ABAKADA Guro v. Purisima G.R. No. 166715

8/20/2019 ABAKADA Guro v. Purisima G.R. No. 166715

1/31

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 166715 August 14, 2008

ABAKADA GURO PART !"ST #$o%&'%() AAS*S+1 O"CERS-MEMBERSSAMSON S. A!CANTARA, ED "NCENT S. A!BANO, ROMEO R. ROB"SO,RENE B. GOROSPE / ED"N R. SANDOA!, petitioners,vs.3ON. CESAR . PUR"S"MA, s //t) /s S'%'t/%) o$ /', 3ON.GU"!!ERMO !. PARANO, *R., s //t) /s Co&&sso'% o$ t'

Bu%'/u o$ "t'%/( R''u', / 3ON. A!BERTO D. !"NA, sC//t) /s Co&&sso'% o$ Bu%'/u o$ Custo&s, respondents.

D E C " S " O N

CORONA, J.9

This petition for prohibition1 seeks to prevent respondents from implementingand enforcing Republic Act (RA) !!"# (Attrition Act of #$$").

RA !!" %as enacted to optimi&e the revenue'generation capabilit andcollection of the ureau of *nternal Revenue (*R) and the ureau of +ustoms(+). The la% intends to encourage *R and + officials and emploees toe-ceed their revenue targets b providing a sstem of re%ards and sanctionsthrough the creation of a Re%ards and *ncentives und (und) and a RevenuePerformance /valuation oard (oard).! *t covers all officials and emploeesof the *R and the + %ith at least si- months of service, regardless ofemploment status.0

The und is sourced from the collection of the *R and the + in e-cess of

their revenue targets for the ear, as determined b the evelopment udgetand +oordinating +ommittee (++). An incentive or re%ard is taken fromthe fund and allocated to the *R and the + in proportion to theircontribution in the e-cess collection of the targeted amount of ta- revenue."

The oards in the *R and the + are composed of the 2ecretar of theepartment of inance () or his3her 4ndersecretar, the 2ecretar of the

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt*http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt*


2/31

epartment of udget and Management (M) or his3her 4ndersecretar, theirector 5eneral of the 6ational /conomic evelopment Authorit (6/A) orhis3her eput irector 5eneral, the +ommissioners of the *R and the +or their eput +ommissioners, t%o representatives from the rank'and'fileemploees and a representative from the officials nominated b theirrecogni&ed organi&ation.7

/ach oard has the dut to (1) prescribe the rules and guidelines for theallocation, distribution and release of the und8 (#) set criteria and proceduresfor removing from the service officials and emploees %hose revenuecollection falls short of the target8 (!) terminate personnel in accordance %iththe criteria adopted b the oard8 (0) prescribe a sstem for performanceevaluation8 (") perform other functions, including the issuance of rules andregulations and (7) submit an annual report to +ongress.9

The , M, 6/A, *R, + and the +ivil 2ervice +ommission (+2+)%ere tasked to promulgate and issue the implementing rules and regulationsof RA !!",: to be approved b a ;oint +ongressional versight +ommitteecreated for such purpose.

Petitioners, invoking their right as ta-paers filed this petition challenging theconstitutionalit of RA !!", a ta- reform legislation. The contend that, bestablishing a sstem of re%ards and incentives, the la% theofficials and emploees of the *R and the + into mercenaries and bounthunters< as the %ill do their best onl in consideration of such re%ards. Thus,the sstem of re%ards and incentives invites corruption and undermines theconstitutionall mandated dut of these officials and emploees to serve thepeople %ith utmost responsibilit, integrit, loalt and efficienc.

Petitioners also claim that limiting the scope of the sstem of re%ards andincentives onl to officials and emploees of the *R and the + violates theconstitutional guarantee of e?ual protection. There is no valid basis forclassification or distinction as to %h such a sstem should not appl toofficials and emploees of all other government agencies.

*n addition, petitioners assert that the la% undul delegates the po%er to fi-revenue targets to the President as it lacks a sufficient standard on thatmatter. @hile 2ection 9(b) and (c) of RA !!" provides that *R and +officials ma be dismissed from the service if their revenue collections fallshort of the target b at least 9.", the la% does not, ho%ever, fi- the revenuetargets to be achieved. *nstead, the fi-ing of revenue targets has beendelegated to the President %ithout sufficient standards. *t %ill therefore be

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt9


3/31

eas for the President to fi- an unrealistic and unattainable target in order todismiss *R or + personnel.

inall, petitioners assail the creation of a congressional oversight committeeon the ground that it violates the doctrine of separation of po%ers. @hile the

legislative function is deemed accomplished and completed upon theenactment and approval of the la%, the creation of the congressional oversightcommittee permits legislative participation in the implementation andenforcement of the la%.

