FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION v Minister of Labor- Consti Form of Govt Since 1935

7/24/2019 FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION v Minister of Labor- Consti Form of Govt Since 1935

1/15

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-58184 October 30, 1981

FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNON, petitioner,vs.

THE HONOR!"LE #NSTER OF L!"OR !N$ E#PLO%#ENT, THE N!TON!L

L!"OR REL!TONS &O##SSON, '() THE PHLPPNE LONG $ST!N&E

TELEPHONE &O#P!N%, respondents.

FERNANDO, C.J.:

The constitutionality of the amendment to the Article of the LaborCode regarding strikes "aecting the national interest" 1 isassailed in this petition which partakes of the nature of aprohibition proceeding led by the Free Telephone Workers nion!As amended the Article now reads# "$n labor disputes causing orlikely to cause strikes or lockouts ad%ersely aecting the nationalinterest such as may occur in but not limited to public utilities

companies engaged in the generation or distribution of energybanks hospitals and those within e&port processing 'ones the(inister of Labor and )mployment may assume *urisdiction o%erthe dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commissionfor compulsory arbitration! +uch assumption or certication shallha%e the eect of automatically en*oining the intended orimpending strike or lockout! $f one has already taken place at thetime of assumption or certication all striking or locked outemployees shall immediately return to work and the employers

shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workersunder the same terms and conditions pre%ailing before the strikeor lockout! The (inister may seek the assistance of lawenforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this pro%ision aswell as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same!" 2$tis the submission of petitioner labor union that ",atas -ambansa,lg! ./0 in so far as it amends article 123 of the Labor Code


2/15

delegating to the 4onorable (inister of Labor and )mploymentthe power and discretion to assume *urisdiction and5or certifystrikes for compulsory arbitration to the 6ational Labor 7elationsCommission and in eect make or unmake the law on free

collecti%e bargaining is an undue delegation of legislati%epowers! 3There is likewise the assertion that such conferment ofauthority "may also ran 8sic9 contrary to the assurance of the+tate to the workers: right to self;organi'ation and collecti%ebargaining! 4

T4) Court holds thatpetitioner was not able to make out a case of an undue delegationof legislati%e power! There could be howe%er an unconstitutionalapplication! For while the Constitution allows compulsory

arbitration it must be stressed that the e&ercise of suchcompetence cannot ignore the basic fundamental principle andstate policy that the state should aord protection to labor! 5

Whene%er therefore it is resorted to in labor disputes causing orlikely to cause strikes or lockouts aecting national interest the+tate still is re?uired to "assure the rights of workers to self;organi'ation collecti%e bargaining security of tenure and *ustand humane conditions of work! 6At this stage of the litigationhowe%er in the absence of factual determination by the (inistry

of Labor and the 6ational Labor 7elations Commission this Courtis not in a position to rule on whether or not there is anunconstitutional application! There was not e%en a categoricalassertion to that eect by petitioner:s counsel which wasindicati%e of the care in his choice of words! 4e only assumed thatthe conferment of such authority may run counter to the right ofthe workers to self;organi'ation and collecti%e bargaining! Thepetition then cannot prosper!

The facts alleged in the petition rele%ant for the purpose of

determining whether or not there is an undue delegation oflegislati%e power do not sustain the claim of petitioner union!


3/15

and members as a result of the implementation of said Code ofConduct> and /9 nconrmation 8sic9 of call sick lea%es and itsautomatic treatment as Absence Without


4/15

)stelito -! (endo'a 13appearing for the public respondents thecase was considered ripe for decision! 14

To repeat while the unconstitutionality of the amendatory act hasnot been demonstrated there is no ruling on the ?uestion ofunconstitutional application especially so as to any allegedinfringement in the e&ercise of the power of compulsoryarbitration of the specic modes pro%ided in the Constitution toassure compliance with the constitutional mandate to "aordprotection to labor" being at this stage premature!

.! The allegation that there is undue delegation of legislati%epowers cannot stand the test of scrutiny! The power which hewould deny the (inister of Labor by %irtue of such principle is for

petitioner labor union within the competence of the -residentwho in its opinion can best determine national interests but onlywhen a strike is in progress! 15+uch admission is ?ualied by theassumption that the -resident "can make law" " an assertionwhich need not be passed upon in this petition!:What possessessignicance for the purpose of this litigation is that it is the-resident who "+hall ha%e control of the ministries! 16 $t mayhappen therefore that a single person may occupy a dualposition of (inister and Assemblyman! To the e&tent howe%erthat what is in%ol%ed is the e&ecution or enforcement oflegislation the (inister is an oBcial of the e&ecuti%e branch ofthe go%ernment! The adoption of certain aspects of aparliamentary system in the amended Constitution does not alterits essentially presidential character! Article H$$ on the presidencystarts with this pro%ision# "The -resident shall be the head of stateand chief e&ecuti%e of the 7epublic of the -hilippines! 17 $ts lastsection is an e%en more emphatic aBrmation that it is apresidential system that obtains in our go%ernment! Thus# "Allpowers %ested in the -resident of the -hilippines under the .@/

