Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS-WFTU) and National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU-KMU) vs. Honorable Blas F. Ople

Section 6, Article III of Batas Pambansa Blg. 697 does not constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative power and does not violate equal protection because it concerns the President’s intrinsically executive power of appointment, supplies adequate standards for selecting sectoral representatives, and applies without favoritism to similarly situated labor organizations.

Petitioners are labor unions and allied organizations, including forty-two affiliates of the Pambansang Koalisyon ng Mga Manggagawa Laban sa Kahirapan, claiming to represent over one million workers in the agricultural and industrial labor sectors. Respondent Blas F. Ople was the Minister of Labor and Employment, the official involved in accrediting labor organizations and transmitting nominations for industrial labor sectoral representatives. Batas Pambansa Blg. 697 implemented the constitutional provision for sectoral representatives, providing that the President selects representatives for the youth, agricultural labor, and industrial labor sectors from nominees of their respective sectors. The law also fixed the standards by which the most representative and generally recognized organizations or aggroupments were to be recognized.

Petitioners Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS-WFTU) and National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU-KMU), for themselves and on behalf of forty-two affiliates of the Pambansang Koalisyon ng Mga Manggagawa Laban sa Kahirapan, claimed to represent over one million workers in the agricultural and industrial labor sectors. They asserted entitlement to nominate or participate in the choice of nominees for industrial labor sectoral representatives under Section 5, Article III of Batas Pambansa Blg. 697, the law implementing sectoral representation for the youth, agricultural labor, and industrial labor sectors.

On May 30, 1984, petitioners wrote respondent Minister of Labor and Employment Blas F. Ople, stating that the accreditation, nomination, and appointment of industrial labor representatives was still hardly known to the industrial labor sector and that there had been no meaningful effort to inform the sector. They also informed respondent that they would question before the Supreme Court the constitutionality of Article III, Sections 4 to 6 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 697. Petitioners later alleged that respondent ignored them, proceeded to accredit labor organizations that nominated their own nominees, and refused and failed to accredit them.

In his Comment, submitted by Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, respondent stated that under Section 6 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 697, nominations for the industrial labor sector were submitted in any form, such as resolutions or letters to the President through the Minister of Labor and Employment. By that procedure, thirteen labor organizations submitted their nominees for possible appointment by the President to the Batasang Pambansa. Petitioners, instead of submitting nominations, sent respondent the May 30, 1984 letter questioning the constitutionality of Article III, Sections 4 to 6 of the 1984 Election Law and the legality of the Minister’s current efforts to implement it in the absence of duly published rules on accreditation, nomination, and appointment of industrial labor representatives.

The Comment was considered as the answer and the case submitted for deliberation.

• Unlawful Delegation of Legislative Power: Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of Section 6, Article III of Batas Pambansa Blg. 697 on the ground that it constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative power.
• Denial of Equal Protection: Petitioners argued that the same provision denied them equal protection of the laws.
• Participation in Nomination: Petitioners claimed that their members and affiliates represented over one million workers in the agricultural and industrial labor sectors and were entitled to nominate or participate in the choice of nominees under Section 5, Article III of Batas Pambansa Blg. 697.
• Lack of Information and Published Rules: Petitioners pointed out that the accreditation, nomination, and appointment of industrial labor representatives was hardly known to the sector, that there was no meaningful effort to inform the sector, and that the Minister’s efforts were being implemented in the absence of duly published rules.
• Refusal to Accredit: Petitioners maintained that respondent ignored them, proceeded to accredit labor organizations that nominated their own nominees, and refused and failed to accredit them.

• Manner of Nomination: Respondent countered that under Section 6 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 697, nominations were submitted in any form, such as resolutions or by merely writing letters to the President through the Minister of Labor and Employment for the industrial labor sector.
• No Factual Basis for Equal Protection Claim: Respondent argued that petitioners did not dispute the statutory classifications; they contended that they came within the classifications but were discriminated against or deprived of the privilege to make nominations. This contention raised factual issues and had no factual basis.
• Petitioners’ Own Failure: Respondent maintained that petitioners were free to submit their nominations to the President by merely writing a letter coursed through respondent, but they did not do so; as of May 30, 1984, still within the twenty-day period, they wrote a letter stating that they were not submitting any nomination and questioning the validity of Sections 4, 5, and 6. If they were unable to submit a nominee, they had no one to blame but themselves, and the law could not be declared unconstitutional on that ground.

