Delegation of Power

Completeness Test
Facts:
On 30July 1919, the Philippine Legislature (during special session) passed and
approved Act No. 2868 entitled An Act Penalizing the Monopoly and Hoarding of
Rice, Palay and Corn. The said act under extraordinary circumstances authorizes the
Governor General to issue the necessary Rules and Regulations in regulating the
distribution of such products.
Pursuant to this Act, On 01 August 1919, the GG issued EO 53 which was published
on 20 August 1919. The said EO fixed the price at which rice should be sold.
On the other hand, Ang Tang Ho, a rice dealer, voluntarily, criminally and illegally
sold a ganta of rice to Pedro Trinidad at the price of eighty centavos. The said
amount was way higher than that prescribed by the EO. The sale was done on the
6th of August 1919. On 08 August 1919, he was charged in violation of the said EO.
He was found guilty as charged and was sentenced to 5 months imprisonment plus
a P500.00 fine. He appealed the sentence countering that there is an undue
delegation of power to the Governor General.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is undue delegation to the Governor General and
whether the delegation passed the test of completeness.

HELD:
Said Act constituted an invalid delegation of power since the said Act authorized
theGovernor-General to promulgate laws and not merely rules and regulations to
effect thelaw.
The said Act was not complete when it left the legislature as it failed to specify what
conditions the Governor-General shall issue the proclamation as the said Act states
for any cause. It also failed to define extraordinary rise that such proclamation
by theGovernor-General aims to prevent. Lastly, the said Act authorized the
promulgation of temporary rules and emergency measures by the Governor-General
As to completeness test, The law must be complete in all its terms and provisions
when it leaves the legislative branch of the government and nothing must be left to
the judgment of the electors or other appointee or delegate of the legislature, so
that, in form and substance, it is a law in all its details in presenti, but which may be
left to take effect in future, if necessary, upon the ascertainment of any prescribed
fact or event.

You may also like -

ABUBAKAR vs AUDITOR GENERALUNITED STATES vs JUNIOUNITED STATES vs

LUZONTam Wing Tak vs Ramon MakasiarANG TIBAY vs CIR