LegResHW06_20_2012

2/9

line with Section &1?= of the Ad%inistrative Code, all the ang!ianesin the townships of

8/9/2019 LegResHW06_20_2012

3/9

8/9/2019 LegResHW06_20_2012

4/9

;ACTS Considering that oil is not ende%ic to this co!ntr$, histor$shows that the govern%ent has alwa$s been 6nding wa$s to i%provethe oil ind!str$. The govern%ent created the @ownstrea% Fil@ereg!lation Act of 100 or "A 4142 to acco%%odate these

innovations in the oil ind!str$. This law allows that Han$ person orentit$ %a$ i%port or p!rchase an$ 8!antit$ of cr!de oil and petrole!%prod!cts fro% a foreign or do%estic so!rce, lease or own and operatere6neries and other downstrea% oil facilities and %ar5et s!ch cr!de oilor !se the sa%e for his own re8!ire%ent, s!b9ect onl$ to %onitoringb$ the @epart%ent of nerg$. Tatad assails the constit!tionalit$ of thelaw. e clai%s, a%ong others, that the i%position of di7erent tari7rates on i%ported cr!de oil and i%ported re6ned petrole!% prod!ctsviolates the e8!al protection cla!se. Tatad contends that the /J BJtari7 di7erential !nd!l$ favors the three e#isting oil re6neries anddiscri%inates against prospective investors in the downstrea% oil

ind!str$ who do not have their own re6neries and will have to so!rcere6ned petrole!% prod!cts fro% abroad. /J is to be ta#ed on!nre6ned cr!de prod!cts and BJ on re6ned cr!de prod!cts. Thepetitions assail the constit!tionalit$ of vario!s provisions of "A 4142.

ISS+ Dhether or not "A 4142 violates the constit!tional prohibitionagainst %onopolies, co%binations in restraint of trade and !nfairco%petition.

L@ The co!rt declared the !nconstit!tionalit$ of "A 4142 beca!se itviolated Sec 10 of Art 1& of the Constit!tion. It violated that provision

beca!se it onl$ strengthens oligopol$ that is contrar$ to freeco%petition. It cannot be denied that o!r downstrea% oil ind!str$ isoperated and controlled b$ an oligopol$, a foreign oligopol$ at that.Petron, Shell and Calte# stand as the onl$ %a9or leag!e pla$ers in theoil %ar5et. All other pla$ers belong to the s%all leag!e. As thedo%inant pla$ers, Petron, Shell and Calte# boast of e#isting re6neriesof vario!s capacities. The tari7 di7erential of ?J therefore wor5s totheir i%%ense bene6t. Ket, this is onl$ one edge of the tari7di7erential. The other edge c!ts and c!ts deep in the heart of theirco%petitors. It erects a high barrier to the entr$ of new pla$ers. e the %ar5et power of Petron, Shell and

Calte# b$ b!ilding re6neries of their own will have to spend billions ofpesos. Those who will not b!ild re6neries b!t co%pete with the% wills!7er the h!ge disadvantage of increasing their prod!ct cost b$ ?J.

The$ will be co%peting on an !neven 6eld. The arg!%ent that the ?Jtari7 di7erential is desirable beca!se it will ind!ce prospective pla$ersto invest in re6neries p!ts the cart before the horse. The 6rst need is toattract new pla$ers and b!rdening the% with heav$ disincentivescannot attract the%. Ditho!t new pla$ers belonging to the leag!e of

8/9/2019 LegResHW06_20_2012

5/9

Petron, Shell and Calte#, co%petition in o!r downstrea% oil ind!str$ isan idle drea%.

CASE S0 T2ESIS 4ndu+ D+l+'ation

P+o-l+ v. 5+ra!* P il *! #193$6193)&

;ACTS C! +n9ieng was convicted b$ the trial co!rt in anila. e 6ledfor reconsideration which was elevated to the SC and the SC re%andedthe appeal to the lower co!rt for a new trial. Dhile awaiting new trial,he appealed for probation alleging that the he is innocent of the cri%ehe was convicted of. !dge T!ason of the anila C;I directed the appealto the Ins!lar Probation FGce. The IPF denied the application.owever, !dge Vera !pon another re8!est b$ petitioner allowed thepetition to be set for hearing. The Cit$ Prosec!tor co!ntered alleging

that Vera has no power to place C! +n9ieng !nder probation beca!se itis in violation of Sec. 11 Act

8/9/2019 LegResHW06_20_2012

6/9

within their localit$. This wo!ld %ean to sa$ that convicts in provinceswhere no probation oGcer is instit!ted %ight not avail of their right toprobation.