Constitution and the laws of the land which are not hereinpro%ided for or conferred upon any oBcial shall be deemed andare hereby %ested in the -resident unless the ,atasang -ambansapro%ides otherwise! 18There is a pro%ision of course on the -rime(inister but the Constitution is e&plicit that while he shall be thehead of the Cabinet it is the -resident who nominates him fromamong the members of the ,atasang -ambansa thereafter being


5/15

"elected by a ma*ority of all the members thereof! 19 4e isprimarily therefore a -residential choice! 4e need not e%en comefrom its elected members! 4e is responsible along with theCabinet to the ,atasang -ambansa for the program of

go%ernment but as "appro%ed by the-resident! 204is term of oBce as -rime (inister "shall commencefrom the date of his election by the ,atasang -ambansa and shallend on the date that the nomination of his successor is submittedby the -resident to the ,atasang -ambansa! Any other member ofthe Cabinet or the )&ecuti%e Committee may be remo%ed at thediscretion of the -resident! 21)%en the duration of his term thendepends on the -residential pleasure not on legislati%e appro%alor lack of it! =uring his incumbency he e&ercises super%ision o%erall ministries 22a recognition of the important role he plays in the

implementation of the policy of the go%ernment the legislationduly enacted in pursuance thereof and the decrees and orders ofthe -resident! To the -rime (inister can thus be delegated theperformance of the administrati%e functions of the -resident whocan then de%ote more time and energy in the fulllment of hise&acting role as the national leader! 23As the only one whoseconstituency is national it is the -resident who by %irtue of hiselection by the entire electorate has an indisputable claim tospeak for the country as a whole! (oreo%er it is he who is

e&plicitly granted the greater power of control of such ministries!4e continues to be the )&ecuti%e the amplitude and scope of thefunctions entrusted to him in the formulation of policy and itse&ecution leading to the apt obser%ation by Laski that there is notone aspect of which that does not aect the li%es of all! The -rime(inister can be of %aluable assistance indeed to the -resident inthe discharge of his awesome responsibility but it is the latterwho is %ested with powers aptly characteri'ed by Iustice Laurel inPlanas v. Gil 24as "broad and e&traordinary DbeingE e&pected togo%ern with a rm and steady hand without %e&ation orembarrassing interference and much less dictation from anysource! 25$t may be said that Iustice Laurel was referring to hispowers under the .@/ Constitution! $t suBces to refer anew tothe last section of the article of the present Constitution on thepresidency to the eect that all powers %ested in the -resident ofthe -hilippines under the .@/ Constitution remain with him! $t


6/15

cannot be emphasi'ed too strongly that under the .@/Constitution! "The )&ecuti%e power shall be %ested in the-resident of the -hilippines! 26

1! A later decision Hillena %! +ecretary of $nterior 27 greaterrele%ance to this case! The opinion of Iustice Laurel again the

ponente made clear that under the presidential system "alle&ecuti%e and administrati%e organi'ations are ad*uncts of the)&ecuti%e =epartment the heads of the %arious e&ecuti%edepartments are assistants and agents of the Chief )&ecuti%eand e&cept in cases where the Chief )&ecuti%e is re?uired by theConstitution or the law to act in person or the e&igencies of thesituation demand that he act personally the multifariouse&ecuti%e and administrati%e functions of the Chief )&ecuti%e are

performed by and through the e&ecuti%e departments and theacts of the secretaries of such departments performed andpromulgated in the regular course of business are unlessdisappro%ed or reprobated by the Chief )&ecuti%e presumpti%elythe acts of the Chief )&ecuti%e! 28At the time of the adoption ofthe present Constitution on Ianuary . .@/ this Court had citedwith appro%al the abo%e ruling of Hillena in twel%e cases! 29 $t isparticularly noteworthy that the rst decision promulgated underthe present Constitution reiterating the abo%e doctrine is

