G.R. No. L-67573 June 19, 1985
TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED SERVICES (TUPAS-WFTU) AND NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS (NAFLU-KMU), ET AL., petitioners, vs. HONORABLE BLAS F. OPLE, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners, a coalition of labor unions representing over a million workers, assailed the constitutionality of Sections 4 to 6 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 697, the law implementing the constitutional provision for sectoral representation in the Batasang Pambansa. The law designated three sectors—youth, agricultural labor, and industrial labor—each entitled to four regional representatives. These representatives were to be selected by the President from nominees submitted by the most representative organizations of each sector, as attested by relevant Cabinet ministers. Petitioners argued that this scheme constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative power and denied them equal protection. They specifically alleged that the Minister of Labor, respondent Blas Ople, failed to properly inform the industrial labor sector about the accreditation and nomination process and refused to accredit their coalition, thereby excluding them from participating in the nomination of sectoral representatives.
The Solicitor General, representing respondent Ople, countered that the nomination process was straightforward, allowing submissions in any form, such as resolutions or letters. Several labor organizations had complied and submitted their nominees. However, petitioners, instead of submitting nominations, sent a letter questioning the constitutionality of the law and the legality of its implementation due to allegedly unpublished rules. Consequently, they were not considered in the nomination process initiated by the Minister of Labor.

ISSUE

Whether Sections 4 to 6 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 697, regarding the selection of sectoral representatives, constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative power and violate the equal protection clause.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the constitutionality of the challenged provisions. On the first issue, the Court ruled that there was no unlawful delegation of legislative power. The power being exercised was executive—the President’s power of appointment—not legislative. Citing Concepcion v. Paredes, the Court emphasized that appointment to office is intrinsically an executive act involving discretion. The law merely outlines the procedure for nomination, with the final selection residing in the President, aided by the recommendation of his alter ego, the Minister of Labor. This did not amount to a delegation of law-making authority. The Court further noted that the rigid non-delegation doctrine from People v. Vera had been relaxed in modern jurisprudence to allow pragmatic governance.
On the second issue, the Court found no denial of equal protection. The law established reasonable standards for identifying the “most representative and generally recognized organizations” through factors like national membership, responsiveness, and observance of the rule of law. Petitioners’ exclusion was not due to the law’s standards but to their own failure to participate in the nomination process by submitting nominees as required. By choosing to challenge the law’s constitutionality instead of complying with its procedural requirements, they effectively disqualified themselves. The law provided an equal opportunity for all qualified organizations to participate, and petitioners voluntarily abstained. Therefore, no constitutional infirmity was found in the statutory scheme for selecting sectoral representatives.