Tatad vs Executive Secretary Case Digest
The petitions challenge the constitutionality of RA No. 8180 entitled “An Act Deregulating the Downstream Oil Industry and For Other Purposes.” The deregulation process has two phases: (a) the transition phase (Aug. 12, 1996) and the (b) full deregulation phase (Feb. 8, 1997 through EO No. 372).
FACTS
The petitioners contended the Executive Order No 392, violating the constitutional provision on undue delegation of power, particularly the phrases, “as for as practicable,” “decline of crude ould prices in the world market,” and “stability of the peso exchange rate to the US dollar” are ambivalent, unclear, and in concrete, since they do not provide determinate or determinable standards that can guide the President in his decision to fully deregulate the downstream oil industry.
RELATED
Issue
Whether or not EO 392 violates the constitutional prohibition on undue delegation of power.
Ruling
No.
NO. Sec. 15 can hurdle both the completeness test and the sufficient standard test.
RA No. 8180 provided that the full deregulation will start at the end of March 1997 regardless of the occurrence of any event. Thus, the law is complete on the question of the final date of full deregulation.
Sec. 15 lays down the standard to guide the judgment of the President—he is to time it as far as practicable when the prices of crude oil and petroleum in the world market are declining and when the exchange rate of the peso to the US dollar is considered stable.
Webster defines “practicable” as meaning possible to practice or perform, “decline” as meaning to take a downward direction and “stable” as meaning firmly established.
Tatad vs Executive Secretary Case Digest