-hilippine American Management Co. v. Philippine AmericanManagement Employees Association. 30For the ?uestion thereinin%ol%ed as in this case is the statutory grant of authority to thethen +ecretary of Labor now (inister of Labor by the (inimumWage Law to refer to the then e&isting Court of $ndustrial7elations for arbitration the dispute that led to a strike! $t isindisputable according to the opinion that in the %ery petitionthe +ecretary of Labor on Ianuary 2 .@1 pursuant to the(inimum Wage Law "endorsed the contro%ersy on the precise?uestion of whether or not petitioner -hilippine American

(anagement Company was complying with its mandatory terms!What was done by him as a department head in the regularcourse of business and conformably to a statutory pro%ision isaccording to settled *urisprudence that dates back to anauthoritati%e pronouncement by Iustice Laurel in .@/@ in Villenav. Secretary of the Interior presumpti%ely the act of the -resident


7/15

who is the only dignitary who could paraphrasing the language ofthe decision disappro%e or reprobate it! What other responsecould be legitimately e&pected from respondent Court thenJ $tcould not *ust simply fold its hands and refuse to pass on the

dispute!

31

The Hillena doctrine was stressed e%en more indenying a motion for reconsideration by a more e&tensi%e citationfrom the ponencia of Iustice Laurel# "Without minimi'ing theimportance of the heads of the %arious departments theirpersonality is in reality but the pro*ection of that of the -resident!+tated otherwise and as forcibly characteri'ed by Chief Iustice

Taft of the +upreme Court of the nited +tates "each head of adepartment is and must be the -resident:s alter ego in thematters of that department where the -resident is re?uired by lawto e&ercise authority!" !!! +ecretaries of departments of course

e&ercise certain powers under the law but the law cannot impairor in any way aect the constitutional power of control anddirection of the -resident! As a matter of e&ecuti%e policy theymay be granted departmental autonomy as to certain matters butthis is by mere concession of the e&ecuti%e in the absence of%alid legislation in the particular eld! $f the -resident then is theauthority in the )&ecuti%e =epartment he assumes thecorresponding responsibility! The head of a department is a manof his condence> he control and directs his acts> he appoints him

and can remo%e him at pleasure> he is the e&ecuti%e not any ofhis secretaries! $t is therefore logical that he the -resident shouldbe answerable for the acts of administration of the entire)&ecuti%e =epartment before his own conscience no less thanbefore that undened power of public opinion which in thelanguage of =aniel Webster is the last repository of populargo%ernment! 32+o it should be in this case!

/! )%en on the assumption indulged in solely because of theclaim earnestly and %igorously pressed by counsel for petitioner

that the authority conferred to the (inister of Labor partakes of alegislati%e character still no case of an unlawful delegation ofsuch power may be discerned! That is the teaching from Edu v.Ericta33Thus# "What cannot be delegated is the authority underthe Constitution to make laws and to alter and repeal them> thetest is the completeness of the statute in all its term and


8/15

pro%isions when it lea%es the hands of the legislature Todetermine whether or riot there is an undue delegation oflegislati%e power the in?uiry must be directed to the scope anddeniteness of the measure enacted! The legislature does not

abdicate its functions when it describes what *ob must be donewho is to do it and what is the scope of his authority! For acomple& economy that may indeed be the only way in which thelegislati%e process can go forward! A distinction has rightfullybeen made between delegation of power to make the laws whichnecessarily in%ol%es a discretion as to what it shall be whichconstitutionally may not be done and delegation of authority ordiscretion as to its e&ecution to be e&ercised under and inpursuance of the law to which no %alid ob*ection can be made!

The Constitution is thus not to be regarded as denying the

legislature the necessary resources of Ke&ibility and practicability!To a%oid the taint of unlawful delegation there must be astandard which implies at the %ery least that the legislature itselfdetermines matters principle and lays down fundamental policy!


9/15

multiplication of the sub*ects of go%ernmental regulation and theincreased diBculty of administering the laws there is a constantlygrowing tendency toward the delegation of greater powers by thelegislature and toward the appro%al of the practice by the courts!:

Consistency with the conceptual approach re?uires the reminderthat what is delegated is authority non;legislati%e in characterthe completeness of the statute when it lea%es the hands ofCongress being assumed! :$t iswell established in this *urisdiction that while the making of lawsis a non;delegable acti%ity that corresponds e&clusi%ely toCongress ne%ertheless the latter may constitutionally delegateauthority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement agi%en legislation and eectuate its policies for the reason that the

legislature often nds it impracticable 8if not impossible9 toanticipate and pro%ide for the multifarious and comple& situationsthat may be met in carrying the law into eect! All that is re?uiredis that the regulation should be germane to the ob*ects andpurposes of the law> that the regulation be not in contradictionwith it> but conform to the standards that the law prescribes!: 34

,atas -ambansa ,lg! ./0 cannot be any clearer the co%eragebeing limited to "strikes or lockouts ad%ersely aecting thenational interest!"

