RULING: (Garcia v.

Commission on Elections)
The 1987 Constitution installed back the power to the people regarding legislation
because of the event in February 1986. The new Constitution became less trusting
of public officials.
Through initiative, the people were given the power to amend the Constitution under
Sec. 2 Art. 17 which provides amendments to this Constitution may likewise be
directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least 12% of
the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be
represented by at least 3% of the registered voter therein.
The Comelec was also empowered to enforce and administer all laws and
regulations relative to the conduct of an initiative and referendum.
On Aug. 4, 1989, the Congress approved RA No. 6735 entitled An Act Providing for
a System of Initiative and Referendum and Appropriating Funds Therefor.
YES. Sec. 32 of Art. 6 provides the Congress shall provide for a system of initiative
and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the people can directly
propose
and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the
Congress or local legislative body.

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES V POEA
FACTS:
A Chief Officer of a ship was killed in an accident in Japan. The widow filed a
complaint for charges against the Eastern Shipping Lines with POEA, based on a
Memorandum Circular No. 2, issued by the POEA which stipulated death benefits
and burial for the family of overseas workers. ESL questioned the validity of the
memorandum circular as violative of the principle of non-delegation of legislative
power. It contends that no authority had been given the POEA to promulgate the
said regulation; and even with such authorization, the regulation represents an
exercise of legislative discretion which, under the principle, is not subject to
delegation. Nevertheless, POEA assumed jurisdiction and decided the case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Issuance of Memorandum Circular No. 2 is a violation of non-
delegation of powers.
RULING:
No. SC held that there was a valid delegation of powers.
The authority to issue the said regulation is clearly provided in Section 4(a) of
Executive Order No. 797. ... "The governing Board of the Administration (POEA), as
hereunder provided shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to govern
the exercise of the adjudicatory functions of the Administration (POEA)."
It is true that legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be
delegated. What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may be
enforced, not what the law shall be. The ascertainment of the latter subject is a
prerogative of the legislature. This prerogative cannot be abdicated or surrendered
by the legislature to the delegate.
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 affected 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.
There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation
of legislative power:
1. Completeness test - the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions
when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate the only thing
he will have to do is enforce it.
2. Sufficient standard test - there must be adequate guidelines or stations in the
law to map out the boundaries of the delegate's authority and prevent the delegation
from running riot.
Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authority to the
delegate, who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and exercise a
poweressentially legislative.

Tablarin v. Gutierrez (G.R. No. 78164 July 31, 1987)
Facts:
The petitioners sought admission into colleges or schools of medicine for the school
year 1987-1988. However, the petitioners either did not take or did not successfully
take the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) required by the Board of Medical
Education, one of the public respondents, and administered by the private
respondent, the Center for Educational Measurement (CEM).
On 5 March 1987, the petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court, National Capital
Judicial Region, a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Prohibition with a prayer for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The petitioners sought to
enjoin the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports, the Board of Medical
Education and the Center for Educational Measurement from enforcing Section 5 (a)
and (f) of Republic Act No. 2382, as amended, and MECS Order No. 52, series of
1985, dated 23 August 1985 and from requiring the taking and passing of the NMAT
as a condition for securing certificates of eligibility for admission, from proceeding
with accepting applications for taking the NMAT and from administering the NMAT
as scheduled on 26 April 1987 and in the future. After hearing on the petition for
issuance of preliminary injunction, the trial court denied said petition. The NMAT was
conducted and administered as previously scheduled.
Issue:
whether Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act No. 2382, as amended, offend against
the constitutional principle which forbids the undue delegation of legislative power,
by failing to establish the necessary standard to be followed by the delegate, the
Board of Medical Education
Held:
The standards set for subordinate legislation in the exercise of rule making
authority by an administrative agency like the Board of Medical Education are
necessarily broad and highly abstract. The standard may be either expressed or
implied. If the former, the non-delegation objection is easily met. The standard
though does not have to be spelled out specifically. It could be implied from the
policy and purpose of the act considered as a whole. In the Reflector Law, clearly the
legislative objective is public safety.

In this case, the necessary standards are set forth in Section 1 of the 1959
Medical Act: the standardization and regulation of medical education and in Section
5 (a) and 7 of the same Act, the body of the statute itself, and that these considered
together are sufficient compliance with the requirements of the non-delegation
principle.
Held: Yes. We conclude that prescribing the NMAT and requiring certain minimum
scores therein as a condition for admission to medical schools in the Philippines, do
not constitute an unconstitutional imposition.
The police power, it is commonplace learning, is the pervasive and non-waivable
power and authority of the sovereign to secure and promote all the important
interests and needs in a word, the public order of the general community. An
important component of that public order is the health and physical safety and well
being of the population, the securing of which no one can deny is a legitimate
objective of governmental effort and regulation. Perhaps the only issue that needs
some consideration is whether there is some reasonable relation between the
prescribing of passing the NMAT as a condition for admission to medical school on
the one hand, and the securing of the health and safety of the general community,
on the other hand. This question is perhaps most usefully approached by recalling
that the regulation of the practice of medicine in all its branches has long been
recognized as a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public.

FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION,
FACTS: On September 14, 1981, there was a notice of strike with the Ministry of
Labor for unfair labor practices stating the following grounds " 1) Unilateral and
arbitrary implementation of a Code of Conduct to the detriment of the interest of our
members; 2) Illegal terminations and suspensions of our officers and members as a result of the
implementation of said Code of Conduct; and 3) Unconfirmation of call sick leaves
and its automatic treatment as Absence Without Official Leave of Absence (AWOL)
with corresponding suspensions, in violation of our Collective Bargaining
Agreement."Several conciliation meetings called by the Ministry followed, with
petitioner manifesting its willingness to have a revised Code of Conduct that would
be fair to all concerned but with a plea that in the meanwhile the Code of Conduct
being imposed be suspended a position that failed to meet the approval of private
respondent. Subsequently, respondent Ministry, certified the labor dispute to
the National Labor Relations Commission for compulsory arbitration and enjoined
any strike at the private respondent's establishment. The labor dispute was set for
hearing by respondent National Labor Relations Commission. Private respondent,
following the lead of petitioner labor union, explained its side on the controversy
regarding the Code of Conduct, the provisions of which as alleged in the petition
were quite harsh, resulting in what it deemed indefinite preventive suspension
apparently the principal cause of the labor dispute. It is now the submission of
petitioner labor union Free Telephone Workers Union that "Batas Pambansa Blg.
130 in so far as it amends article 264 of the Labor Code delegating to the Honorable
Minister of Labor and Employment the power and discretion to assume jurisdiction
and/or certify strikes for compulsory arbitration to the National Labor Relations
Commission, and in effect make or unmake the law on free collective bargaining, is
an undue delegation of legislative powers. There is likewise the assertion that such
conferment of authority "may also ran contrary to the assurance of the State to the
workers' right to self-organization and collective bargaining.
ISSUE: Whether BP 130 amending Art. 264 of the Labor Code is an undue delegation
of legislative powers?
HELD: Batas Pambansa Blg. 130 insofar as it empowers the Minister of Labor to
assume jurisdiction over labor disputes causing or likely to cause strikes or
lockoutsadversely affecting the national interest and thereafter decide it or certify
the samethe National Labor Relations Commission is not on its face unconstitutional
for beingviolative of the doctrine of non-delegation of legislative power. To repeat,
there isno ruling on the question of whether or not it has been unconstitutionally
applied in