4nit+d Stat+( v. Barria(

11 P il 3/$ #19")&

;ACTS @efendant Aniceto -arrias was charged in C;I with violations ofpar. B2 and 4/ of Circ!lar no. /0B. Paragraph B2 of Circ!lar

8/9/2019 LegResHW06_20_2012

7/9

4nit+d Stat+( v. Panlilio/) P il !") #1917&

The orders 3r!les and reg!lations) of an ad%inistrative oGcers or bod$

iss!ed p!rs!ant to a stat!te have the force of law b!t are not penal innat!re and a violation of s!ch orders is not an o7ense p!nishable b$law !nless the stat!te e#pressl$ penali>es s!ch violation.

;ACTS The acc!sed was convicted of violation of Act 1B 2 relating tothe 8!arantining of ani%als s!7ering fro% dangero!s co%%!nicable orcontagio!s diseases and sentencing hi% to pa$ a 6ne of P?2 withs!bsidiar$ i%prison%ent in case of insolvenc$ and to pa$ the costs oftrial. It is alleged that the acc!sed illegall$ and witho!t beinga!thori>ed to do so, and while 8!arantine against the said carabaose#posed to rinder pest was still in e7ect, per%itted and ordered said

carabaos to be ta5en fro% the corral in which the$ were 8!arantinedand drove the% fro% one place to another. The acc!sed contends thatthe facts alleged in the infor%ation and proved on the trial do notconstit!te a violation of Act ed for violation of the order ofthe -!rea! of Agric!lt!re

L@

8/9/2019 LegResHW06_20_2012

8/9

1$3 SCRA 9" #19)9&

;ACTS Private respondents were charged with violation of "A ? B23 agna Carta for P!blic School Teachers. The$ also chargedconstit!tionalit$ of Sec./& 3Qbe p!nished b$ a 6ne of not less than

P122 nor %ore than P1222, or b$ i%prison%ent, in the discretion of theco!rt.) of said ".A on gro!nds that it a.) i%poses a cr!el and !n!s!alp!nish%ent, b.) constit!tes an !nd!e delegation of legislative power.

!dge @ac!$c!$ r!led that the said section is a %atter of stat!tor$constr!ction and not an !nd!e of delegation of legislative power.

ISS+ Dhether or not Sec. constit!tes !nd!e delegation oflegislative power and is valid.

L@ ed for the violation of Act 1B 2. Act

8/9/2019 LegResHW06_20_2012

9/9

were enacted.

In the case, People v. Dacu cu 173 S!"# $0% the d!ration of penalt$for the period of i%prison%ent was left for the co!rts to deter%ine as if the 9!dicial depart%ent was a legislative depart%ent. The e#ercise of

9!dicial power is not an atte%pt to !se legislative power or to prescribeand create a law b!t is an instance of the ad%inistration of 9!stice andthe application of e#isting laws to the facts of partic!lar cases. Saidsection violates the r!les on separation of powers and non delegabilit$of legislative powers.

;ro% the above cases, the co!rt has laid down the %anifestations of arep!blican govern%ent li5e o!rs is the observance of the principle ofseparation of powers and the s$ste% of chec5s and balances.

The e#ec!tive power is vested in the President of the Philippines. The

legislative power is vested in the Congress of the Philippines whichshall consist of a Senate and a o!se of representatives. The 9!dicialpower is vested in one S!pre%e Co!rt and in s!ch lower co!rts as %a$be established b$ law. In other words, as the Philippine Constit!tionprovides, the legislative depart%ent %a5es the law 3as well ascorresponding p!nish%ents within), the e#ec!tive depart%ente#ec!tes the law and the 9!diciar$ interprets the law. This principleseparates the p!rposes of the / depart%ents, and no depart%entco!ld interfere with another as to their f!nctions.