Requisites for delegation.

The requisites for such delegation are:

(a) the completeness of the statute making the delegation;
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.
(b) the presence of a sufficient standard.
Sufficient Standard Test - there must be adequate guidelines or limitations in
the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate's authority and prevent the
delegation from running riot.
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. POEA, 166 SCRA 533 [1988]
Shipowner questions validity of circular prescribing a standard contract to be adopted in
the hiring of Filipino seamen for overseas employment.
Facts:
Kathleen Saco was awarded the sum of P192,000 by the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA) for the death of her husband pursuant to
Memorandum Circular No. 2 which prescribes a standard contract to be adopted by
both foreign and domestic shipping companies in the hiring of Filipino seamen for
overseas employment. Petitioner, owner of the vessel where KS's husband was a chief
officer, claims that it had never entered into such a contract. It questions the validity of
the Circular as violative of the principle of non-delegation.
Under Executive Order No. 797 (promulgated May 1, 1982) which created the POEA, to
promote and monitor the overseas employment of Filipinos and to protect their rights, to
"fair and equitable employment practices," it is vested with "original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all cases, including money claims, involving employer-employee
relationship arising out of or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino contract
workers, including seamen" and given the authority to "promulgate the necessary rules
and regulations to govern the exercise of [its] adjudicatory functions." (Sec. 4[a],
thereof.)
Issue: Is the circular valid?
Held: Yes.
Principle of non-delegation of legislative power not violated. "Its provisions are
deemed written into every overseas employment contract as a postulate of the police
power of the State. The authority to issue said regulation is clearly provided in Section
4(a) of Executive Order No. 797. There is no violation of the principle of non-delegation
of legislative power."
Sufficient standard provided in Executive Order No. 797. "Memorandum Circular No.
2 is one such administrative regulation. The power of the POEA in requiring the model
contract is not unlimited as there is a sufficient standard guiding the delegate in the
exercise of the said authority. That standard is discoverable in the executive orders itself
which, in creating the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, mandated it to

protect the rights of overseas Filipino workers to fair and equitable employment
practices.
Power of Subordinate Legislation - gives administrative agencies the authority to
issue rules to carry out the general provisions of the statute. 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.
U.S. v. Ang Tang, 43 Phil. [1923]
Statute left it to the sole discretion of the Governor-General to say what was and what
was not "any cause" for enforcing it.
Facts:
In 1919, the Philippine Legislature enacted Act No. 2868, entitled "An Act penalizing the
monopoly and hoarding of, and speculation in, palay, rice and corn, and under
extraordinary circumstances regulating the distribution and sale thereof, and authorizing
the Governor-General, with the consent of the Council of State, to issue the necessary
rules and regulations therefor, and making an appropriation for this purpose."
Under the Act, the Governor-General was authorized "whenever for any cause,
conditions arise resulting in extraordinary rise in the price of palay, rice, or corn, to issue
and promulgate with the consent of the Council of State, temporary rules and
emergency measures for carrying out the purpose of this Act." The violation of any
provisions of the Act or of its regulations promulgated in accordance therewith is
punishable by fine or imprisonment or both in the discretion of the court. Pursuant
thereto, the Governor-General issued a proclamation fixing the price of rice and
penalizing violation thereof.
The defendant Ang was prosecuted for the violation of the law for selling rice at a price
higher than that fixed in the proclamation and convicted by the trial court. He appealed
to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether the proclamation was issued pursuant to a constitutional delegation of
powers.
Held:
(1) Law is incomplete as a legislation. "By its very terms, the promulgation
of temporary rules and emergency measures is left to the discretion of the
Governor-General.
The Legislature does not undertake to specify or define under what conditions or
for what reasons the Governor-General shall issue the proclamation, but says
that it may be issued for cause and leaves the question of what is any cause to
the discretion of the Governor- General. The Legislature does not specify or
define what is an extraordinary increase in the price of palay, rice, or other
cereal. That is also left to the discretion of the Governor-General. The law does
not specify or define what such temporary rules or emergency measures are, or
how long such temporary rules and emergency measures shall remain in force
and effect or when they shall take effect.

All of these are left to the sole judgment and discretion of the Governor-General.
The law is thus incomplete as a legislation."
(2) Determination of what acts constitute a criminal offense essentially a
legislative task. "It is the violation of the proclamation of the GovernorGeneral which constitutes the crime. Before the promulgation of the rules and
regulations, a dealer could sell rice at any price and he would not commit any
crime, because there would be no law fixing the price of rice, and a sale of it at
any price would not be a crime. In other words, in the absence of a proclamation,
it was not a crime to sell at any price. Hence, it must follow that, if the defendant
committed a crime, it was because the Governor- General issued the
proclamation. There was no act of the Philippine Legislature making it a crime to
sell rice at any price, and without the proclamation, the sale of it at any price was
not a crime.
The Governor-General cannot, by proclamation, determine what act shall
constitute a crime or not. That is essentially a legislative task."