Professional Documents
Culture Documents
18 - Pelaez v. Auditor General, GR No. L-23825, 24 Dec 1965
18 - Pelaez v. Auditor General, GR No. L-23825, 24 Dec 1965
570
571
after the legislative bills for the creation of the said municipalities
had failed to pass Congress, is the best proof that their issuance
entails the exercise of purely legislative functions.
Same; Same; Same; Power of control over local governments.
·The power of control under Section 10 (a) of Article X of the
Constitution 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 officers. This power is
denied by the Constitution to the Executive, insofar as local
governments are concerned. With respect to the latter, the
fundamental law permits him to wield no more authority than that
of checking whether said local governments or the officers 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. He
may not, for instance, suspend an elective official of a regular
municipality or take any disciplinary action against him, 'except on
appeal from a decision of the corresponding provincial board. If, on
the other hand, the President could create a municipality, he could,
in effect, remove any of' its officials, by creating a new municipality
and including therein the barrio in which the official concerned
resides, for his office would thereby become vacant (Section 2179,
Revised Administrative Code). Thus, by merely brandishing the
power to create a new municipality, without actually creating it, he
could compel local officials to submit to his dictation; thereby, in
effect, exercising over them the power of control denied to him by
the Constitution.
572
573
CONCEPCION, J.:
_______________
574
"All barrios existing at the time of the passage of this Act shall
come under the provisions hereof.
"Upon petition of a majority of the voters in the areas affected, a
new barrio may be created or the name of an existing one may' be
changed by the provincial board of the province, upon
recommendation of the council of the municipality or municipalities
in which the proposed barrio is stipulated. The recommendation of
the municipal council shall be embodied in a resolution approved by
at least two-thirds of the entire membership of the said council:
Provided, however, That no new barrio may be created if its
population is less than five hundred persons."
575
576
______________
577
·it must set forth therein the policy to be2 executed, carried
out or implemented by the delegate ·and (b) fix a
standard·the limits of which are sufficiently determinate
or determinable·to which the delegate 2a
must conform in
the performance of his functions. Indeed, without a
statutory declaration of policy, the delegate would in effect,
make or formulate such policy, which is the essence of
every law; and without the aforementioned standard, there
would be no means to determine, with reasonable certainty,
whether the delegate
2b
has acted within or beyond the scope
of his authority. Hence, he could thereby arrogate upon
himself the power, not only to make the law, but, also·and
this is worse·to unmake it, by adopting measures
inconsistent with the end sought to be attained by the Act
of Congress, thus nullifying the principle of separation of
powers and the system of checks and balances, and,
consequently, undermining the very foundation of our
Republican. system.
Section 68 of the Revised Administrative Code does not
meet these well settled requirements for a valid delegation
of the power to fix the details in the enforcement of a law,
_____________
578
_____________
579
_____________
4 McGirr vs. Hamilton, 30 Phil. 563; Hebron vs. Reyes, L-9124. July
28, 1958; U.S. vs. More, 3 Cranch 159, 172; U.S. vs. Sanges, 144 U.S.
310, 319; Cross vs. Burke, 146 U.S. 82; Louisville Trust Co. vs. Knott,
191 U.S. 225. See also, 15 C.J., 929-940; 21 C.J.S. 297, 299; 14 Am. Jur.
345.
580
581
"To summarize and conclude upon this point: Sec. 3 of the Recovery
Act is without precedent. It supplies no standards for any trade,
industry or activity. It does not undertake to prescribe rules of
conduct to be applied to particular states of fact determined by
appropriate administrative procedure. Instead of prescribing rules
of conduct, it authorizes the making of codes to prescribe them. For
that legislative undertaking, Sec. 3 sets up no standards, aside from
the statement of the general aims of rehabilitation. correction and
expansion described in Sec. 1. In view of the scope of that broad
declaration, and of the nature of the few restrictions that are
imposed, the discretion of the President in approving or prescribing
codes, and thus enacting laws for the government of trade and
industry throughout the country, is virtually unfettered. We think
that the code making authority thus conferred is an un
constitutional delegation of legislative power."
582
583
_____________
5 Hebron vs. Reyes, L-9124, July 28, 1958; Mondano vs. Silvosa, 51
Off. Gaz. 2884; Rodriguez vs. Montinola, 50 Off. Gaz, 4820; Querubin vs.
Castro, L-9779, July 31, 1958.
6 Pursuant to Section 2179 of the Revised Administrative Code:
584
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Pelaez vs. Auditor General
______________
586
587
588
589
590
591
ANNOTATION
CREATION OF MUNICIPALITIES
592
593
594
595
596
597
ANNOTATION
VALID DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
_______________