CASE DIGEST
ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of administrative bodies, the Bureau of
IV. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
A. Rule Making
B. Adjudication
C. Incidental
SIERRA MADRE TRUST vs. HONORABLE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DIRECTOR OF MINES,
JUSAN TRUST MINING COMPANY, and J & S PARTNERSHIP
G.R. Nos. L-32370 & 32767 April 20, 1983
FACTS: Sierra Madre Trust (SMT) filed two adverse claims over 12 separate
lode mineral claims with the Bureau of Mines. On July 26, 1962, the SMTfiled
with the Bureau of Mines an Adverse Claim against LLA No. V-7872 of the
Jusan Trust Mining Company over six (6) lode mineral claims, all situated in
Sitio Maghanay, Barrio Abaca Municipality of Dupax, Province of Nueva
Vizcaya. The adverse claim prayed that the claims of respondent Jusan Trust
Mining Company (JTMC) be denied and declared null, void, and illegal as the
said lode minerals claims covered by LLA No. V-7872 (Amd) encroached and
overlapped the eleven (11) lode mineral claims of SMT.
SMT also filed an adverse claim against J and S Partnership (JSP) over
another six (6) lode mineral situated in Sitio Gatid, Barrio of Abaca Municipality
of Dupax, Province of Nueva Vizcaya on July 26, 1966, claiming that they
encroached and overlapped the thirteen (13) lode mineral claims of SMT.
These two (2) adverse claims were jointly heard in the Bureau of Mines, and
also jointly considered in the appeal in the Department of Agriculture and
Natural Resources. The Director of Mines and the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources dismissed the claims. They said that there exists no conflict
or overlapping between the SMT's and JTMC's and JSP’s mining claims.
Administrative Law
Judge Augusto Jose Arreza 2nd Semester Academic Year 2018-2019
Mines and Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, must be
overturned?
HELD: No. The officers of the Executive Department tasked with administering
the Mining Law have found that there is neither encroachment nor overlapping
in respect of the claims involved. Accordingly, whatever may be the answers
to the questions will not materially serve the interests of the petitioner. In
closing it is useful to remind litigation prone individuals that the interpretation
by officers of laws which are entrusted to their administration is entitled to great
respect.' In his decision, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
said: "This Office is in conformity with the findings of the Director of Mines that
the mining claims of the appellees were validly located, surveyed and
registered.
ANTIPOLO REALTY CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
THE NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, HON. G.V. TOBIAS, in his
capacity as General Manager of the National Housing Authority, THE
HON. JACOBO C. CLAVE, in his capacity as Presidential Executive
Assistant and VIRGILIO A. YUSON, respondents.
G.R. No. L-50444 August 31, 1987
FACTS: Jose Hernando acquired prospective and beneficial ownership over
Lot. No. 15, Block IV of the Ponderosa Heights Subdivision in Antipolo, Rizal,
from the petitioner Antipolo Realty Corporation under a Contract to Sell. On 28
August 1974, Hernando transferred his rights over the said lot to private
respondent Virgilio Yuson, embodied in a Deed of Assignment and
Substitution of Obligor. However, for failure of Antipolo Realty to develop the
subdivision project in accordance with its undertaking under Clause 17 of the
Contract to Sell (subdivision beautification), Mr. Yuson paid only the
arrearages pertaining to the period up to, and including, the month of August
1972 and stopped all monthly installment payments falling due thereafter.
Wednesday
6:00-9:00 pm
On 14 October 1976, the president of Antipolo Realty sent a notice to private
respondent Yuson advising that the required improvements in the subdivision
had already been completed, and requesting resumption of payment of the
monthly installments on Lot No. 15. For his part, Mr. Yuson replied that he
would conform with the request as soon as he was able to verify the truth of
the representation in the notice. In a second letter dated 27 November 1976,
Antipolo Realty reiterated its request, citing the decision rendered by the
National Housing Authority (NHA) on 25 October 1976 in Case No. 252
(entitled "Jose B. Viado Jr., complainant vs. Conrado S. Reyes, respondent")
declaring Antipolo Realty to have "substantially complied with its commitment
to the lot buyers pursuant to the Contract to Sell. A formal demand was made
for full and immediate payment of the amount of P16,994.73, representing
installments which, Antipolo Realty alleged, had accrued during the period
while the improvements were being completed
—
i.e., between September 1972 and October 1976. Yuson refused to pay the
September 1972 - October 1976 monthly installments but agreed to pay the
post October 1976 installments. Antipolo Realty responded by rescinding the
Contract to Sell, and claiming the forfeiture of all installment payments
previously made by Mr. Yuson. Yuson brought his dispute with Antipolo Realty
before NHA. Antipolo Realty filed a motion to dismiss, which NHA denied. After
hearing, the NHA rendered a decision on 9 March 1978 ordering the
reinstatement of the Contract to Sell under the conditions of: 1) ARC shall sent
Yuson statement of account for mothly amortizations from November 1976 to
present; 2) No penalty interest shall be charged from November 1976 until the
date of issuance of said statement of account; 3) Yuson shall be given 60 days
to pay arrears. A motion for reconsideration filed by Antipolo Realty was also
denied. On October 2, 1978, they also petitioned for certiorari and certiorari
and prohibition with writ of preliminary injunction, the same being denied.
