University of the Philippines College of Law

MSI 2D

Topic Judicial Functions > Imposition of fines and penalties

Case No. 11 Phil 327. September 24, 1908
Case Name US vs BARRIAS
Ponente Tracey, J.

RELEVANT FACTS
 In 1904, Congress, through Act No. 1136, authorized the Collector of Customs to regulate the business of lighterage.
o Lighterage is a business involving the shipping of goods by use of lighters or cascos (small ships/boats).
 The said law also provides that the Collector may promulgate such rules to implement Act No. 1136. Additionally,
Act No. 1136 provides that in case a fine is to be imposed, it should not exceed $100. Pursuant to this, the Collector
promulgated Circular No. 397.
 Barrias was caught navigating the Pasig River using a lighter that was manually powered by bamboo poles (sagwan).
He was transporting hemp.
o His act was a violation of Circular No. 397; under said Circular, only steam-powered ships are be allowed to
navigate the Pasig River.
o However, in the information against Barrias, it was alleged that the imposable penalty against him should
be a fine not exceeding P500 at the discretion of the court – this was pursuant to Circular No. 397 which
provides:
 Par. 70: No heavily loaded casco, lighter, or other similar craft shall be permitted to move in the
Pasig River without being towed by steam or moved by other adequate power.
 Par. 83: For the violation of any part of the foregoing regulations, the persons offending shall be
liable to a fine of not less than P5 and not more than P500, in the discretion of the court.
 Barrias now challenged the validity of such provision of the Circular as it is entirely different from the penal provision
of Act. No. 1136 which only provided a penalty of not exceeding $100.
o He attacked the validity of Circular No. 397 on the following grounds:
 That it was unauthorized by Sec. 19 of Act. No. 355 of the Philippine Customs Administrative Acts
 That if the acts of the Philippine Commission bear the interpretation of authorizing the Collector
to promulgate such a law, they are void, as constituting an illegal delegation of legislative power.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue
W/N the authority conferred to
the Collector to promulgate said
Circular constitutes a valid
delegation of legislative power –
NO, undue delegation of
legislative power.
Ratio
 The Collector cannot exercise a power exclusively lodged in Congress. Hence,
Barrias should be penalized in accordance with the penalty imposed by Act
No. 1136.
 Re Act. No. 1136 (see notes for relevant provisions): One of the settled
maxims in constitutional law is that the power conferred upon the legislature
to make laws cannot be delegated by that department to any other body or
authority. Where the sovereign power of the state has located the authority,
there it must remain; and by that constitutional agency alone the laws must
be made until the Constitution itself is changed. The power to whose
judgment, wisdom, and patriotism this high prerogative has been entrusted
cannot relieve itself of the responsibility by choosing other agencies upon
which the power shall be devolved, nor can it substitute the judgment,
wisdom, and patriotism of any other body for those to which alone the people
have seen fit confide this sovereign trust.
 This doctrine is based on the ethical principle that such a delegated power
constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate by the
 University of the Philippines College of Law
MSI 2D

instrumentality of his own judgment acting immediately upon the matter of

legislation and not through the intervening mind of another.
 Cited cases: (more relevant to the topic)
o US v. Breen: A congressional Act authorized the Secretary of War to
make rules and regulations necessary to protect the Mississippi
River; the same act also provided that a violation of the act would
constitute a misdemeanor. The provision regarding the
misdemeanor was upheld because the same was declared under the
Act itself, not under the delegated power of the Secretary.
o US v. Rider: The Court struck down as invalid a law which authorized
the Secretary of War to require the alteration of bridges and impose
penalties for violations of the rules he established.
o In re Kollock: The Court upheld the law authorizing the Commissioner
of Internal Revenue to designate the use of stamps, the improper use
of which would constitute a misdemeanor. The Court held that it was
a valid delegation of authority because the offense was fully and
completely defined in the congressional Act.
o The Board of Harbor Commission of the Port of Eureka v. Excelsior
Redwood Company: The harbor commissioners cannot impose a
penalty by virtue of the statutes authorizing them to do so; the
imposition of the penalties is a matter purely in the hands of the
legislature.

RULING

So much of the judgment of the Court of First Instance as convicts the defendant of a violation of Acts Nos. 355 and 1235 is
hereby revoked and is hereby convicted of a misdemeanor and punished by a fine of 25 dollars, with costs of both instances.
So ordered.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

NOTES
Act No. 1136 (relevant provisions)

SEC. 5. The Collector of Customs for the Philippine Islands is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to promptly make
and publish suitable rules and regulations to carry this law into effect and to regulate the business herein licensed.

SEC. 8. Any person who shall violate the provisions of this Act, or of any rule or regulation made and issued by the Collector
of Customs for the Philippine Islands, under and by authority of this Act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon
conviction shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than one hundred
dollars, United States currency, or by both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court; Provided, That violations
of law may be punished either by the method prescribed in section seven hereof, or by that prescribed in this section or by
both.