This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
10, 1998) LAISSEZ-FAIRE Facts: APCD assailed that PCA acted beyond its power in promulgating a Board Resolution no. 1893 dated March 24, 1993 in which it declares that it will no longer require those wishing to engage in coconut processing to apply to it for a license or permit as a condition for engaging in such business. The contention of the APCD was that the Board Resolution of the PCA was an undue exercise of legislative power by an administrative body which led to the procedural due process requirement of consultation provided in PD. NO. 1644, E.O. 826 PCA Admin. Order no.002 series 1991. On the otherhand, the PCA contended that they the action of the petitioner was an act of foruum shopping because they had a pending petition before the office of the President and that they acted in adherence with the legislative power delegated to them. Issue: 1. WON the said Board Resolution is NULL and VOID being unduely promulgated by PCA. 2. WON the PCA must exercise the mere ministrant or optional function of the government to provide protective regulations? Ruling: 1. Yes, the said board resolution is null and void. The PCA was created through PD 232 on June 30, 1973 “to promote the rapid integrated development and growth of the coconut and other palm oil industry in all its aspects.” Because of that, the government limited the opening of coconut processing plants which eventually also came to a point to prohibit it. New plants can only be open through Executive Order No. 826 with provided economis conditions; a) the existing market demand; b)the production capacity prevailing in the country or locality; c) the level and flow of raw materials; and d) other circumstances which may affect the growth or viability of the industry concerned. Through this, we could see that the creation of PCA is to really regulate the new coconut plants and to give some restriction to it by implementing legislated rules through the delegated legislative power to them. That it must promulgate such kind of rules to protect the Philippine coconut industries from its substandard quality and cut-throat competition. 2. No, it must not argue that just because it’s a ministrant or optional function of the government to protect the welfare of the coconut industries could excuse them to abandon the regulation of new coconut plant. Our Constitutions, beginning with the 1935 document, have repudiated laissez-faire as an economic principle. Although the present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, it nonetheless reserves to the government the power to intervene whenever necessary to promote the general welfare. This is clear from the following provisions of Art. XII of the Constitution which, so far as pertinent, state: Sec. 6. . . . Individuals and private groups, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall have the right to own, establish, and operate economic enterprises,subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when the common good so demands. Sec. 19. The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when the public interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition shall be allowed. (Emphasis added) At all events, any change in policy must be made by the legislative department of the government. The regulatory system has been set up by law. It is beyond the power of an administrative agency to dismantle it. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. PCA Resolution No. 018-93 and all certificates of registration issued under it are hereby declared NULL and VOID for having been issued in excess of the power of the Philippine Coconut Authority to adopt or issue.