3! The strict rule on non;delegation was enunciated by IusticeLaurel in People v. Vera 35Which declared unconstitutional thethen -robation Act! 36 +uch an approach conceded by someconstitutionalists to be both scholarly and erudite nonethelessaroused apprehension for being too rigid and inKe&ible! While nodoubt appropriate in that particular case the institution of a newmode of treating oenders it may pose diBculty for social andeconomic legislation needed by the times! )%en prior to theabo%e;cited -angasinan Transportation decision Iustice Laurel

himself in an earlier decision People v. osenthal in .@/@promulgated less than two years after Hera pointed out that suchdoctrine of non;delegation "has been made to adopt itself to thecomple&ities of modern go%ernments gi%ing rise to the adoptionwithin certain limits of the principle of :subordinate legislation:not only in the nited +tates and )ngland but in practically all


10/15

modern go%ernments! The diBculty lies in the &ing of the limitand e&tent of the authority! While courts ha%e undertaken to laydown general principles the safest is to decide each caseaccording to its peculiar en%ironment ha%ing in mind the

wholesome legislati%e purpose intended to be achie%ed!

37

Afterwhich in came the e%en more e&plicit formulation in -angasinanTransportation appearing in the ?uoted e&cerpt from )du %! )ricta!There is no ?uestion therefore that there is a marked drift in thedirection of a more liberal approach! $t is partly in recognition ofthe e%er increasing needs for the type of legislation allowing rule;making in accordance with standards e&plicit or implicitdiscernible from a perusal of the entire enactment that in

Agricultural Credit and Cooperative !inancing Administration v.Confederation of "nions in Government Corporations and #$ces"38 the then Iustice now the retired Chief Iustice and presently+peaker (akalintal had occasion to refer to "the growingcomple&ities of society" as well as "the increasing socialchallenges of the times! 39 $t would be self;defeating in thee&treme if the legislation intended to cope with the gra%e socialand economic problems of the present and foreseeable futurewould founder on the rock of an unduly restricti%e and decidedlyunrealistic meaning to be aB&ed to the doctrine of non;delegation! Fortunately with the retention in the amended

Constitution of some features of the .@/ Constitution asoriginally adopted leading to an appreciable measure of concordand harmony between the policy;making branches of thego%ernment e&ecuti%e and legislati%e the ob*ection on thegrounds of non; delegation would be e%en less persuasi%e! $t isworth repeating that the -rime (inister while the choice of the-resident must ha%e the appro%al of all members of the ,atasang-ambansa! 40At least the ma*ority of the cabinet members the(inisters being appointed by the -resident if heads of ministriesshall come from its regional representati%es! 41+o also while the-rime (inister and the Cabinet are responsible to the ,atasang-ambansa for the program of go%ernment it must be one"appro%ed by the -resident! 42 While conceptually there stille&ists a distinction between the enactment of legislation and itse&ecution between formulation and implementation thefundamental principle of separation of powers of which non;


11/15

delegation is a logical corollary becomes e%en more Ke&ible andmalleable! )%en in the case of the nited +tates with itsadherence to the (adisonian concept of separation of powers-resident ennedy could state that its Constitution did not make

"the -residency and Congress ri%als for power but partners forprogress Dwith the two branchesE being trustees for the peoplecustodians of theirheritage! 43 With the closer relationship pro%ided for by theamended Constitution in our case there is likely to be e%en morepromptitude and dispatch in framing the policies and thereafterunity and %igor in their e&ecution! A rigid application of the non;delegation doctrine therefore would be an obstacle to nationaleorts at de%elopment and progress! There is accordingly morerecepti%ity to laws lea%ing to administrati%e and e&ecuti%e

agencies the adoption of such means as may be necessary toeectuate a %alid legislati%e purpose! $t is worth noting that ahighly;respected legal scholar -rofessor Iae as early as .@3could speak of delegation as the "dynamo of modern go%ernment!444e then went on to state that "the occasions for delegatingpower to administrati%e oBces Dcould beE compassed by a singlegenerali'ation! 45Thus# "-ower should be delegated where thereis agreement that a task must be performed and it cannot beeecti%ely performed by the legislature without the assistance of

a delegate or without an e&penditure of time so great as to leadto the neglect of e?ually important business! =elegation is mostcommonly indicated where the relations to be regulated arehighly technical or where their regulation re?uires a course ofcontinuous decision! 46 4is percepti%e study could rightfullyconclude that e%en in a strictly presidential system like that of thenited +tates the doctrine of non;delegation reKects theAmerican "political philosophy that insofar as possible issues besettled Dby legislati%e bodiesE an essentially restricti%e approach"may ignore "deep currents of social force! 47$n plainer terms andas applied to the -hilippines under the amended Constitution withthe close ties that bind the e&ecuti%e and legislati%e departmentscertain features of parliamentarism ha%ing been retained it maybe a deterrent factor to much needed legislation! The spectre ofthe non;delegation concept need not haunt therefore partycaucuses cabinet sessions or legislati%e chambers!


