Case Digest (G.R. No. 84818)
Facts:
Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation v. Jose Luis A. Alcuaz, G.R. No. 84818, December 18, 1989, the Supreme Court En Banc, Regalado, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Philcomsat holds a legislative franchise under Republic Act No. 5514 to establish and operate international satellite communications facilities in the Philippines and, by designation of the Republic, acted as the Philippine signatory to INTELSAT and INMARSAT agreements. Since 1967 it built and operated multiple earth stations (Pinugay I–IV and other installations) and leased satellite circuits to major carriers to provide international telephone, telex, facsimile, television and data services.By Executive Order No. 196 petitioner was placed under the jurisdiction, control and regulation of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), which implemented the EO by requiring Philcomsat to apply for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and authority to charge rates. Philcomsat filed such an application on September 9, 1987, and was granted provisional authority on September 16, 1987 to continue operations and charge existing rates for six months; that authority was extended until September 16, 1988.
Respondent Commissioner Jose Luis A. Alcuaz of the NTC issued an order dated September 2, 1988 extending Philcomsat’s provisional authority for another six months but directing a provisional reduction of certain rates by fifteen percent (15%), with reservation for further reductions after additional evaluation. The NTC explained the reduction as based on an “initial evaluation” by its Rates Regulation Division. Philcomsat challenged the September 2, 1988 order, contending (1) the delegation of rate-fixing/adjudicatory power to NTC (via Executive Orders Nos. 546 and 196) lacked sufficient standards and was an undue delegation; (2) the NTC acted without procedural due process because the order was issued motu proprio without notice and hearing; and (3) the 15% reduction was confiscatory and violative of substantive due process.
A temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued by this Court under resolution of September 13, 1988, directed specifically against the NTC order insofar as it reduced Philcomsat’s e...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the delegation of authority to the NTC to determine and prescribe rates for public communications (under Executive Orders Nos. 546 and 196) an unconstitutional undue delegation of legislative power?
- Did the NTC violate procedural due process when it issued the September 2, 1988 order reducing Philcomsat’s rates without prior notice and hearing?
- Was the 15% provisional rate reduction confiscatory and therefore a ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)