*n their comment, respondents, through the ffice of the 2olicitor 5eneral,?uestion the petition for being premature as there is no actual case orcontrovers et. Petitioners have not asserted an right or claim that %illnecessitate the e-ercise of this +ourtBs Curisdiction. 6evertheless, respondentsackno%ledge that public polic re?uires the resolution of the constitutional

issues involved in this case. The assert that the allegation that the re%ardsstem %ill breed mercenaries is mere speculation and does not suffice toinvalidate the la%. 2een in conCunction %ith the declared obCective of RA !!",the la% validl classifies the *R and the + because the functions theperform are distinct from those of the other government agencies andinstrumentalities. Moreover, the la% provides a sufficient standard that %illguide the e-ecutive in the implementation of its provisions. Dastl, the creationof the congressional oversight committee under the la% enhances, rather thanviolates, separation of po%ers. *t ensures the fulfillment of the legislative policand serves as a check to an over'accumulation of po%er on the part of thee-ecutive and the implementing agencies.

After a careful consideration of the conflicting contentions of the parties, the+ourt finds that petitioners have failed to overcome the presumption ofconstitutionalit in favor of RA !!", e-cept as shall hereafter be discussed.

Atu/( C/s' A R''ss

An actual case or controvers involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of Cudicial adCudication.1$ A closel relatedre?uirement is ripeness, that is, the ?uestion must be ripe for adCudication.

And a constitutional ?uestion is ripe for adCudication %hen the governmentalact being challenged has a direct adverse effect on the individual challengingit.11Thus, to be ripe for Cudicial adCudication, the petitioner must sho% apersonal stake in the outcome of the case or an inCur to himself that can beredressed b a favorable decision of the +ourt.1#

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt12


4/31

*n this case, aside from the general claim that the dispute has ripened into a Cudicial controvers b the mere enactment of the la% even %ithout an further overt act,1! petitioners fail either to assert an specific and concrete legal claimor to demonstrate an direct adverse effect of the la% on them. The areunable to sho% a personal stake in the outcome of this case or an inCur tothemselves. n this account, their petition is procedurall infirm.

This not%ithstanding, public interest re?uires the resolution of theconstitutional issues raised b petitioners. The grave nature of theirallegations tends to cast a cloud on the presumption of constitutionalit infavor of the la%. And %here an action of the legislative branch is alleged tohave infringed the +onstitution, it becomes not onl the right but in fact thedut of the Cudiciar to settle the dispute.10

Aout/:(t) o$

Pu:( O$$'%s

2ection 1, Article 11 of the +onstitution statesE

2ec. 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and emploees mustat all times be accountable to the people, serve them %ith utmostresponsibilit, integrit, loalt, and efficienc, act %ith patriotism, and

Custice, and lead modest lives.

Public office is a public trust. *t must be discharged b its holder not for his

o%n personal gain but for the benefit of the public for %hom he holds it in trust. demanding accountabilit and service %ith responsibilit, integrit, loalt,efficienc, patriotism and Custice, all government officials and emploees havethe dut to be responsive to the needs of the people the are called upon toserve.

Public officers enCo the presumption of regularit in the performance of theirduties. This presumption necessaril obtains in favor of *R and + officialsand emploees. RA !!" operates on the basis thereof and reinforces it bproviding a sstem of re%ards and sanctions for the purpose of encouraging

the officials and emploees of the *R and the + to e-ceed their revenuetargets and optimi&e their revenue'generation capabilit and collection.1"

The presumption is disputable but proof to the contrar is re?uired to rebut it.*t cannot be overturned b mere conCecture or denied in advance (aspetitioners %ould have the +ourt do) speciall in this case %here it is anunderling principle to advance a declared public polic.



5/31

PetitionersB claim that the implementation of RA !!" %ill turn *R and +officials and emploees into


6/31

result of such violation, negligence, abuse, malfeasance, misfeasanceor failure to e-ercise e-traordinar diligence.

E;u/( P%ot'to

/?ualit guaranteed under the e?ual protection clause is e?ualit under thesame conditions and among persons similarl situated8 it is e?ualit amonge?uals, not similarit of treatment of persons %ho are classified based onsubstantial differences in relation to the obCect to be accomplished.1@henthings or persons are different in fact or circumstance, the ma be treated inla% differentl. *n$ictoriano v. Eli%alde !ope &or'ers( Union,#$ this +ourtdeclaredE

The guarant of e?ual protection of the la%s is not a guarant of e?ualitin the application of the la%s upon all citi&ens of the =2>tate. *t is not,

therefore, a re?uirement, in order to avoid the constitutional prohibitionagainst ine?ualit, that ever man, %oman and child should be affectedalike b a statute. /?ualit of operation of statutes does not meanindiscriminate operation on persons merel as such, but on personsaccording to the circumstances surrounding them. *t guaranteese?ualit, not identit of rights. T' Costtuto o's ot %';u%' t/ttgs


7/31

/ %'/so/:(' $ou/to o% %/to/( :/ss / s ot /(/:()/%:t%/%).

