Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANC G.R. No. 99886 March 31, 1993JOHN H. OSMEA, petitioner, vs.OSCAR ORBOS, in hi ca!aci"# a E$%c&"i'% S%cr%"ar#( JESUS ESTAN)S*AO, in hi ca!aci"# a S%cr%"ar# o+ ,inanc%( -ENCES*AO .E*A PA/, in hi ca!aci"# a H%a0 o+ "h% O++ic% o+ En%r1# A++air( RE2 3. TANT)ONGCO, an0 "h% ENERG4 REGU*ATOR4 BOAR., respondents.Nachura & Sarmiento for petitioner.The Solicitor General for public respondents. NAR3ASA, C.J.:The petitioner seeks the corrective, 1 prohibitive and coercive remedies provided b Rule !" of the Rules of Court, 5 uponthe follo#in$ posited $rounds, viz.% 3&' the invalidit of the (TR)*T ACC+)NT( in the books of account of the Ministr of Ener$ ,no#, the +ffice of Ener$ Affairs', created pursuant to - ., para$raph &, of P./. No. &0"!, as amended, (said creation of a trust fund bein$ contrar to *ection 10 ,2', Article 34 of the . . Constitution5 61' the unconstitutionalit of - ., para$raph & ,c' of P./. No. &0"!, as amended b E6ecutive +rder No. &27, for (bein$ an undue and invalid dele$ation of le$islative po#er . . to the Ener$ Re$ulator Board5( 72' the ille$alit of the reimbursements to oil companies, paid out of the +il Price *tabili8ation 9und, 6 because it contravenes - ., para$raph 1 ,1' ofP. /. &0"!, as amended5 and:' the conse;uent nullit of the +rder dated /ecember &ect to the scrutin and revie# of the C+A. The Court is satisfied that these measures compl #ith the constitutional description of a (special fund.( 4ndeed, the practice is not #ithout precedent.Aith re$ard to the alle$ed undue delegation of legislative power, the Court finds that the provision conferrin$ the authorit upon the ERB to impose additional amounts on petroleum products provides a sufficient standard b #hichthe authorit must be e6ercised. 4n addition to the $eneral polic of the la# to protect the local consumer b stabili8in$ and subsidi8in$ domestic pump rates, - .,c' of P./. &0"! 18 e6pressl authori8es the ERB to impose additional amounts to augment the resources of the ,und.Ahat petitioner #ould #ish is the fi6in$ of some definite, ;uantitative restriction, or (a specific limit on ho# much to ta6.( 19 The Court is cited to this re;uirement b the petitioner on the premise that #hat is involved here is the po#er of ta6ation5 but as alread discussed, this is not the case. Ahat is here involved is not so much the po#er of ta6ation as police po#er. Althou$h the provision authori8in$ the ERB to impose additional amounts could be construed to refer to the po#er of ta6ation, it cannot be overlooked that the overridin$ consideration is to enable the dele$ate to act #ith e6pedienc in carrin$ out the ob>ectives of the la# #hich are embraced b the police po#er of the *tate.The interpla and constant fluctuation of the various factors involved in the determination of the price of oil and petroleum products, and the fre;uentl shiftin$ need to either au$ment or e6haust the 9und, do not convenientl permit the settin$ of fi6ed or ri$id parameters in the la# as proposed b the petitioner. To do so #ould render the ERB unable to respond effectivel so as to miti$ate or avoid the undesirable conse;uences of such fluidit. As such,the standard as it is e6pressed, suffices to $uide the dele$ate in the e6ercise of the dele$ated po#er, takin$ accountof the circumstances under #hich it is to be e6ercised.9or a valid dele$ation of po#er, it is essential that the la# dele$atin$ the po#er must be ,&' complete in itself, that isit must set forth the polic to be e6ecuted b the dele$ate and ,1' it must fi6 a standard ? limits of #hichare sufficientl determinate or determinable ? to #hich the dele$ate must conform. 59. . . As pointed out in Edu v. Ericta% (To avoid the taint of unla#ful dele$ation, there must be a standard, #hich implies at the ver least that the le$islature itself determines matters of principle andlas do#n fundamental polic. +ther#ise, the char$e of complete abdication ma be hard to repel. A standard thus defines le$islative polic, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public a$enc to appl it. 4t indicates the circumstances under #hich the le$islative command is to beeffected. 4t is the criterion b #hich the le$islative purpose ma be carried out. Thereafter, the e6ecutive or administrative office desi$nated ma in pursuance of the above $uidelines promul$ate supplemental rules and re$ulations. The standard ma either be e6press or implied. 4f the former, thenonFdele$ation ob>ection is easil met. The standard thou$h does not have to be spelled out specificall. 4t could be implied from the polic and purpose of the act considered as a #hole. 514t #ould seem that from the aboveF;uoted rulin$, the petition for prohibition should fail.The standard, as the Court has alread stated, ma even be implied. 4n that li$ht, there can be no $round upon #hich to sustain the petition, inasmuch as the challen$ed la# sets forth a determinable standard #hich $uides the e6ercise of the po#er $ranted to the ERB. B the same token, the proper e6ercise of the dele$ated po#er ma be tested #ith ease. 4t seems obvious that #hat the la# intended #as to permit the additional imposts for as lon$ as there e6ists a need to protect the $eneral public and the petroleum industr from the adverse conse;uences of pump rate fluctuations. (Ahere the standards set up for the $uidance of an administrative officer and the action taken are in fact recorded in the orders of such officer, so that Con$ress, the courts and the public are assured that the orders in the >ud$ment of such officer conform to the le$islative standard, there is no failure in the performance of the le$islative functions.