• Unlawful Delegation of Legislative Power: Whether Section 6, Article III of Batas Pambansa Blg. 697 constitutes an unlawful delegation of legislative power.
• Equal Protection: Whether Section 6, Article III of Batas Pambansa Blg. 697 denies petitioners equal protection of the laws.

• Unlawful Delegation of Legislative Power: No. The selection of sectoral representatives involves the President’s power of appointment, an intrinsically executive act, and Batas Pambansa Blg. 697 provides sufficient standards for recognizing sectoral organizations.
• Equal Protection: No. The law’s standards apply alike to similarly situated organizations, and petitioners failed to submit nominations within the prescribed period, instead challenging the law’s validity.

• Unlawful Delegation of Legislative Power: The challenged provision does not involve legislative power but the President’s power of appointment, which is intrinsically an executive act involving discretion; the Minister of Labor, who could make the recommendation, is the President’s alter ego. The rigid non-delegation approach in People vs. Vera has virtually fallen into innocuous desuetude, and Free Telephone Workers Union vs. Minister of Labor and Employment recognized that legislation may leave to administrative and executive agencies the adoption of means necessary to effectuate a valid legislative purpose. Even under the 1935 Constitution, Edu vs. Ericta teaches that what cannot be delegated is the authority to make laws and to alter and repeal them, and that the test is the completeness of the statute; the legislature does not abdicate when it describes what job must be done, who is to do it, and the scope of the authority. To avoid unlawful delegation, there must be a standard by which the legislature determines matters of principle and lays down fundamental policy, and such standard may be implied from the policy and purpose of the act. Section 6 supplies that standard: the extent of membership and activity of the organization or aggroupment, which should be national; its responsiveness to the legitimate aspirations of its sector; its militancy and consistency in espousing the sector’s cause consistent with the whole country; its observance of the rule of law; and other analogous factors. No unlawful delegation was shown.
• Equal Protection: Section 6 provides that not later than twenty days after the election of provincial, city, or district representatives, the most representative and generally recognized organizations or aggroupments of the agricultural labor, industrial labor, and youth sectors, as attested by the respective Ministers, shall, in accordance with their procedures, submit to the President their nominees for each slot; the President appoints from among those nominees. The standards in Section 6 guide the Minister and the other Ministers in recognizing organizations, and no favoritism, discrimination, or hostility against any group appears. The Minister is called upon to see that all similarly situated are similarly treated. Petitioners did not dispute the statutory classifications; they claimed that they came within the classifications but were discriminated against or deprived of the privilege to make nominations. That contention raised factual issues and had no factual basis. Petitioners were free to submit nominations by letter through respondent, but they did not; as of May 30, 1984, still within the twenty-day period, they wrote a letter stating that they were not submitting any nomination and questioning the validity of Sections 4, 5, and 6. If they were unable to submit a nominee, they had no one to blame but themselves, and the law could not be declared unconstitutional on that ground.

• Non-delegation doctrine — The legislature cannot delegate the authority to make laws and to alter and repeal them, but it may delegate to administrative or executive agencies the adoption of means necessary to effectuate a valid legislative purpose if the statute is complete and provides a sufficient standard. The standard need not be explicit; it may be implied from the policy and purpose of the act. In this case, Section 6 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 697 supplied standards for recognizing sectoral organizations, and the matter involved the President’s executive power of appointment, so no unlawful delegation occurred.
• Executive power of appointment — Appointment to office is intrinsically an executive act involving the exercise of discretion. The President’s appointment of sectoral representatives from nominees was therefore not a legislative function, and the Minister of Labor’s role in recommending or attesting to organizations was that of an alter ego of the President.
• Alter ego doctrine — The Minister of Labor and Employment, in making recommendations or attestations, acted as an alter ego of the President. This reinforced the conclusion that the selection process was executive in character and not an unlawful delegation of legislative power.
• Equal protection — Equal protection requires that all similarly situated be treated alike and condemns favoritism, discrimination, or hostility. Section 6’s standards applied to all similarly situated labor organizations, and petitioners’ claim of discrimination was factual and unsupported; their own failure to submit nominations within the prescribed period explained their exclusion.
• Innocuous desuetude of rigid non-delegation — The rigid and inflexible approach of People vs. Vera has virtually fallen into innocuous desuetude, and the non-delegation doctrine is now applied with greater flexibility, especially where administrative or executive agencies implement valid legislative purposes. This supported the rejection of petitioners’ delegation challenge.