ISSUE: Whether or not in hearing the complaint of Yuson and in ordering the
reinstatement of the Contract to Sell between the parties NHA assumed the
performance of judicial or quasi-judicial functions which it was not authorized
to perform
Held: No. It is by now commonplace learning that many administrative
agencies exercise and perform adjudicatory powers and functions, though to
a limited extent only. Limited delegation of judicial or quasi-judicial authority to
administrative agencies (e.g., the Securities and Exchange Commission and
Administrative Law
Judge Augusto Jose Arreza 2nd Semester Academic Year 2018-2019
the National Labor Relations Commission) is well recognized in our
jurisdiction, basically because the need for special competence and
experience has been recognized as essential in the resolution of questions of
complex or specialized character and because of a companion recognition that
the dockets of our regular courts have remained crowded and clogged. As
provided by Presidential Decree No. 1344, the NHA is empowered to regulate
the real estate trade and business, and has jurisdiction over cases of unsound
real estate business practices, refund claims and those involving specific
performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of
subdivision lots or condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer,
broker or salesman.
City of Baguio vs. Nino
FACTS:
The decision of the Director of Lands having become final and executory, the
then-Executive Director of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources-Cordillera Autonomous Region (DENR-CAR), on petition of
Narcisa, issued an Order of Execution directing the Community Environment
and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) Officer to enforce the decision "by
ordering Petitioner Niño and those acting in his behalf to refrain from
continuously occupying the area and remove whatever improvements they
may have introduced thereto."
Domogan thru the Demolition Team and City Engineer’s Office are ordered to
cease and desist from enforcing the amended order of executionissued by
Oscar N. Hamada, Regional Executive Director of the Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources, concerning the demolition or removal
of the structures made by petitioners until private respondent applied for a
special order Mayor Mauricio abovementioned with the proper court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the enforcement of the Amended Order of Execution
needs a hearing and court order which Sec. 10(d) of Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court requires despite the fact that an the administrative agency which is
clothed with quasi-judicial functions issued the Amended Order of Execution.
HELD: Yes. In general, the quantum of judicial or quasi-judicial powers which
an administrative agency may exercise is defined in the enabling act of such
agency. In other words, the extent to which an administrative entity may
exercise such powers depends largely, if not wholly, on the provisions
of the statute creating or empowering such agency.
Wednesday
6:00-9:00 pm

There is, however, no explicit provision granting the Bureau of Lands
(now the Land Management Bureau) or the DENR (which exercises
control over the Land Management Bureau) the authority to issue an
order of demolition — which the Amended Order of Execution, in substance,
is. While the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands is confined to the determination
of the respective rights of rival claimants to public lands or to cases which
involve the disposition of public lands, the power to determine who has the
actual, physical possession or occupation or the better right of possession over
public lands remains with the courts.
Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Sutton
G.R. No. 162070, October 19, 2005, PUNO, J.:
Facts: Delia Sutton, Ella Sutton-Soliman and Harry Sutton inherited a land in
Aroroy, Masbate which has been devoted exclusively to cow and calf breeding.
In order to avail certain incentives under the law, they made a voluntary offer
to sell (VOS) of the land to the petitioner Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR).
On December 27, 1993, DAR issued A.O. No. 9, series of 1993 by virtue of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, also known as the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law (CARL) of 1988, which provided that only portions of private
agricultural lands used for the raising of livestock, poultry and swine as
of June 15, 1988 shall be excluded from the coverage of the CARL by
providing retention limits viz.: 1:1 animal-land ratio (i.e., 1 hectare of land per
1 head of animal shall be retained by the landowner), and a ratio of 1.7815
hectares for livestock infrastructure for every 21 heads of cattle shall likewise
be excluded from the operations of the CARL
As such, respondents wrote the DAR Secretary to consider as final and
irrevocable the withdrawal of their VOS, but the then DAR Secretary Ernesto
D. Garilao issued an Order partially granting the application of respondents for
exemption from the coverage of CARL, wherein it exempted 1,209 hectares of
respondents’ land for grazing purposes, and a maximum of 102.5635 hectares
for infrastructure. Due to this, the respondents moved for reconsideration
wherein they contended that their entire landholding should be exempted as it
is devoted exclusively to cattle-raising.
