Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation v. Alcuaz and NTC (1989, Re alado!

"ACTS# By virtue of RA 5514, Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (PHI C!"SA#$ %as &rante' (a franchise to esta)lish, construct, maintain an' operate in the Philippines, at such places as the &rantee may select, station or stations an' associate' e*uipment an' facilities for international satellite communications+( o ,n'er this franchise, it %as li-e%ise &rante' the authority to (construct an' operate such &roun' facilities as nee'e' to 'eliver telecommunications services from the communications satellite system an' &roun' terminal or terminals+( ,n'er Sec+ 5 of RA 5514, PHI C!"SA# %as e.empt from the /uris'iction, control an' re&ulation of the Pu)lic Service Commission later -no%n as the 0ational #elecommunications Commission (0#C$+ Ho%ever, 1! 123 %as later proclaime' an' the same has place' PHI C!"SA# un'er the /uris'iction of 0#C+ Conse*uently, PHI C!"SA# %as re*uire' to apply for the re*uisite certificate of pu)lic convenience an' necessity coverin& its facilities an' the services it ren'ere', as %ell as the correspon'in& authority to char&e rates+ PHI C!"SA# file' %ith the 0#C an application for authority to continue operatin& an' maintainin& the same facilities that it has )een continuously operatin& an' maintainin&+ Pen'in& hearin&, it also applie' for a provisional authority+ 0#C, throu&h Commissioner Alcua4, issue' the !r'er &rantin& the necessary permit )ut it ho%ever 'irecte' PHI C!"SA# to re'uce its current rates )y 155+ 0#C )ase' its po%er to fi. the rates on 1! 543, %hich is the ena)lin& act of the 0#C+ Hence, this petition for revie%+ $SS%&# 6!0 1! 543 of 0#C is an e.ercise of un'ue 'ele&ation of le&islative po%er, particularly the a'/u'icatory po%ers of 0#C Petitioner7 o #he ena)lin& act of (1! 543$ of 0#C empo%erin& it to fi. rates for pu)lic service communications 'oes not provi'e the necessary stan'ar's constitutionally re*uire', hence, there is un'ue 'ele&ation of le&islative po%er+ o Rate8fi.in& po%er %as e.ercise' in an unconstitutional manner, hence it is ultra vires, in that (a$ 0#C violate' proce'ural 'ue process for havin& )een issue' %ithout prior notice an' hearin&9 an' ()$ the rate re'uction it imposes is un/ust, unreasona)le an' confiscatory, thus constitutive of a violation of su)stantive 'ue process+ Respon'ent7 o 0#C a'mits that the application of a policy li-e the fi.in& of rates as e.ercise' )y a'ministrative )o'ies is *uasi8/u'icial rather than *uasi8le&islative+ 0onetheless, it insists that un'er the facts o)tainin& the or'er in *uestion nee' not )e prece'e' )y a hearin&, not )ecause it %as issue' pursuant to 0#C:s le&islative function )ut )ecause the assaile' or'er is merely interlocutory, it )ein& an inci'ent in the on&oin& procee'in&s on petitioner:s application for a certificate of pu)lic convenience9 an' that petitioner is not the only primary source of 'ata or information since respon'ent is currently en&a&e' in a continuin& revie% of the rates char&e'+

'&()*RAT$+#

In case of a 'ele&ation of rate8fi.in& po%er, the only stan'ar' %hich the le&islature is re*uire' to prescri)e for the &ui'ance of the a'ministrative authority is that the rate )e reasona)le an' /ust+ #his stan'ar' may )e implie'+ o An e.amination of the la%s (1! 543 an' 123$ %oul' sho% that 0#C, in the e.ercise of its rate8fi.in& fi.in& po%er, is limite' )y the re*uirements of pu)lic safety, pu)lic interest, reasona)le feasi)ility an' reasona)le rates, %hich con/ointly more than satisfy the re*uirements of a vali' 'ele&ation of le&islative po%er+ 6hile the a&ency may fi. a temporary rate pen'in& final 'etermination of the application, such rate8fi.in& or'er, temporary thou&h it may )e, is not e.empt from the statutory proce'ural re*uirements of notice an' hearin&, as %ell as the re*uirement of reasona)leness+ o #he 0#C or'er violates proce'ural 'ue process )ecause it %as issue' motu proprio, %ithout notice to PHI C!"SA# an' %ithout the )enefit of a hearin&+ Sai' or'er %as )ase' merely on an initial evaluation, %hich is a unilateral evaluation, )ut ha' PHI C!"SA# )een &iven an opportunity to present its si'e )efore the or'er in *uestion %as issue', the confiscatory nature of the rate re'uction an' the conse*uent 'eterioration of the pu)lic service coul' have )een sho%n an' 'emonstrate' to 0#C+ o #he or'er pertains e.clusively to PHI C!"SA# an' to no other+ Re'uction of rates %as ma'e %ithout affor'in& PHI C!"SA# the )enefit of an e.planation as to %hat particular aspect or aspects of the financial statements %arrante' a correspon'in& rate re'uction+ PHI C!"SA# %as not even affor'e' the opportunity to cross8e.amine the inspector %ho issue' the report on %hich 0#C )ase' its *uestione' or'er+ o Assumin& that such po%er is veste' in 0#C, it may not e.ercise the same in an ar)itrary an' confiscatory manner+ Cate&ori4in& such an or'er as temporary in nature 'oes not perforce entail the applica)ility of a 'ifferent rule of statutory proce'ure than %oul' other%ise )e applie' to any other or'er on the same matter unless other%ise provi'e' )ythe applica)le la%+ 0#C has no authority to ma-e such or'er %ithout first &ivin& PHI C!"SA# a hearin&, %hether the or'er )e temporary or permanent, an' it is immaterial %hether the same is ma'e upon a complaint, a summary investi&ation, or upon the commissions o%n motion+

)$SP+S$T$,&# Praye' for is ;RA0#1< an' the or'er S1# ASI<1+ S&PARAT& +P$N$+N# ;uttierre4, =r+, =+ Concurring Opinion: A'ministrative a&encies, in the e.ercise of *uasi8le&islative po%ers shoul' )e &iven &ui'elines as to %hen notices an' hearin&s are essential, as much more than Con&ress+ o Con&ress never passes truly important le&islation %ithout hol'in& pu)lic hearin&s+ >et, a'ministrative officials %ho are not 'irectly attune' to the pu)lic pulse see no nee' for hearin&s+ #hey issue rules an' circulars %ith far reachin& effects on the economy an' the nation?s future on the assumption that the hea' of an a&ency -no%s )est %hat is &oo' for the people+