This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-03-22 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, Inc.,[8] the Court held that, "What one cannot do directly, he cannot do indirectly."[9] In Akbayan Citizens Action Party v. Aquino,[10] quoting Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.,[11] the Court held that, "This Court has long and consistently adhered to the legal maxim that those that cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly."[12] In Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,[13] the Court held that, "No one is allowed to do indirectly what he is prohibited to do directly."[14] | |||||
|
2010-10-19 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Under the 1987 Constitution, Congress has an explicit authority to grant a public utility franchise. However, it may validly delegate its legislative authority, under the power of subordinate legislation,[38] to issue franchises of certain public utilities to some administrative agencies. In Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center v. Garcia, Jr., We explained the reason for the validity of subordinate legislation, thus: Such delegation of legislative power to an administrative agency is permitted in order to adapt to the increasing complexity of modern life. As subjects for governmental regulation multiply, so does the difficulty of administering the laws. Hence, specialization even in legislation has become necessary.[39] (Emphasis ours.) | |||||
|
2009-04-02 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| It is of course axiomatic that a rule or regulation must bear upon, and be consistent with, the provisions of the enabling statute if such rule or regulation is to be valid.[39] In case of conflict between a statute and an administrative order, the former must prevail.[40] Indeed, the CIR has no power to limit the meaning and coverage of the term "goods" in Section 105 of the Old NIRC absent statutory authority or basis to make and justify such limitation. A contrary conclusion would mean the CIR could very well moot the law or arrogate legislative authority unto himself by retaining sole discretion to provide the definition and scope of the term "goods." | |||||