ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ABAKADA GURO PARTYLIST VS. PURISIMA, G.R. NO. 166715, 2008
ABAKADA GURO PARTYLIST VS. PURISIMA,
G.R.
NO. 166715, 2008
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
Two tests determine the
validity of delegation of legislative power: (1) the completeness test and (2)
the sufficient standard test. A law is complete when it sets forth therein the
policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate. It lays down
a sufficient standard when it provides adequate guidelines or limitations in
the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority and prevent the
delegation from running riot. To be sufficient, the standard must specify the
limits of the delegate’s authority, announce the legislative policy and
identify the conditions under which it is to be implemented.
FACTS
RA 9335 (Attrition Act
of 2005) encourages BIR and BOC officials and employees to exceed their revenue
targets by providing for a system of rewards and sanctions through a Rewards
and Incentives Fund (Fund) and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board (Board).
This covers all the officials and employees of the BIR and BOC with at least
6months of service regardless of employment status.
The Fund will come from
the collection of the BIR and the BOC in excess of their revenue targets for
the year. This revenue target is determined by the Development Budget and
Coordinating Committee (DBCC). The incentive or reward will then come from the fund
and allocated to the BIR and BOC in proportion to their contribution to the
Fund.
Petitioners as
taxpayers, challenge the constitutionality of RA 9335. Allegedly there is undue
delegation to fix revenue targets to the President for while the law says that
BIR and BOC officials may be dismissed from service if their revenue
collections fall short of the target by 7.5%, it is not stated what this target
is. Instead, the fixing of revenue targets has been delegated to the President
without sufficient standards.
ISSUE
Whether there was undue
delegation of legislative power in this case.
RULING
No.
The court ruled that two
tests determine the validity of delegation of legislative power: (1) the
completeness test and (2) the sufficient standard test. A law is complete when
it sets forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by
the delegate. It lays down a sufficient standard when it provides adequate
guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the
delegate’s authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. To be
sufficient, the standard must specify the limits of the delegate’s authority,
announce the legislative policy and identify the conditions under which it is
to be implemented.
Here, the court ruled
that the policy of RA 9335 is to optimize the revenue generation capability and
collection of the BIR and BOC. On the other hand, Section 4 of the law
delegating to the president to fix revenue targets provide that the revenue
targets are based on the original estimated revenue collection expected of the
BIR and BOC for a given fiscal year as approved by the DBCC and stated in the
Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing (BESF) submitted by the
President to Congress. Thus, revenue targets are determined not only by the
president. It undergoes a scrutiny by the DBCC. On the other hand, section7 of
the law provides that… “remove from service officials and employees whose
revenue collection falls short of the target by at least 7.5% with due
consideration of all relevant factors affecting the level of collecting subject
to civil service laws, rules and regulations and compliance with substantive
and procedural due process… the application of the criteria for the separation
of an official or employee from service shall be without prejudice to the
application of other relevant laws on accountability of public officers…”
Clearly, RA9335 in no way violates the security of tenure of officials and
employees of the BIR and the BOC. The guarantee of security of tenure only
means that an employee cannot be dismissed from the service for causes other
than those provided by law and only after due process is accorded the employee.
Under RA9335, the yardstick for removal is when the revenue collection falls
short of the target by at least 7.5% with due consideration of all relevant
factors affecting the level of collection. This standard is similar to
inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties which is a
ground for disciplinary action under civil service laws. Besides, the removal
here is subject to civil service laws, rules and regulations and compliance
with substantive and procedural due process.