• "Appointment to office is intrinsically an executive act involving the exercise of discretion." — This quotation, drawn from Concepcion vs. Paredes, supplied the majority’s core reason why the selection of sectoral representatives involved executive appointment rather than an unlawful delegation of legislative power.
• "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 term and provisions when it leaves the hands of the legislature." — From Edu vs. Ericta, this passage states the non-delegation test applied to Section 6 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 697.
• "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." — This excerpt defines the standard requirement and anchors the finding that Section 6 contained sufficient standards for recognizing sectoral organizations.
• "What is quite apparent is that respondent Minister is called upon to see to it that all similarly situated should similarly treated." — This passage encapsulates the equal-protection analysis: the law required equal treatment of similarly situated organizations, and no favoritism or discrimination was shown.

• Concepcion vs. Paredes, 42 Phil. 599 — Cited for the rule that appointment to office is intrinsically an executive act involving discretion; the majority relied on it to reject the unlawful-delegation challenge.
• People vs. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 (1937) — Cited as the rigid non-delegation precedent whose inflexible approach has virtually fallen into innocuous desuetude.
• Free Telephone Workers Union vs. Minister of Labor and Employment, No. 58184, October 30, 1981, 108 SCRA 757 — Cited for the flexible application of the non-delegation doctrine and the receptivity to laws leaving administrative and executive agencies the adoption of means to effectuate a valid legislative purpose.
• Edu vs. Ericta, L-32096, October 24, 1970, 35 SCRA 481 — Cited for the test of completeness of a statute and the requirement that the legislature lay down a standard or fundamental policy to avoid unlawful delegation.
• Villena vs. Secretary of Interior, 67 Phil. 451 (1939) — Cited by cf. in relation to the proposition that the recommending official acts as an alter ego of the President.

• Article VIII, Section 2, Constitution — Provides that the Batasang Pambansa shall include representatives elected or selected from various sectors as may be provided by law, and that the number of representatives from each sector and the manner of their election or selection shall be provided by law. This constitutional provision authorized Batas Pambansa Blg. 697.
• Batas Pambansa Blg. 697, Article III, Section 4 — Establishes three sectors to be represented: youth, agricultural labor, and industrial labor; each sector is entitled to four representatives, two from Luzon, one from Visayas, and one from Mindanao, with the youth sector entitled to two additional sectoral representatives. This defined the sectoral representation scheme.
• Batas Pambansa Blg. 697, Article III, Section 5 — Defines the scope of the agricultural labor, industrial labor, and youth sectors. It identifies the workers covered by the sectoral representation law.
• Batas Pambansa Blg. 697, Article III, Section 6 — Governs the selection of sectoral representatives: not later than twenty days after the election of provincial, city, or district representatives, the most representative and generally recognized organizations or aggroupments of the sectors, as attested by the designated Ministers, shall submit nominees to the President, who shall appoint from among them; it also lists the standards for recognizing organizations. This is the challenged provision, upheld as valid.

Makasiar, Melencio-Herrera, Escolin, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente, Cuevas, and Alampay, JJ., concurred. Aquino, J., filed a separate concurring opinion stating that petitioners have no cause of action for mandamus and prohibition. Teehankee and Abad Santos, JJ., reserved their vote; Concepcion, Jr. and Plana, JJ., were on leave.