*n the e-ercise of its po%er to make classifications for the purpose ofenacting la%s over matters %ithin its Curisdiction, the state is recogni&ed

as enCoing a %ide range of discretion. *t is not necessar that theclassification be based on scientific or marked differences of things or intheir relation. 6either is it necessar that the classification be made %ithmathematical nicet. Fence, legislative classification ma in man casesproperl rest on narro% distinctions, for the e?ual protection guarantdoes not preclude the legislature from recogni&ing degrees of evil orharm, and legislation is addressed to evils as the maappear.#1 (emphasis supplied)

The e?ual protection clause recogni&es a valid classification, that is, a

classification that has a reasonable foundation or rational basis and notarbitrar.## @ith respect to RA !!", its e-pressed public polic is theoptimi&ation of the revenue'generation capabilit and collection of the *R andthe +.#! 2ince the subCect of the la% is the revenue' generation capabilitand collection of the *R and the +, the incentives and3or sanctionsprovided in the la% should logicall pertain to the said agencies. Moreover, thela% concerns onl the *R and the + because the have the commondistinct primar function of generating revenues for the national governmentthrough the collection of ta-es, customs duties, fees and charges.

The *R performs the follo%ing functionsE

2ec. 1:. )he B*rea* of nternal !even*e. G The ureau of *nternalRevenue, %hich shall be headed b and subCect to the supervision andcontrol of the +ommissioner of *nternal Revenue, %ho shall beappointed b the President upon the recommendation of the 2ecretar=of the >, shall have the follo%ing functionsE

(1) Ass'ss / o(('t /(( t/@'s, $''s / /%g's / /out $o%/(( %''u's o(('t'8

(#) /-ercise dul delegated police po%ers for the proper performance of its functions and duties8

(!) Prevent and prosecute ta- evasions and all other illegal economicactivities8



8/31

(0) /-ercise supervision and control over its constituent and subordinateunits8 and

(") Perform such other functions as ma be provided b la%.#0

--- --- --- (emphasis supplied)

n the other hand, the + has the follo%ing functionsE

2ec. #!. )he B*rea* of "*stoms. G The ureau of +ustoms %hich shallbe headed and subCect to the management and control of the+ommissioner of +ustoms, %ho shall be appointed b the Presidentupon the recommendation of the 2ecretar=of the > and hereinafterreferred to as +ommissioner, shall have the follo%ing functionsE

(1) Co(('t usto& ut's, t/@'s / t' o%%'sog $''s,/%g's / '/(t's8

(#) Aout $o% /(( usto&s %''u's o(('t'8

(!) /-ercise police authorit for the enforcement of tariff and customsla%s8

(0) Prevent and suppress smuggling, pilferage and all other economicfrauds %ithin all ports of entr8

(") 2upervise and control e-ports, imports, foreign mails and theclearance of vessels and aircrafts in all ports of entr8

(7) Administer all legal re?uirements that are appropriate8

(9) Prevent and prosecute smuggling and other illegal activities in allports under its Curisdiction8

(:) /-ercise supervision and control over its constituent units8

() Perform such other functions as ma be provided b la%.#"


oth the *R and the + are bureaus under the . The principallperform the special function of being the instrumentalities through %hich the2tate e-ercises one of its great inherent functions G ta-ation. *ndubitabl, such

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt25


9/31

substantial distinction is germane and intimatel related to the purpose of thela%. Fence, the classification and treatment accorded to the *R and the +under RA !!" full satisf the demands of e?ual protection.

Uu' D'('g/to

T%o tests determine the validit of delegation of legislative po%erE (1) thecompleteness test and (#) the sufficient standard test. A la% is complete %henit sets forth therein the polic to be e-ecuted, carried out or implemented bthe delegate.#7 *t las do%n a sufficient standard %hen it provides ade?uateguidelines or limitations in the la% to map out the boundaries of the delegateBsauthorit and prevent the delegation from running riot.#9 To be sufficient, thestandard must specif the limits of the delegateBs authorit, announce thelegislative polic and identif the conditions under %hich it is to beimplemented.#:

RA !!" ade?uatel states the polic and standards to guide the President infi-ing revenue targets and the implementing agencies in carring out theprovisions of the la%. 2ection # spells out the polic of the la%E

2/+. #. Declaration of +olicy . G *t is the polic of the 2tate to optimi&ethe revenue'generation capabilit and collection of the ureau of*nternal Revenue (*R) and the ureau of +ustoms (+) b providingfor a sstem of re%ards and sanctions through the creation of aRe%ards and *ncentives und and a Revenue Performance /valuation

oard in the above agencies for the purpose of encouraging theirofficials and emploees to e-ceed their revenue targets.

2ection 0


10/31

30% or belo ! "#%

$ore than 30% ! "#% of the first 30% lus &0% of the

re'aining excess

The und shall be deemed automaticall appropriated the earimmediatel follo%ing the ear %hen the revenue collection target %ase-ceeded and shall be released on the same fiscal ear.

