Scribd
Upload
358 views1 page

029 FREGILLANA Alalayan v. National Power Corporation

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss the petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3043. Section 3 vests the National Power Corporation with the power to require franchise holders receiving at least 50% of their electric power from NPC to limit their annual net profit to 12% of investments plus two months of operating expenses. While the petitioners argued this infringed on their due process rights, the Court found no evidence the provision was confiscatory. The title of the amendatory act was also found to sufficiently reference the legislation being amended.

Uploaded by

Carissa Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
358 views1 page

029 FREGILLANA Alalayan v. National Power Corporation

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss the petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3043. Section 3 vests the National Power Corporation with the power to require franchise holders receiving at least 50% of their electric power from NPC to limit their annual net profit to 12% of investments plus two months of operating expenses. While the petitioners argued this infringed on their due process rights, the Court found no evidence the provision was confiscatory. The title of the amendatory act was also found to sufficiently reference the legislation being amended.

Uploaded by

Carissa Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Alalayan v.

National Power Corporation (KATRINA) supply of electric power to a franchise holder”, receiving at least 50% of its
July 29, 1968 | Fernando, J. | Parts of a Statute electric power and energy from it require as a condition that such franchise
holder “shall not realize a net profit of more than twelve percent annually of
PETITIONER: Alalayan its investments plus two-month operating expenses”.

RESPONDENT: National Power Corporation 4. NPC was also mandated to renew all existing contracts with franchise
holders.
SUMMARY: Alalayan and Philippine Power and Development Company are both
franchise holders of electric plants in Laguna. They assailed of a section in an
amendatory act (Sec.3, RA 3043) which vests power on the National Power Corporation
“in any contract for the supply of electric power to a franchise holder”, receiving at least ISSUES: Whether or not Sec. 3 of RA 3043 is considered unconstitional
50% of its electric power and energy from it require as a condition that such franchise
holder “shall not realize a net profit of more than twelve percent annually of its RULING: WHEREFORE, there is no showing that Section 3 of Republic Act
investments plus two-month operating expenses”. Furthermore NPC will renew all No. 3043 is unconstitutional, the decision of the lower court, dismissing the
existing contracts with franchise holders for the supply of electric power. Despite the petition, is affirmed
assertions of the petitioner that it is an infringement of his right to due process, the lower
court sustained its validity which was then affirmed by the Supreme Court. RATIO:
1. The legislature is not required to make the title of the act a complete
index of its contents. The provision merely calls for all parts of an act
DOCTRINE: relating to its subject finding expression in its title. More specifically, if
the law amends a section or part of a statute, it suffices if reference be
The sufficiency of the title of a statute. As provided by Art. VI, Sec. 21, par. 1 that “no made to the legislation to be amended, there being no need to state the
bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall precise nature of the amendment.
be expressed in its title” is to prevent omnibus bills and log-rolling legislations.
2. The due process objection is sought to be bolstered by an allegation
that such power vested in NPC which is to limit the net profits to 12%
annually of (petitioner’s) investments an additional of two month
operating expenses is deemed to have a confiscatory aspect. As held by
the court, to speak of it as confiscatory then is to exaggerate the
language. Moreover, the absence of any evidence to prove it
confiscatory character would not render it invalid. Statutes are always
presumed to be valid.

FACTS:
1. Alalayan and Philippine Power and Development Company are both
franchise holders of electric plants in Laguna.
2. Petitioner (Alalayan) asserted that it is unconstitutional since it
embraces more than one subject and an infringement of its rights to
due process.
3. They assailed of a section in an amendatory act (Sec.3, RA 3043) which
vests power on the National Power Corporation “in any contract for the

You might also like