G.R. No. L-67573 - Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services vs. Ople

The Philippine Constitution provides for sectoral representation in the Batasang Pambansa, allowing for the selection of representatives from diverse sectors as provided by law.
Batas Pambansa Blg. 697, the implementing law, provides for the selection of sectoral representatives for three sectors: youth, agricultural labor, and industrial labor.
Under the law, each sector is allotted a number of slots with a geographical distribution: two representatives from Luzon, one from Visayas, and one from Mindanao for the agricultural and industrial labor sectors (with special provisions for the youth sector).

Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS-WFTU)
National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU-KMU) acting on behalf of themselves and forty-two other affiliates of the Pambansang Koalisyon ng Mga Manggagawa Laban sa Kahirapan (PKMK)

The petitioners challenge the constitutionality of Section 6 of Article III of Batas Pambansa Blg. 697.
They allege that the method for selecting industrial labor representatives amounts to an unlawful delegation of legislative power and results in a denial of equal protection.
The petitioners argue that, given their representation of over one million workers in the industrial and agricultural sectors, they are entitled to participate directly in the nomination process.

They were not given a meaningful opportunity to participate in the selection or nomination process.
Their letter dated May 30, 1984—addressed to Minister Ople—expressed their concerns regarding the lack of proper accreditation and notification of the nomination process.

The response by the government, through Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, clarified that:

Nominations could be submitted in various forms (resolutions or letters).
Thirteen labor organizations had complied by submitting their nominees within the prescribed time frame.

The procedural posture included the interpretation of the letter by petitioners as a questioning of the constitutionality of the process, rather than an actual nomination submission.

The law mandates that the Ministers of relevant departments (Agrarian Reform and Agriculture, Labor and Employment, Local Government, and Education, Culture and Sports) consider specific criteria when accrediting organizations or aggroupments:

The nomination process is an executive function wherein the President, acting on the recommendations of these Ministers, appoints the representatives.

Did Section 6 of Article III of Batas Pambansa Blg. 697 unlawfully delegate legislative power by giving the President and his Ministers the authority to select sectoral representatives?
Is the delegation of authority in this context consistent with established executive functions as opposed to legislative acts?

Does the procedure adopted in Section 6 result in discrimination or favor certain labor organizations over others, thereby violating the equal protection clause?
Can the petitioners’ claim that they—despite being within the designated statutory classifications—were unfairly deprived of the chance to submit their nominees be substantiated by the facts?