In respondent’s appeal to the Office of the President, the latter ruled that DAR
A.O. No. 9, s. 1993, does not run counter to the Luz Farms case as the A.O.
Administrative Law
Judge Augusto Jose Arreza 2nd Semester Academic Year 2018-2019
provided the guidelines to determine whether a certain parcel of land is being
used for cattle-raising. Then, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the
respondents wherein it declared DAR A.O. No. 9, s. 1993, void for being
contrary to the intent of the 1987 Constitutional Commission to exclude
livestock farms from the land reform program of the government.
Issue: Whether or not DAR A.O. No. 9, series of 1993, which prescribes a
maximum retention limit for owners of lands devoted to livestock raising is
unconstitutional.
Held: Yes. We find that the impugned A.O. is invalid as it contravenes the
Constitution. The A.O. sought to regulate livestock farms by including them in
the coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum retention limit for
their ownership. However, the deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional
Commission show a clear intent to exclude, inter alia, all lands exclusively
devoted to livestock, swine and poultry-raising. The Court clarified in the Luz
Farms case that livestock, swine and poultry-raising are industrial activities
and do not fall within the definition of “agriculture” or “agricultural activity.” The
raising of livestock, swine and poultry is different from crop or tree farming. It
is an industrial, not an agricultural, activity. A great portion of the investment
in this enterprise is in the form of industrial fixed assets, such as: animal
housing structures and facilities, drainage, waterers and blowers, feed-mill
with grinders, mixers, conveyors, exhausts and generators, extensive
warehousing facilities for feeds and other supplies, anti-pollution equipment
like bio-gas and digester plants augmented by lagoons and concrete ponds,
deepwells, elevated water tanks, pumphouses, sprayers, and other
technological appurtenances.
Petitioner DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have been
exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform. It has
exceeded its power in issuing the assailed A.O. The subsequent case of
Natalia Realty, Inc. v. DAR reiterated our ruling in the Luz Farms case. In
Natalia Realty, the Court held that industrial, commercial and residential lands
are not covered by the CARL.
It is doctrinal that rules of administrative bodies must be in harmony with the
provisions of the Constitution. They cannot amend or extend the Constitution.
To be valid, they must conform to and be consistent with the Constitution. In
case of conflict between an administrative order and the provisions of the
Constitution, the latter prevails. The assailed A.O. of petitioner DAR was
Wednesday
6:00-9:00 pm
properly stricken down as unconstitutional as it enlarges the coverage of
agrarian reform beyond the scope intended by the 1987 Constitution.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated September 19, 2003 and February
4, 2004, respectively, are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
A.C. No. 4634. September 24, 1997
JESUS CABARRUS, JR. vs. JOSE ANTONIO BERNAS
Facts: On August 30, 1996, Mr. Jesus Cabarrus, Jr. filed and administrative
complaint for disbarment against Atty. Jose Antonio Bernas for alleged
violations of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code or Falsification by private
individual and use of falsified documents.
That on April 16, 1996, respondent Ramon B. Pascual, Jr., subscribe under
oath, a verification and certification of non-forum shopping in a civil case, filed
before the RTC in Pasay.
Subsequently, respondent counsel, Jose Antonio Bernas filed a written
complaint at the NBI for the same cause of action – as that of the civil case.
That respondent Ramon B. Pascual, Jr. knowingly subverted and perverted
the truth when he falsify certified and verified under oath in the verification and
certification of non-forum shopping, that: He has not commenced any other
action or proceeding involving the same issues in any court, including the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other Tribunal or agency, where
verification-certification was placed under oath in both cases at Branch 159 of
the RTC in Pasig and at the NBI, an agency within the ambit and purview of
the circular of the Supreme Court prohibiting forum shopping.
Respondents Jose Antonio Bernas avers that he has not committed forum
shopping because the criminal action is not an action that involves the same
issue as those in the civil action and both suits can exist without constituting
forum shopping so long as the civil aspect has not yet been prosecuted in the
criminal case. He emphasized that forum shopping only exist when identical
reliefs are issued by the same parties in multiple fora.
It was contended that Pascual merely requested the NBI to assist in the
investigation or prosecution, and left it to the NBI to determine whether the
filing of an endorsement to the prosecutor, who would determine probable
caused, would be appropriate. Respondent reiterates that the letter
transmitted to the NBI cannot constitute an action or proceeding because the
Administrative Law
Judge Augusto Jose Arreza 2nd Semester Academic Year 2018-2019
NBIs functions are merely investigatory and informational in nature. NBI has
no prosecutorial functions or quasi-judicial power and is incapable of granting
relief or remedy. The NBI cannot be an agency contemplated by the circular.
