195 Conference v.

POEA, 243 SCRA 666 (1995) AUTHOR: Dador

G.R. Nos. L-170236 August 31,2006. Notes:
TOPIC: Tests for Valid Delegation
PONENTE: Callejo SR. J
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:

To many of the problems attendant upon present-day undertakings, the legislature may not have the competence to provide the required
direct and efficacious not to say, specific solutions. These solutions may, however, be expected from its delegates, who are supposed to be
experts in the particular fields assigned to them. This reasons for the delegation of legislative powers is particularly applicable to
administrative bodies. With the proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant peculiar problems, the national legislature has
found it more and more necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the authority to issue rules to carry out the general provisions of
the statute. This is called the "power of subordinate legislation."

EMERGENCY RECIT:

Petitioner Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies, Inc., urge the SC to annul Resolution No. 01, series of 1994, of the Governing Board"
of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and POEA Memorandum Circular No. 05, series of 1994, alleging inter alia
that it is prohibited by the principle of non-delegation of powers. The SC ruled that it is not. The growth of society has ramified its
activities and created peculiar and sophisticated problems that the legislature cannot be expected reasonably to comprehend.
Specialization even in legislation has become necessary. Therefore, in some instances, the Congress can indeed delegate its powers, which
is what took place in this case.

FACTS:

Petitioner Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies, Inc., an incorporated association of licensed Filipino manning agencies, and its co-
petitioners, all licensed manning agencies which hire and recruit Filipino seamen for and in behalf of their respective foreign shipowner-
principals, urge us[the SC] to annul Resolution No. 01, series of 1994, of the Governing Board" of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) and POEA Memorandum Circular No. 05, series of 1994, on the grounds that:

(1) The POEA does not have the power and authority to fix and promulgate rates affecting death and workmen's compensation of
Filipino seamen working in ocean-going vessels; only Congress can.

(2) Even granting that the POEA has that power, it, nevertheless, violated the standards for its exercise.

(3) The resolution and the memorandum circular are unconstitutional because they violate the equal protection and non-impairment
of obligation of contracts clauses of the Constitution.

(4) The resolution and the memorandum circular are not, valid acts of the Governing Board because the private sector representative
mandated by law has not been appointed by the President since the creation of the POEA.

In their, comment. the public respondents contend that the petition is without merit and should de dismissed because

(1) the issuance of the challenged resolution and memorandum circular was a valid exercise of the POEA's rule-making authority or
power of subordinate legislation which this Court had sustained in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA;4
(2) the "non-appointment" of the third member of the Governing Board bees not necessarily invalidate the acts of the Board, for it
has been functioning "under the advisement of t the Tripartite Technical Working Group which group is incidentally constituted
by the private sector, i.e., seafarer employers and/or associations of manning agencies including herein petitioner," for which
reason "the third member complement . . . has been substantially represented by said technical working group";5 and
(3) the consensus on the increase in the rates of compensation and other benefits was arrived at after appropriate consultations
with the shipowners and the private sector; the Board therefore soundly exercised its discretion.

ISSUE(S):
1. Whether or not Resolution No. 01, series of 1994, of the Governing Board" of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) and POEA Memorandum Circular No. 05, series of 1994, are valid exercise of delegated power of the
Congress
2. Whether or not the said violate the equal protection clause

HELD:
1. Yes.
2. No
RATIO:
1. It s, of course, well established in our jurisdiction that, while the making of laws is a non-delegable power that pertains exclusively
to Congress, nevertheless, the latter may constitutionally delegate the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement
a given legislation and effectuate its policies, for the reason that the legislature finds it impracticable, if not impossible, to
anticipate situations that may be met in carrying the law into effect. All that is required is that the regulation should be germane
to the objects and purposes of the law; that the regulation be not in contradiction to but in conformity with the standards
prescribed by the law.This is the principle of subordinate legislation.

In Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA, the SC had already discussed that POEA is exercising delegated power from the legislative
department. This was the conclusion when it held that Memorandum Circular No. 02, is a valid delegation of legislative power :

xxx The principle, of non-delegation of powers is applicable to all the three major powers of the Government but is
especially important in the case of the legislative power because of the many instances when delegation is permitted.
Xxx The reason is the increasing complexity of the task of government and the growing inability of the legislature to
cope directly with the myriad problems demanding its attention. The growth of society has ramified its activities and
created peculiar and sophisticated problems that the legislature cannot be expected reasonably to comprehend.
Specialization even in legislation has become necessary. To many of the problems attendant upon present-day
undertakings, the legislature may not have the competence to provide the required direct and efficacious not to say,
specific solutions. These solutions may, however, be expected from its delegates, who are supposed to be experts in the
particular fields assigned to them.

The reasons given above for the delegation of legislative powers in general are particularly applicable to
administrative bodies. With the proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant peculiar problems, the
national legislature has found it more and more necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the authority to issue
rules to carry out the general provisions of the statute. This is called the "power of subordinate legislation."

With this power, administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid down in a statute by "filling in" the
details which the Congress may not have the opportunity or competence to provide. This is effected by their
promulgation of what are known as supplementary regulations, such as the implementing rules issued by the
Department of Labor on the new Labor Code. These regulations have the force and effect of law.

In this case, the challenged resolution and memorandum circular, which merely further amended the previous Memorandum
Circular No. 02, strictly conform to the sufficient and valid standard of "fair and equitable employment practices" prescribed in
E.O. No. 797 can no longer be disputed.

2. There is, as well, no merit to the claim that the assailed resolution and memorandum circular violate the equal protection and
contract clauses of the Constitution. To support its contention of in equality, the petitioners claim discrimination against foreign
shipowners and principals employing Filipino seamen and in favor of foreign employers employing overseas Filipinos who are
not seamen.

3. The challenged resolution and memorandum circular are also valid implementations of E.O. No. 797. This was enacted under the
police power of the State; thus, they cannot be struck down on the ground that they violate the contract clause. To hold otherwise
is to alter long-established constitutional doctrine and to subordinate the police power to the contract clause
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):