R''u' t/%g'ts s/(( %'$'% to t' o%g/( 'st&/t' %''u'o(('to '@'t' o$ t' B"R / t' BOC $o% / g' $s/( )'/%/s st/t' t' Bug't o$ E@'tu%'s / Sou%'s o$ /g

#BES+ su:&tt' :) t' P%'s't to Cog%'ss. The *R and the+ shall submit to the ++ the distribution of the agenciesB revenuetargets as allocated among its revenue districts in the case of the *R,and the collection districts in the case of the +.


Revenue targets are based on the original estimated revenue collectione-pected respectivel of the *R and the + for a given fiscal ear asapproved b the ++ and stated in the /2 submitted b the President to

+ongress.!$

Thus, the determination of revenue targets does not rest solel onthe President as it also undergoes the scrutin of the ++.

n the other hand, 2ection 9 specifies the limits of the oardBs authorit andidentifies the conditions under %hich officials and emploees %hose revenuecollection falls short of the target b at least 9." ma be removed from theserviceE

2/+. 9. +owers and *nctions of the Board. # The oard in the agencshall have the follo%ing po%ers and functionsE

--- --- ---

(b) To set the criteria and procedures for %'&og $%o& s'%'o$$/(s / '&(o)''s


11/31

this Act, su:='t to ( s'%' (/


12/31

At an rate, this +ourt has recogni&ed the follo%ing as sufficient standardsE' :) Cog%'ss to '/' ts u'%st/g o$ /$(u'' o'% t' implementation o$ ('gs(/to t /s '/t'.C('/%(), o'%sgt o'%s post-enactment &'/su%'s u'%t/>'



13/31

:) Cog%'ss9 #/+ to &oto% :u%'/u%/t o&(/'


14/31

investi/ation involves a more intense di//in/ of facts. The po%erof +ongress to conduct investigation is recogni&ed b the 1:9+onstitution under section #1, Article H*, --- --- ---

c. Le/islative s*pervision

The third and most encompassin/ form b %hich +ongress e-ercises itsoversight po%er is thru legislative supervision.


15/31

b declaring broad polic goals and general statutor standards,leaving the choice of polic options to the discretion of ane-ecutive officer. +ongress articulates legislative aims, but leavestheir implementation to the Cudgment of parties %ho ma or manot have participated in or agreed %ith the development of thoseaims. +onse?uentl, absent safeguards, in man instances thereverse of our constitutional scheme could be effectedE +ongressproposes, the /-ecutive disposes. ne safeguard, of course, isthe legislative po%er to enact ne% legislation or to change e-istingla%. ut %ithout some means of overseeing post enactmentactivities of the e-ecutive branch, +ongress %ould be unable todetermine %hether its policies have been implemented inaccordance %ith legislative intent and thus %hether legislativeintervention is appropriate.

*ts opponents, ho%ever, critici%e the le/islative veto as uu''%o/&'t uo t' '@'ut' %'%og/t's. The urge that /)ost'/t&'t &'/su%'s u'%t/>' :) t' ('gs(/t' :%/sou( :' (&t' to s%ut) / 'stg/to? /) &'/su%':')o t/t


16/31

*n mmi/ration and 3at*rali%ation Service v. "hadha, t' U.S. Su%'&'Cou%t %'so(' t' /(t) o$ ('gs(/t' 'to %osos. The casearose from the order of the immigration Cudge suspending thedeportation of +hadha pursuant to I #00(c)(1) of the *mmigration and6ationalit Act. The 4nited 2tates Fouse of Representatives passed aresolution vetoing the suspension pursuant to I #00(c)(#) authori&ingeither Fouse of +ongress, b resolution, to invalidate the decision of thee-ecutive branch to allo% a particular deportable alien to remain in the4nited 2tates. The immigration Cudge reopened the deportationproceedings to implement the Fouse order and the alien %as ordereddeported. The oard of *mmigration Appeals dismissed the alienBsappeal, holding that it had no po%er to declare unconstitutional an act of +ongress. The 4nited 2tates +ourt of Appeals for 6inth +ircuit held thatthe Fouse %as %ithout constitutional authorit to order the alienBsdeportation and that I #00(c)(#) violated the constitutional doctrine onseparation of po%ers.

n appeal, the 4.2. 2upreme +ourt declared I #00(c)(#)unconstitutional. But t' Cou%t s' /


17/31

onl to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the said la% but also torevie%, revise, amend and approve the *RR promulgated b the +ommissionon /lections. The +ourt held that these functions infringed on theconstitutional independence of the +ommission on /lections.!7

@ith this backdrop, it is clear that congressional oversight is notunconstitutional per se, meaning, it neither necessaril constitutes anencroachment on the e-ecutive po%er to implement la%s nor undermines theconstitutional separation of po%ers. Rather, it is integral to the checks andbalances inherent in a democratic sstem of government. *t ma in fact evenenhance the separation of po%ers as it prevents the over'accumulation ofpo%er in the e-ecutive branch.