( 55This Court thus finds no serious impediment to sustainin$ the validit of the le$islation5 the e6press purpose for #hich the imposts are permitted and the $eneral ob>ectives and purposes of the fund are readil discernible, and the constitute a sufficient standard upon #hich the dele$ation of po#er ma be >ustified.4n relation to the third ;uestion ? respectin$ the ille$alit of the reimbursements to oil companies, paid out of the +ilPrice *tabili8ation 9und, because alle$edl in contravention of - ., para$raph 1 ,1' of P./. &0"!, amended 53? the Court finds for the petitioner.The petition assails the pament of certain items or accounts in favor of the petroleum companies ,i.e., inventor losses, financin$ char$es, fuel oil sales to the National Po#er Corporation, etc.' because not authori8ed b la#. Petitioner contends that (these claims are not embraced in the enumeration in - . of P./. &0"! . . since none of them #as incurred 0as a result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products,C( 56 and since these items are reimbursements for #hich the +P*9 should not have responded, the amount of the P&1..77 billion deficit (should be reduced b P",177.1 million.( 57 4t is ar$ued (that under the principle of e(usdem generis . . . the term Cother factorsC ,as used in - . of P./. &0"!' . . can onl include such Cother factorsC #hich necessaril result in the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products.( 56The *olicitor =eneral, for his part, contends that (,t'o place said ,term' #ithin the restrictive confines of the rule ofe(usdem generis #ould reduce ,E.+. &27' to a meanin$less provision.(This Court, in /alte +hilippines, .nc. v. The 1onorable /ommissioner on 'udit, et al., 58 passed upon the application of e(usdem generis to para$raph 1 of - . of P./. &0"!, viz.%The rule of e(usdem generis states that (G#Hhere #ords follo# an enumeration of persons or thin$s, b #ords of a particular and specific meanin$, such $eneral #ords are not to be construed in their #idest e6tent, but are held to be as applin$ onl to persons or thin$s of the same kind or class as those specificall mentioned.( 58 A readin$ of subpara$raphs ,i' and ,ii' easil discloses that the do not have a common characteristic. The first relates to price reduction as directed b the Board of Ener$ #hile the second refers to reduction in internal ad valorem ta6es. Therefore, subpara$raph ,iii' cannot be limited b the enumeration in these subpara$raphs. Ahat should be considered for purposes of determinin$ the (other factors( in subpara$raph ,iii' is the first sentence of para$raph ,1' of the *ection #hich e6plicitl allo#s the cost underrecover onl if such #ere incurred as a result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products.The Court thus holds, that the reimbursement of financin$ char$es is not authori8ed b para$raph 1 of - . of P./. &0"!, for the reason that the #ere not incurred as a result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products. )nder the same provision, ho#ever, the pament of inventor losses is upheld as valid, bein$ clearl a result of domestic price reduction, #hen oil companies incur a cost underrecover for et unsold stocks of oil in inventor ac;uired at a hi$her price.Reimbursement for cost underrecover from the sales of oil to the National Po#er Corporation is e;uall permissible, not as comin$ #ithin the provisions of P./. &0"!, but in virtue of other la#s and re$ulations as held in/alte 59 and #hich have been pointed to b the *olicitor =eneral. At an rate, doubts about the propriet of such reimbursements have been dispelled b the enactment of R.A. !0"1, establishin$ the Petroleum Price *tandb 9und, - 1 of #hich specificall authori8es the reimbursement of (cost underrecover incurred as a result of fuel oil sales to the National Po#er Corporation.(Anent the overpament refunds mentioned b the petitioner, no substantive discussion has been presented to sho# ho# this is prohibited b P./. &0"!. Nor has the *olicitor =eneral taken an effort to defend the propriet of this refund. 4n fine, neither of the parties, beond the mere mention of overpament refunds, has at all bothered to discuss the ar$uments for or a$ainst the le$alit of the soFcalled overpament refunds. To be sure, the absence of an ar$ument for or a$ainst the validit of the refund cannot result in its disallo#ance b the Court. )nless the impropriet or ille$alit of the overpament refund has been clearl and specificall sho#n, there can be no basis upon #hich to nullif the same.9inall, the Court finds no necessit to rule on the remainin$ issue, the same havin$ been rendered moot and academic. As of date hereof, the pump rates of $asoline have been reduced to levels belo# even those praed for in the petition.ABERE9+RE, the petition is =RANTE/ insofar as it pras for the nullification of the reimbursement of financin$ char$es, paid pursuant to E.+. &27, and /4*M4**E/ in all other respects.*+ +R/ERE/./ruz, ,eliciano, +adilla, &idin, Gri2o)'quino, %egalado, 3avide, 4r., %omero, Nocon, &ellosillo, 5elo, /ampos, 4r., and 6uiason, 44., concur.Gutierrez, 4r., 4., is on leave. ; ,oo"no"%& The #rit of certiorari is, of course, available onl as a$ainst tribunals, boards or officers e6ercisin$(udicial or quasi)(udicial functions.1 The petition alle$es separate causes or $rounds for each e6traordinar #rit sou$ht.2 %ollo, pp. & to :.: %ollo, p. 1." .d.! Ahen this petition #as filed, the amount involved #as P",177.: million.7 4ssued on 0 Ma &0.".. %ollo, pp. .F0.0 %ollo, p. &&5 emphasis supplied.&< .d., pp. &2F:.&& .d., p. &".&1 %ollo, p. &7.&2 Comment of the Respondents5 %ollo, p. !2.&: =.R. Nos. DF70"