12/15

! ,y way of summary this Court holds that ,atas -ambansa ,lg!./0 insofar as it empowers the (inister of Labor to assume

*urisdiction o%er labor disputes causing or likely to cause strikes orlockouts ad%ersely aecting the national interest and thereafter

decide it or certify the same the 6ational Labor 7elationsCommission is not on its face unconstitutional for being %iolati%eof the doctrine of non;delegation of legislati%e power! To repeatthere is no ruling on the ?uestion of whether or not it has beenunconstitutionally applied in this case for being repugnant to theregime of self;organi'ation and free collecti%e bargaining as onthe facts alleged disputed by pri%ate respondent the matter isnot ripe for *udicial determination! $t must be stressed anewhowe%er that the power of compulsory arbitration whileallowable under the Constitution and ?uite understandable in

labor disputes aected with a national interest to be free fromthe taint of unconstitutionality must be e&ercised in accordancewith the constitutional mandate of protection to labor! The arbiterthen is called upon to take due care that in the decision to bereached there is no %iolation of "the rights of workers to self;organi'ation collecti%e bargaining security of tenure and *ustand humane conditions of work! 48 $t is of course manifest thatthere is such unconstitutional application if a law "fair on its faceand impartial in appearance 8is9 applied and administered by

public authority with an e%il eye and an une?ual hand!49

$t doesnot e%en ha%e to go that far! An instance of unconstitutionalapplication would be discernible if what is ordained by thefundamental law the protection of labor is ignored ordisregarded!

W4)7)F


13/15

Foot(ote*

1 Article 264, Batas Pambansa Blg. 130.

2 Ibid.

3 Petition, 3.

4 Ibid.

5 The irst sentence o Article 11, !ec. " o the #onstit$tion reads as ollo%s& 'The !tate shall aord protection to labor,promote $ll emplo(ment and e)$alit( in emplo(ment, ens$re e)$al %or* opport$nities regardless o se+, race, orcreed, and reg$late the relations bet%een %or*ers and emplo(ers.'

6 Ibid, second sentence.

Petition, par. ".

- Ibid, par. ", obvio$sl( a ail$re to n$mber the paragraph correctl(.

" Ibid, par.1011/.

10 Ibid, par. 11 121.

11 Ibid, par.12 13/.

12 esol$tion dated !eptember 2", 1"-1.

13 e %as assisted b( Assistant !olicitor eneral e(nato !. P$no and !olicitor es$s . ia.

14 !$bse)$entl( in vie% o an e+7parte motion %hich %as or the iss$ance o a temporar( restraining order b( privaterespondent %ith an opport$nit( granted to the petitioner to comment, this #o$rt on 8ctober 22, 1"-1 iss$ed atemporar( restraining order limited to 'en79oining the $nion, its oicers, directors, ste%ards and members rom engagingand:or contin$ing to engage in the above7described concerted activities or in an( and all orms o %or* stoppages,slo%do%ns, mass leaves, sit do%ns and similar or analogo$s concerted activities; ...'

15 Petition, Arg$ment,


14/15

25 Ibid, .

26 Article < anagement #o. v. Philippine American >anagement @mplo(ees Association, D735254, >a(25, 1"3, 51 !#A "-, 104. #. o)$e v. irector o Dands, D72533, $l( 1. 1"6, 2 !#A 1.

33 D7320"6, 8ctober 24, 1"0, 35 !#A 4-1.

34 Ibid, 4"674"-. in this case, the standard is 'p$blic saet(.' $n. o #ardona v.Binangonan, 36 Phil. 54 1"1; 'necessar( in the interest o la% and order,' $bi v. Prov. Board, 3" Phil. 660 1"1";'p$blic interest,' People v. osenthal, 6- Phil. 32- 1"3"; and '9$stice and e)$it( and s$bstantial merits o the case,'


15/15

4" Gic* Ho v. op*ins, 11- F! 356, 32 1--6.

The Da%phil Pro9ect 7 Arellano Da% Co$ndation

Documents

FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION v Minister of Labor- Consti Form of Govt Since 1935