Fo%ever, to forestall the danger of congressional encroachment


18/31

congressional oversight committee is in the form of an in%ard'turningdelegation designed to attach a congressional leash (other than throughscrutin and investigation) to an agenc to %hich +ongress has b la% initialldelegated broad po%ers.0! *t radicall changes the design or structure of the+onstitutionBs diagram of po%er as it entrusts to +ongress a direct role inenforcing, appling or implementing its o%n la%s.00

+ongress has t%o options %hen enacting legislation to define national polic%ithin the broad hori&ons of its legislative competence.0" *t can itself formulatethe details or it can assign to the e-ecutive branch the responsibilit formaking necessar managerial decisions in conformit %ith thosestandards.07 *n the latter case, the la% must be complete in all its essentialterms and conditions %hen it leaves the hands of the legislature.09 Thus, %hatis left for the e-ecutive branch or the concerned administrative agenc %hen itformulates rules and regulations implementing the la% is to fill up details(supplementar rule'making) or ascertain facts necessar to bring the la% intoactual operation (contingent rule'making).0:

Administrative regulations enacted b administrative agencies to implementand interpret the la% %hich the are entrusted to enforce have the force of la%and are entitled to respect.0 2uch rules and regulations partake of the natureof a statute"$ and are Cust as binding as if the have been %ritten in the statuteitself. As such, the have the force and effect of la% and enCo thepresumption of constitutionalit and legalit until the are set aside %ith finalitin an appropriate case b a competent court."1 +ongress, in the guise ofassuming the role of an overseer, ma not pass upon their legalit bsubCecting them to its stamp of approval %ithout disturbing the calculatedbalance of po%ers established b the +onstitution. *n e-ercising discretion toapprove or disapprove the *RR based on a determination of %hether or notthe conformed %ith the provisions of RA !!", +ongress arrogated Cudicialpo%er unto itself, a po%er e-clusivel vested in this +ourt b the +onstitution.

Cos'%' Oo o$M%. *ust' D/t' O. Tg/

Moreover, the re?uirement that the implementing rules of a la% be subCectedto approval b +ongress as a condition for their effectivit violates the cardinalconstitutional principles of bicameralism and the rule on presentment."#

2ection 1, Article H* of the +onstitution statesE

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt52


19/31

2ection 1. T' ('gs(/t' o


20/31

;oa?uin 5. ernas, 2.;."9, the follo%ing is the procedure for the approval ofbillsE

A bill is introduced b an member of the Fouse of Representatives orthe 2enate e-cept for some measures that must originate onl in the

former chamber.

The first reading involves onl a reading of the number and title of themeasure and its referral b the 2enate President or the 2peaker to theproper committee for stud.

The bill ma be


21/31

The final step is submission to the President for approval. nceapproved, it takes effect as la% after the re?uired publication.7$

@here +ongress delegates the formulation of rules to implement the la% ithas enacted pursuant to sufficient standards established in the said la%, the

la% must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions %hen it leavesthe hands of the legislature. And it ma be deemed to have left the hands ofthe legislature %hen it becomes effective because it is onl upon effectivit ofthe statute that legal rights and obligations become available to those entitledb the language of the statute. 2ubCect to the indispensable re?uisite ofpublication under the due process clause,71 the determination as to %hen ala% takes effect is %holl the prerogative of +ongress.7# As such, it is onlupon its effectivit that a la% ma be e-ecuted and the e-ecutive branchac?uires the duties and po%ers to e-ecute the said la%. efore that point, therole of the e-ecutive branch, particularl of the President, is limited toapproving or vetoing the la%.7!

rom the moment the la% becomes effective, an provision of la% thatempo%ers +ongress or an of its members to pla an role in theimplementation or enforcement of the la% violates the principle of separationof po%ers and is thus unconstitutional. 4nder this principle, a provision thatre?uires +ongress or its members to approve the implementing rules of a la%after it has alread taken effect shall be unconstitutional, as is a provision thatallo%s +ongress or its members to overturn an directive or ruling made bthe members of the e-ecutive branch charged %ith the implementation of thela%.

ollo%ing this rationale, 2ection 1# of RA !!" should be struck do%n asunconstitutional. @hile there ma be similar provisions of other la%s that mabe invalidated for failure to pass this standard, the +ourt refrains frominvalidating them %holesale but %ill do so at the proper time %hen anappropriate case assailing those provisions is brought before us.70

The ne-t ?uestion to be resolved isE %hat is the effect of the unconstitutionalitof 2ection 1# of RA !!" on the other provisions of the la%K @ill it render theentire la% unconstitutionalK 6o.

2ection 1! of RA !!" providesE

2/+. 1!. Separability "la*se. G *f an provision of this Act is declaredinvalid b a competent court, the remainder of this Act or an provision

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt64


22/31

not affected b such declaration of invalidit shall remain in force andeffect.

