1.

US V Barrias 11 Phil 327

FACTS: Barrias is the captain of a lighter (casco or ship) named Maude operating in the Pasig River. The said Maude is not being powered by steam engine or a similar source of adequate power. The Maude is in fact being navigated manually by use of bamboo poles. This is in clear violation of Circular No. 397 issued by the Insular Collector of Customs. This said circular issued by the Collector is in pursuant to Secs 5 and 8 of Act No. 1136 which empowered the Collector to regulate those engaged in lighterage or any other similar harbor business. On the other hand, Barrias challenged the acts of the Collector with reference to Secs 19 and 311 of Act No. 355 (Phil Customs Administrative Act) as amended by Act 1235 and Act 1480. Under Act No. 1235, the Collector is not only empowered to make suitable regulatio ns, but also to fix penalties for violation thereof, not exceeding a fine of P500. ISSUE: Whether or not there is undue delegation of power to the Collector. HELD: The SC acknowledged that the issue raised by Barrias indeed poses a serious question and the SC discussed that one of the settled maxims in constitutional law is that the power conferred upon the legislature to make laws cannot be delegated by that department to any other body or authority. Where the sovereign power of the State has located the authority, there it must remain; and by the constitutional agency alone the laws must be made until the constitution itself is changed. The power to whose judgment, wisdom, and patriotism this high prerogative has been entrusted can not relieve itself of the responsibility by choosing other agencies upon which the power shall be developed, nor can it substitute the judgment, wisdom, and patriotism of any other body for those to which alone the people have seen fit to confide this sovereign trust. This doctrine is based on the ethical principle that such a delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate by the instrumentality of his own judgment acting immediately upon the matter of legislation and not through the intervening mind of another. However, the question of undue delegation must be

passed upon because of the fact that the prosecution is sustained by the validity of the other law cited which is sections 5 and 8 of Act No 1136. The reference to Act No 355 as amended is not material to the disposition of the case. 2. Calalang Vs Williams 70 Phil 726 3. Kilosan Mayo Uno Vs Garcia Jr. 239 Scra 386 FACTS: FACTS:Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) Secretary Oscar M. Orbos issued Memorandum Circular No. 90-395 to Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) Chairman, Remedios A.S. Fernando that will allow provincial bus operators to charge passengers rates within a range of 15% above and 15% below the LTFRB official rate for a period of one (1) year to be implemented on August 6, 1990. The Memo read as is the liberalization of regulations in the transport sector and to move away gradually from regulatory policies and make progress towards greater reliance to market forces: Chairman Fernando informed Sec. Orbos that the Memo is not legally feasible and recommended for further studies because (1) under Public Service Act rates should be approved by public service operators; there should be publication and notice especially to affected sectors; and a public hearing be held; (2) it was untimely due to an earthquake happened on July 16; (3) it will trigger upward adjustment in bus fares especially in trips bound for Northern Luzon; and (4) DOTC should consider reforms that will be uplifting after the earthquake. On December 5, 1990 the Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines, Inc. (PBOAP) filed an application for fare rate increase. On December 14, 1990 LTFRB released a fare schedule based on a straight computation. On March 30, 1992 DOTC Sec. Pete Nicomedes Prado issued Department Order No 92-587 defining the framework on the regulation of transport services. Then on October 8, 1992 DOTC Sec. Jose B. Garcia issued a memorandum to LTFRB for the swift action on the adoption of the rules and procedures to implement Department Order No. 92-587 that laid down the deregulation and other liberalization policies for the transport sector. LTFRB issued on February 17, 1993

On March 16, 1994. Kilusang Mayo Uno anchors its claim on two (2) grounds. First, the authority given by respondent LTFRB to provincial bus operators to set a fare range of plus or minus fifteen (15%) percent, later increased to plus twenty (20%) and minus twenty-five (-25%) percent, over and above the existing authorized fare without having to file a petition for the purpose, is unconstitutional, invalid and illegal. Second, the establishment of a presumption

of public need in favor of an applicant for a proposed transport service without having to prove public necessity is illegal for being violative of the Public Service Act and the Rules of Court and petitions before the LTFRB. LTFRB dismissed because of lack of merit. The Court, on June 20, 1994, issued a temporary restraining order enjoining, prohibiting and preventing respondents from implementing the bus fare rate increase as well as the questioned orders and memorandum circulars. This meant that provincial bus fares were rolled back to the levels duly authorized by the LTFRB prior to March 16, 1994. A moratorium was likewise enforced on the issuance of franchises for the operation of buses, jeepneys, and taxicabs. DOTC Secretary Jesus B. Garcia, Jr. and the LTFRB asseverate that the petitioner does not have the standing to maintain the instant suit. They further claim that it is within DOTC and LTFRBs authority to set a fare range scheme and establish a presumption of public need in applications for certificates of public convenience.

ISSUE: Are the petitioners have the right to petition of this case? Whether or not the fare adjustment is constitutional? HELD: (1) YES. KMU has a locus standi (or ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that partys participation in the case) which is inherent in the Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution provides: Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

NO. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED and the challenged administrative issuances and orders, namely: DOTC Department Order No. 92-587, LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 92-009, and the order dated March 24, 1994 issued by respondent LTFRB are hereby DECLARED contrary to law and invalid insofar as they affect provisions therein (a) delegating to provincial bus and jeepney operators the authority to increase or decrease the duly prescribed transportation fares; and (b) creating a presumption of public need for a service in favor of the applicant for a certificate of public convenience and placing the burden of proving that there is no need for the proposed service to the oppositor. The Temporary Restraining Order issued on June 20, 1994 is hereby MADE PERMANENT insofar as it enjoined the bus fare rate increase granted under the provisions of the aforementioned administrative circulars, memoranda and/or orders declared invalid. 4. American Tobacco Vs Director Of Patents Gr No. L-26803, 1975 5. Matienzon Vs. Abellera 162 Scra 1 6. Heirs Of Santiago Pastral Vs. Sec Of Public Works 162 Scra 619 7. Villegas Vs Subido 13 Scra 498 8. LLDA Vs Ca 231 Scra 292 9. Polloso Vs Gangan 335 Scra 750 10. Blaquera Vs Alcala 295 Scra 411 11. Carino Vs Capulong 222 Scra 593 12. Mateo Vs Ca 196 Scra 280 13. Binamira Vs Garucho 188 Scra 154 14. Sarina Vs Cfi Of Bukidnon 24 Scra 715 15. Mercalco Securities Corporation Vs Sabellano 117 Scra 804 16. Shauf Vs Ca 191 Scra 713 17. Bluebar Coconut Vs Tantuico 160 Scra 716 18. Concerned Officials Of MWSS Vs Vasquez 240 Scra 502

19. Deloso Vs Domingo 191 Scra 545 20. Ruiz Vs Drilon 209 Scra 695