OSMEA vs. ORBOS G.R. No.

99886 March 31, 1993 The facts are as follows President Ferdinand Marcos issued P.D. 1956 creating a Special Account in the General Fund, designated as the Oil Price Stabili ation Fund !OPSF". #he OPSF $as designed to rei%burse oil co%panies &or cost increases in crude oil and i%ported petroleu% products resulting &ro% e'change rate ad(ust%ents and &ro% increases in the $orld %ar)et prices o& crude oil. Subse*uentl+, the OPSF $as reclassi&ied into a ,trust liabilit+ account,, in -irtue o& ..O. 1/01, and ordered released &ro% the 2ational #reasur+ to the Ministr+ o& .nerg+. #he sa%e .'ecuti-e Order also authori ed the in-est%ent o& the &und in go-ern%ent securities, $ith the earnings &ro% such place%ents accruing to the &und. President 3ora on 3. A*uino, a%ended P.D. 1956. She pro%ulgated .'ecuti-e Order 2o. 145 on Februar+ 05, 1965, e'panding the grounds &or rei%burse%ent to oil co%panies &or possible cost under reco-er+ incurred as a result o& the reduction o& do%estic prices o& petroleu% products, the a%ount o& the underreco-er+ being le&t &or deter%ination b+ the Ministr+ o& Finance. #he petition &urther a-ers that the creation o& the trust &und -iolates 7 09!4", Article 89 o& the 3onstitution. #he petitioner argues that ,the %onies collected pursuant to . . P.D. 1956, as a%ended, %ust be treated as a :SP.39A; F<2D,: not as a :trust account: or a :trust &und,: and that ,i& a special ta' is collected &or a speci&ic purpose, the re-enue generated there&ro% shall :be treated as a special &und: to be used onl+ &or the purpose indicated, and not channeled to another go-ern%ent ob(ecti-e., 1/ Petitioner &urther points out that since ,a :special &und: consists o& %onies collected through the ta'ing po$er o& a State, such amounts belong to the State, although the use thereo& is li%ited to the special purpose=ob(ecti-e &or $hich it $as created., 9ssue> ?O2 the po$ers granted to the .@A under P.D. 1956, as a%ended, parta)e o& the nature o& the ta'ation po$er o& the State. R!"#NG ?hile the &unds collected %a+ be re&erred to as ta'es, the+ are e'acted in the e'ercise o& the police po$er o& the State. Moreo-er, that the OPSF is a special &und is plain &ro% the special treat%ent gi-en it b+ ..O. 145. 9t is segregated &ro% the general &undB and $hile it is placed in $hat the la$ re&ers to as a ,trust liabilit+ account,, the &und nonetheless re%ains sub(ect to the scrutin+ and re-ie$ o& the 3OA. #he 3ourt is satis&ied that these %easures co%pl+ $ith the constitutional description o& a ,special &und., 9ndeed, the practice is not $ithout precedent.

?ith regard to the alleged undue delegation of legislative power, the 3ourt &inds that the pro-ision con&erring the authorit+ upon the .@A to i%pose additional a%ounts on petroleu% products pro-ides a su&&icient standard b+ $hich the authorit+ %ust be e'ercised. 9n addition to the general polic+ o& the la$ to protect the local consu%er b+ stabili ing and subsidi ing do%estic pu%p rates, 7 6!c" o& P.D. 1956 16 e'pressl+ authori es the .@A to i%pose additional a%ounts to augment the resources of the Fund. ?hat petitioner $ould $ish is the &i'ing o& so%e de&inite, *uantitati-e restriction, or ,a speci&ic li%it on ho$ %uch to ta'., 19 #he 3ourt is cited to this re*uire%ent b+ the petitioner on the pre%ise that $hat is in-ol-ed here is the po$er o& ta'ationB but as alread+ discussed, this is not the case. ?hat is here in-ol-ed is not so %uch the po$er o& ta'ation as police po$er. Although the pro-ision authori ing the .@A to i%pose additional a%ounts could be construed to re&er to the po$er o& ta'ation, it cannot be o-erloo)ed that the o-erriding consideration is to enable the delegate to act $ith e'pedienc+ in carr+ing out the ob(ecti-es o& the la$ $hich are e%braced b+ the police po$er o& the State. For a -alid delegation o& po$er, it is essential that the la$ delegating the po$er %ust be !1" co%plete in itsel&, that is it %ust set &orth the polic+ to be e'ecuted b+ the delegate and !0" it %ust &i' a standard C li%its o& $hich are su&&icientl+ deter%inate or deter%inable C to $hich the delegate %ust con&or%. #he standard, as the 3ourt has alread+ stated, %a+ e-en be i%plied. 9n that light, there can be no ground upon $hich to sustain the petition, inas%uch as the challenged la$ sets &orth a deter%inable standard $hich guides the e'ercise o& the po$er granted to the .@A. A+ the sa%e to)en, the proper e'ercise o& the delegated po$er %a+ be tested $ith ease. 9t see%s ob-ious that $hat the la$ intended $as to per%it the additional i%posts &or as long as there e'ists a need to protect the general public and the petroleu% industr+ &ro% the ad-erse conse*uences o& pu%p rate &luctuations. ,?here the standards set up &or the guidance o& an ad%inistrati-e o&&icer and the action ta)en are in &act recorded in the orders o& such o&&icer, so that 3ongress, the courts and the public are assured that the orders in the (udg%ent o& such o&&icer con&or% to the legislati-e standard, there is no &ailure in the per&or%ance o& the legislati-e &unctions.,