*n )atad v. Secretary of the Department of Ener/y ,7" the +ourt laid do%n thefollo%ing rulesE

The /eneral r*le is that %here part of a statute is void as repugnant tothe +onstitution, %hile another part is valid, the valid portion, ifseparable from the invalid, ma stand and be enforced. The presence of a separabilit clause in a statute creates the presumption that thelegislature intended separabilit, rather than complete nullit of thestatute. To Custif this result, the valid portion must be so far independentof the invalid portion that it is fair to presume that the legislature %ouldhave enacted it b itself if it had supposed that it could notconstitutionall enact the other. /nough must remain to make a

complete, intelligible and valid statute, %hich carries out the legislativeintent. - - -

The exception to the /eneral r*le is that %hen the parts of a statute areso mutuall dependent and connected, as conditions, considerations,inducements, or compensations for each other, as to %arrant a beliefthat the legislature intended them as a %hole, the nullit of one part %illvitiate the rest. *n making the parts of the statute dependent, conditional,or connected %ith one another, the legislature intended the statute to becarried out as a %hole and %ould not have enacted it if one part is void,in %hich case if some parts are unconstitutional, all the other provisionsthus dependent, conditional, or connected must fall %ith them.

The separabilit clause of RA !!" reveals the intention of the legislature toisolate and detach an invalid provision from the other provisions so that thelatter ma continue in force and effect. The valid portions can standindependentl of the invalid section. @ithout 2ection 1#, the remainingprovisions still constitute a complete, intelligible and valid la% %hich carriesout the legislative intent to optimi&e the revenue'generation capabilit andcollection of the *R and the + b providing for a sstem of re%ards andsanctions through the Re%ards and *ncentives und and a RevenuePerformance /valuation oard.

To be effective, administrative rules and regulations must be published in full if their purpose is to enforce or implement e-isting la% pursuant to a validdelegation. The *RR of RA !!" %ere published on Ma !$, #$$7 in t%one%spapers of general circulation77 and became effective 1" das



23/31

thereafter.79 4ntil and unless the contrar is sho%n, the *RR are presumedvalid and effective even %ithout the approval of the ;oint +ongressionalversight +ommittee.

3EREORE, the petition is hereb PART"A!! GRANTED. 2ection 1# of

RA !!" creating a ;oint +ongressional versight +ommittee to approve theimplementing rules and regulations of the la% isdeclared UNCONST"TUT"ONA! and therefore NU!! and O"D. Theconstitutionalit of the remaining provisions of RA !!" is UP3E!D. Pursuantto 2ection 1! of RA !!", the rest of the provisions remain in force and effect.

SO ORDERED.

+*no, ".., 4*is*mbin/, 5nares0Santia/o, "arpio, 6*stria0Martine%, "orona,"arpio0Morales, 6%c*na, )in/a, "hico03a%ario, $elasco, r., 3ach*ra, !eyes,

Leonardo0de0"astro, Brion, ., concur.

ootot's

L Advocates and Adherents of 2ocial ;ustice for 2chool Teachers and Allied @orkers.

1

4nder Rule 7" of the Rules of +ourt.# An Act to *mprove Revenue +ollection Performance of the ureau of*nternal Revenue (*R) and the ureau of +ustoms (+) Through the+reation of a Re%ards and *ncentives und and of a RevenuePerformance /valuation oard and for ther Purposes.

! 2ection #, RA !!".

0 2ection !, id.

" 2ection 0, id.

7 2ection 7, id.

9 2ection 9, id.

: 2ection 11, id.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt67http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_dt_2008.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt*http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt67http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_dt_2008.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt*http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt8


24/31

2ection 1#, id.

1$ +ru&, *sagani, Philippine +onstitutional Da%, 1" edition, p. #!.

11 ernas, ;oa?uin, The 1:9 +onstitution of the Republic of the

PhilippinesE A +ommentar, 17 edition, pp. :0:':0.

1# "r*% v. Secretary of Environment and 3at*ral !eso*rces, 0$$ Phil.$0 (#$$$). (Hitug, ;., separate opinion)

1! See La B*/al0B(Laan )ribal 6ssociation, nc. v. !amos, 5.R. 6o.1#9::#, $1 ecember #$$0, 00" 2+RA 1.

10 )a7ada v. 6n/ara, !!: Phil. "07 (19).

1"

2ection #, id.

17 "entral Ban' Employees 6ssociation, nc. v. Ban/'o Sentral n/+ilipinas, 5.R. 6o. 10:#$:, 1" ecember #$$0, 007 2+RA #.

19 19! 4.2. !:1 (1:).

1: 90 4.2. 177 (1:7:).

1 lackBs Da% ictionar, 2pecial e Du-e "th /dition, @est, p. 0:1.

#$ 1": Phil. 7$ (190).

#1 *d. +itations omitted.

## 6mbros v. "ommission on 6*dit, 5.R. 6o. 1"9$$, !$ ;une #$$", 07#2+RA "9#.

#! 2ection #, RA !!".

#0 2ection 1:, +hapter 0, Title **, ook *H, Administrative +ode of 1:9.

