Administrative Law Case Digests Florendo vs Enrile, 239 SCRA 22 Case Digest A.M. No. P-92-695 December 7, 1994
Administrative Law Case Digests Masangcay vs Comelec, 6 SCRA 27 Case Digest G.R. No. L-13827 September 28, 1962
Administrative Law Case Digests Lovina vs Moreno, 9 SCRA 557 Case Digest G.R. No. L-17821 November 29, 1963Full description
Administrative Law Case Digests Edu vs Ericta, 35 SCRA 481 Case Digest G.R. No. L-32096 October 24, 1970Full description
Administrative Law Case Digests Blaquera vs Alcala, 295 SCRA 411 Case Digest G.R. No. 109406 September 11, 1998
Administrative Law Case Digests Lumiqued vs Exevea, 282 SCRA 125 Case Digest G.R. No. 117565 November 18, 1997
Administrative Law Case Digests Padua vs Ranada, 390 SCRA 663 Case Digest G.R. No. 141949 October 14, 2002
Administrative Law Case Digests Dario vs Mison, 176 SCRA 84 Case Digest G.R. No. 81954 August 8, 1989
Administrative Law Case Digests Echegaray vs Secretary of Justice, 297 SCRA 754 Case Digest G.R. No. 132601 October 12, 1998
Administrative Law Case Digests Gerochi vs Department of Energy, 527 SCRA 696 Case Digest G.R. No. 159796 July 17, 2007
daFull description
Administrative Law Case Digests Joson vs Executive Secretary, 290 SCRA 279 Case Digest G.R. No. 131255 May 20, 1998
dfFull description
Administrative Law Case Digests Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. vs Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports, 153 SCRA 622 Case Digest G.R. No. 78385 August 31, 1987
Administrative Law Case Digests Radio Communications of the Philippines vs National Telecommunications Commission, 184 SCRA 517 Case Digest G.R. No. L-68729 May 29, 1987
Administrative Law Case Digests Guerzon vs Court of Appeals, 164 SCRA 182 Case Digest G.R. No. 77707 August 8, 1988
Administrative Law Case Digests City of Baguio vs Nino, 487 SCRA 216 Case Digest G.R. No. 161811 April 12, 2006
Administrative Law Case Digests Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI) vs Santiago, 58 SCRA 493 Case Digest G.R. No. L-29236 August 21, 1974
legal forms digest law digests, special civil action, complaint, petition, quo warranto, interpleader, mandamus, certiorari
Administrative Law Case Digests People vs Rosenthal, 68 Phil 328 Case Digest G.R. Nos. L-46076 and L-46077 June 12, 1939
Administrative Law Case Digests US vs Barrias, 11 Phil 327 Case Digest G.R. No. 4349 September 24, 1908
Adminstrative Law Arellano Univeristy School of Law aiza ebina/2015
TATAD TATAD vs S!"TA"# $% &"'# 2(1 S!"A ))0 Sufciency o Standards %A!TS* The petitions at bar challenge the constitutionality constitutionality of Republic Republic Act No. 8180 entitled "An Act Deregulating the Downstream il !ndustry and or ther #urposes". R.A. No. 8180 ends twenty si$ %&'( years of go)ernment go)ernment regulation of the downstream oil industry. *nder the deregulated deregulated en)ironment+ "any person or entity may import or purchase any ,uantity of crude oil and petroleum products from a foreign or domestic source+ lease or own and operate re-neries and other downstream oil facilities and maret such crude oil or use the same for his own re,uirement+" re,uirement+" sub/ect only to monitoring monitoring by the Department Department of nergy. The deregulation process has two phases the transition phase and the full deregulation deregulation phase. The -rst phase of deregulation commenced on August 1&+ 122'. n ebruary 8+ 1223+ the #resident implemented the full deregulation of the Downstream il !ndustry through .. No. 43&. The petitions at bar assail the constitutionality of )arious pro)isions of R.A No. 8180 and .. No. 43&. 5ection 16 pro)ides 5ec. 16. !mpleme !mplementat ntation ion of ull ull Deregul Deregulatio ation. n. 7 #ursuan #ursuantt to 5ection 5ection 6%e( of Republ Republic ic Act No. 3'48+ 3'48+ the D shall+ upon appro)al of the #resident+ implement implement the full deregulation deregulation of the downstream oil industry not later than arch 1223. As far as practicable+ the D shall time the full deregulation when the prices of crude oil and petroleum products products in the world maret are declining and when the e$change e$change rate of the peso in relation to the *5 dollar is stable. *pon the implementation of the full deregulation as pro)ided herein+ the transition phase is deemed terminated and the following laws are deemed repealed. !n assailing section 16 of R.A. No. 8180 and .. No. 42&+ petitioners o9er the following submissions irst+ section 16 of R.A. No. 8180 constitutes an undue delegation of legislati)e power to the #resident and the 5ecretary of nergy because it does not pro)ide a determinate determinate or determinable standard to guide the $ecuti)e :ranch in determining when to implement the full deregulation of the downstream oil industry. #etitioners contend that the law does not de-ne when it is practicable for the 5ecretary of nergy to recommend to the #resident the full deregulation of the downstream oil industry or when the #resident may consider consider it practica practicable ble to declare declare full deregul deregulatio ation. n. Also+ Also+ the law does not pro)ide pro)ide any speci-c speci-c standard to determine when the prices of crude oil in the world maret are considered considered to be declining nor when the e$change rate of the peso to the *5 dollar is considered stable. 5econd+ 5econd+ petition petitioners ers a)er that .. No. 42& implemen implementing ting the full deregulati deregulation on of the downstr downstream eam oil industry is arbitrary and unreasonable because it was enacted due to the alleged depletion of the #5 fund 7 a condition not found in R.A. No. 8180. #etitioners urge that the phrases "as far as practicable+" "decline of crude oil prices in the world maret" and "stability "stability of the peso e$chan e$change ge rate to the *5 dollar" dollar" are ambi)ale ambi)alent+ nt+ unclear unclear and inconcrete inconcrete in meaning. They submit that they do not pro)ide the "determinate or determinable standards" which can guide guide the #resid #resident ent in his decision decision to fully fully deregul deregulate ate the downstr downstream eam oil industry industry. !n addition addition++ they contend that .. No. 42& which ad)anced the date of full deregulation is )oid for it illegally considered the depletion of the #5 fund as a factor. +SSU* ;hether +SSU* ;hether or not 5ection 16 of R.A. No 8180 and .. No. 42& are unconstitutional on the ground that they constitute an undue delegation of legislati)e power to the #resident and the 5ecretary of nergy "UL+&'* No. The No. The power of of s relationship relationship became more di?cult+
@i)en the groo)e of the s rulings+ the attempt of petitioners petitioners to strie down section 16 on the ground of undue delegation of legislati)e power cannot prosper. 5ection 16 can hurdle both the completeness test and the su?cient standard test. !t will be noted that
