271059/271347/E-02472/E-04036 Representative Edcel C. Lagman, substituted by Albay First District Representative Krisel B. Lagman, et al. Vs. The Congress of the Philippines, et al./Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III and Pantaleo “Bebot” Alvarez Vs. Lucas P. Bersamin, in his capacity as executive secretary, and Amenah F. Pangandaman, in her capacity as secretary of the Department of Budget and Management/Filipinos for Peace, Justice and Progress Movement, Inc. (FPJPM), represented by its president and chairperson, Joseph F. Cadsawan, and Gloria T. Puzon, chapter Officer Vs. The House of Representatives, et al./Edgar R. Erice and Leila De Lima Vs. The Senate of the Philippines, et al. — Official PDF

Decision 60 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 and E-04036 it must set forth therein the policy to be executed, can·ied out[,] or implemented by the delegate-and [(b)] fix a standard-the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable-to which the delegate must conform in the perfonuance of [their J 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 has acted within or beyond the scope of [their] authority. Hence, [they] could thereby arrogate upon [themselves] 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 tl1e principle of separation of pow<::rs - and the system of checks and balances, and, consequently[,] undermining .. the very foundation of our Republican system.283 (~itati~ns omitted) Guingona, Jr. v. Carague284 further distinguished between delegation of power to make the law and discretion in its execution. The -Court emphasized that to be a valid delegation oflegislative power, the law must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions so that there will be nothing left for the delegate to do but to enforce it: • On the third issue that there is undue delegation oflegislative power, in Edu v. Eric/a this Court had this to say- " What cannot. be delegated is the authority under the Constitution to make laws and to alter and repeal them; the test is the completeness of the statute in all its terms and provisions when it leaves the hands of the legislature. To determine whether or not there is an undue delegation of legislative power, the inequity must be directed to the scope and definiteness of the measure enacted. The legislature does not abdicate its function when it de.</cribe:~ whai job must be done. who is to do it, and what is the scope of his authority. For a complex economy, that may indeed be the only way in which legislative process can go.forward . .. "To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation there must be a standard, which implies at the very least that the legislature itself determines matters of principle and lays down fundamental policy. "The standard may be either express or implied ... from the policy and purpose of the act considered as whole ... " In People v[J Vera, this Court said "the true distinction is between the delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves discretion as to what the law shall be, and conferring authority or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done; to the latter no valid objection can be made." Ideally, the law must be complete in all. its essential terms and_ conditions when it leaves the legislature so that there will be nothing left for m id. at 974-975. 284 273 Phil. 443 ( 1991) [Per J. Gancayco, En Banc].