#" 2ection #!, id.

#7 +elae% v. 6*ditor 8eneral , 1## Phil. 7" (17").

#9 Eastern Shippin/ Lines, nc. v. +OE6, 5.R. 6o. D'977!!, 1: ctober1::, 177 2+RA "!!.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_159700_2005.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_159700_2005.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/oct1988/gr_76633_1988.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/oct1988/gr_76633_1988.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_159700_2005.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/oct1988/gr_76633_1988.html


25/31

#: +ru&, *sagani, Philippine Political Da%, 11 edition, p. 9.

# +anama !efinin/ "o. v . !yan, #! 4.2. !:: (1!"), (+ardo&o, ;.,dissenting).

!$ 2ection ", Rule **, *mplementing Rules and Regulations of RA !!".

!1 De 8*%man, r. v. "ommission on Elections, !1 Phil. 9$ (#$$$).

!# See 2ection 07(b)(:), +hapter 7, Title *, 2ubtitle A, ook H, Administrative +ode of 1:9.

!! E1*i06sia +lacement, nc. v. Department of orei/n 6ffairs, 5.R. 6o.1"##10, 1 2eptember #$$7, "$# 2+RA #".

!0

0"! Phil. ":7 (#$$!). Mr. ;ustice (no% +hief ;ustice) PunoBs separateopinion %as adopted as part of the ponencia in this case insofar as itrelated to the creation of and the po%ers given to the ;oint+ongressional versight +ommittee.

!" *d. (italics in the original)

!7 *d.

!9 Metropolitan &ashin/ton 6irports 6*thority v. "iti%ens for the

6batement of 6ircraft 3oise, "$1 4.2. #"# (11).!: *d.

! *d.

0$ See Mr. ;ustice (no% +hief ;ustice) PunoBs separate opinionin Macalintal .

01 E./ ., b re?uiring the regular submission of reports.

0# See Mr. ;ustice (no% +hief ;ustice) PunoBs separate opinionin Macalintal.

0! See Tribe, Da%rence, * American +onstitutional Da% 1!1 (#$$$).

00 *d.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_152214_2006.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_152214_2006.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_152214_2006.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt44


26/31

0" *d. at 101.

07 Metropolitan &ashin/ton 6irports 6*thority v. "iti%ens for the 6batement of 6irport 3oise,s*pra.

09 Ed* v. Ericta, 107 Phil. 07 (19$).

0: ernas, ;oa?uin, The 1:9 +onstitution of the Republic of thePhilippinesE A +ommentar, #$$! edition, p. 770 citing &ayman v.So*thward , 1$ @heat 1 (1:"#) and )he Bri/ 6*rora, 9 +r. !:# (1:1!)).

0 Eslao v. "ommission on 6*dit , 5.R. 6o. 1$:!1$, $1 2eptember 10,#!7 2+RA 1718 Sierra Madre )r*st v. Secretary of 6/ric*lt*re and3at*ral !eso*rces, #$7 Phil. !1$ (1:!).

"$ +eople v. Maceren, 17 Phil. 0!9 (199).

"1 2ee Eslao v. "ommission on 6*dit , s*pra.

"# *t is also for these reasons that the 4nited 2tates 2upreme +ourtstruck do%n legislative vetoes as unconstitutional in mmi/ration and3at*rali%ation Service v. "hadha (07# 4.2. 1 =1:!>).

"! 6achura, Antonio ., utline Revie%er in Political Da%, #$$7 edition,p. #!7.

"0 2ection #7, Article H* of the +onstitution providesE

2ection #7. (1) /ver bill passed b the +ongress shall embraceonl one subCect %hich shall be e-pressed in the title thereof.

(#) 6o bill passed b either Fouse shall become a la% unless ithas passed three readings on separate das, and printed copiesthereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members threedas before its passage, e-cept %hen the President certifies to

the necessit of its immediate enactment to meet a publiccalamit or emergenc. 4pon the last reading of a bill, noamendment thereto shall be allo%ed, and the vote thereon shallbe taken immediatel thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered inthe ;ournal.

"" See ernas, s*pra note 0:, p. 97#.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/sep1994/gr_108310_1994.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/sep1994/gr_108310_1994.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/sep1994/gr_108310_1994.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/sep1994/gr_108310_1994.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt55


27/31

"7 Philippine Political Da%, #$$# edition, +entral Da%book Publishing+o., *nc., pp. 1"#'1"!.

"9 The Philippine +onstitution for Dadies, 5entlemen And thers, #$$9edition, Re- ookstore, *nc., pp. 11:'11.

": The conference committee consists of members nominated b bothFouses. The task of the conference committee, ho%ever, is not strictllimited to reconciling differences. ;urisprudence also allo%s thecommittee to insert ne% provision=s> not found in either original providedthese are germane to the subCect of the bill. 6e-t, the reconciled versionmust be presented to both Fouses for ratification. (*d.)

" S*pra note "7.

7$ S*pra note "9.

71 2ee 2ection 1, Article *** of the +onstitution. *n )a7ada v. )*vera (#!$Phil. "#:), the +ourt also cited 2ection 7, Article *** %hich recogni&es


28/31

surrender or abdication of po%ers. (*d.) Recent instances of delegatedlegislative po%ers upheld b the +ourt include the po%er of theepartments of ;ustice and Fealth to promulgate rules and regulationson lethal inCection (Eche/aray v. Secretary of *stice, !": Phil. 01$=1:>)8 the po%er of the 2ecretar of Fealth to phase out blood banks(Beltran v. Secretary of 9ealth, 5.R. 6o. 1!!70$, 1!!771, 1!109, #"6ovember #$$", 097 2+RA 17:)8 and the po%er of the epartments ofinance and Dabor to promulgate *mplementing Rules to the Migrant@orkers and verseas ilipinos Act. (E1*i06sia +lacement v.D6, 5.R.6o. 1"##10, 1 2eptember #$$7, "$# 2+RA #".)

The delegation to the e-ecutive branch of the po%er to formulate andenact implementing rules falls %ithin the class of permissible delegationof legislative po%ers. Most recentl, in Exec*tive Secretary v. So*thwin/ 9eavy nd*stries (5.R. 6os. 170191, 17019# 17:901, #$ ebruar#$$7, 0:# 2+RA 79!), %e characteri&ed such delegation as upon the President ?uasi'legislative po%er %hich ma bedefined as the /uto%t) '('g/t' :) t' (/g :o) to t'/&st%/t' :o) to /ot %u('s / %'gu(/tos intended to carrout the provisions of the la% and implement legislative polic.< (*d., at7:7, citing +ru&, Philippine Administrative Da%, #$$! /dition, at #0.)Da% book authors are like%ise virtuall unanimous that the po%er of thee-ecutive branch to promulgate implementing rules arises fromlegislative delegation. ;ustice 6achura defines the nature of the rule'

making po%er of administrative bodies in the e-ecutive branch as , at #9#.) Fefurther e-plains that rules and regulations that


29/31

delegation, and as %ith an other delegation of legislative po%ers,+ongress ma impose conditions or limitations %hich the e-ecutivebranch is bound to observe. A usual e-ample is the designation b+ongress of %hich particular members of the e-ecutive branch shouldparticipate in the drafting of the implementing rules. This set'up does notoffend the separation of po%ers bet%een the branches as it issanctioned b the delegation principle.

Apart from %hatever rule'making po%er that +ongress ma delegate tothe President, the latter has inherent ordinance po%ers covering thee-ecutive branch as part of the po%er of e-ecutive control (


30/31

enforce or implement e-isting la% u%su/t to / /('('g/to. (*d., at #"0.) T' Cou%t


31/31

delegated authorit emanates not from an inherent e-ecutive po%erbut from the authorit delegated b +ongress.

*t is not correct, as ;ustice +arpio posits, that %ithout implementingrules, legislation cannot be faithfull e-ecuted b the e-ecutive branch.

Man of our ke la%s, including the +ivil +ode, the Revised Penal+ode, the +orporation +ode, the Dand Registration Act and the PropertRegistration ecree, do not have *mplementing Rules. *t has neverbeen suggested that the enforcement of these la%s is unavailing, or thatthe absence of implementing rules to these la%s indicates insufficientstatutor details that should preclude their enforcement. (2ee DBMv.:olonwel )radin/ , 5.R. 6os. 19"7$:, 19"717 19"7", : ;une #$$9,"#0 2+RA "1, 7$!.)

*n reCecting the theor that the po%er to craft implementing rules is

e-ecutive in character and reaffirming instead that such po%er arisesfrom a legislative grant, the +ourt asserts that +ongress retains thepo%er to impose statutor conditions in the drafting of implementingrules, provided that such conditions do not take on the character of alegislative veto. +ongress can designate %hich officers or entitiesshould participate in the drafting of implementing rules. *t ma imposestatutor restraints on the participants in the drafting of implementingrules, and the President is obliged to observe such restraints on thee-ecutive officials, even if he thinks the are unnecessar or foolhard.The unconstitutional nature of the legislative veto does not ho%ever bar+ongress from imposing conditions %hich the President must compl%ith in the e-ecution of the la%. After all, the President has theconstitutional dut to faithfull e-ecute the la%s.

70 This stance is called for b Cudicial restraint as %ell as thepresumption of constitutionalit accorded to la%s enacted b +ongress,a co'e?ual branch. *t is also finds support in +elae% v. 6*ditor8eneral (1## Phil. 7" =17">).

7" !07 Phil. !#1 (19). /mphasis in the original.

77 *n particular, the Philippine 2tar and the Manila 2tandard.

79 2ection !7, *RR of RA !!".
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt67http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#rnt67

ABAKADA Guro v. Purisima G.R. No. 166715

Documents

Transcript of ABAKADA Guro v. Purisima G.R. No. 166715