Issue: Is NBI one of the agencies contemplated in the Circular No. 28-91,
Revised Circular No. 28-91, and administrative Circular No. 04-94 on forum
shopping?
Ruling: No. Firstly, there is no forum shopping to speak of Atty. Bernas, as
counsel of Mr. Pascual, Jr., merely requested the assistance of the NBI to
investigate the the alleged fraud and forgery committed by Mr. Jesus
Cabarrus.[5] The filing of the civil case for conveyance and damages before the
Regional Trial Court of Pasig City does not preclude respondent to institute a
criminal action. The rule allows the filing of a civil case independently with the
criminal case without violating the circulars on forum shopping.
Secondly, Act No. 157 [7], which created the Bureau of Investigation under the
Department of Justice, explicitly states that the function of the National Bureau
of Investigations are merely investigatory and informational in nature. It has no
judicial or quasi-judicial powers and is incapable of granting any relief to a
party. It cannot even determine probable cause. It is an investigative agency
whose findings are merely recommendatory. It undertakes investigation of
crimes upon its own initiative and as public welfare may require. It renders
assistance when requested in the investigation or detection of crimes which
precisely what Atty. Bernas sought in order to prosecute those person
responsible for defrauding his client.
The courts, tribunal and agencies referred to under Circular No. 28-91, revised
Circular No. 28-91 and Administrative Circular No. 04-94 are those vested with
judicial powers or quasi-judicial powers and those who not only hear and
determine controversies between adverse parties, but to make binding orders
or judgments. As succinctly put it by R.A. 157, the NBI is not performing judicial
or quasi-judicial functions. The NBI cannot therefore be among those forums
contemplated by the Circular that can entertain an action or proceeding, or
even grant any relief, declaratory or otherwise.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant complaint is hereby
DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.
Wednesday
6:00-9:00 pm
 D. Requirements for enforcement of administrative issuances

GMA NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, 2.) NO , Memorandum Circular no. 98-17 has not been registered with
vs. the ONAR, as of January 27, 2000. Hence, the same is yet to be
MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION effective, it is just unenforceable since it has not been filed in the
BOARD, Respondent. ONAR. The 1987 Administrative Code, section 3, expressly requires
each agency to file with the Office of the National Administrative
Doctrine:“ Administrative issuances which are not published or filed with the Remedies (ONAR) of the UP Law Center three certified copies of
Office of the National Administrative Register (ONAR) of the UP law Center every rule adopted by it. Administrative issuances which are not
are ineffective and may not be enforced (Sec.3, 1987 Administrative Code)” published or filed with the ONAR are ineffective and may not be
enforced.
FACTS:

Petitioner GMA Network, Inc. operates and manages the UHF television TAÑADA VS. TUVERA - 146 SCRA 446 (December 29, 1986)
station, EMC Channel 27. The respondent MTRCB issued an order of
suspension against petitioner for airing "Muro Ami: The Making" without first FACTS:
securing a permit from it as provided in Section 7 of PD 1986. The penalty of
This is a motion for reconsideration of the decision promulgated on April 24,
suspension was based on Memorandum Circular 98-17 dated December 15,
1985. Respondent argued that while publication was necessary as a rule, it
1998 which provided for the penalties for exhibiting a program without a valid was not so when it was “otherwise” as when the decrees themselves declared
permit from the MTRCB. Petitioner move for the reconsideration of the that they were to become effective immediately upon their approval.
suspension and informed the respondent that it had complied with the
suspension order by going off the air. Respondent deny the motion, likewise, ISSUES:
the CA also dismissed the complaint upon petitioner ’s appeal to them.
1. Whether or not a distinction be made between laws of general applicability
ISSUE: and laws which are not as to their publication;
2. Whether or not a publication shall be made in publications of general
1.) Whether or not the MTRCB has the authority to review the show “Muro Ami: circulation.
The Making” prior to its broadcast by television;?
HELD:
2.) Whether or not Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 was enforceable and
The clause “unless it is otherwise provided” refers to the date of effectivity and
binding on the petitioners? not to the requirement of publication itself, which cannot in any event be
omitted. This clause does not mean that the legislature may make the law
HELD: effective immediately upon approval, or in any other date, without its previous
publication.
1.) YES, Sec. 3 of PD 1986 empowers the MTRCB to screen, review, and
examine all motion pictures, television programs, including publicity “Laws” should refer to all laws and not only to those of general application, for
materials. The only exceptions from it are (1) television programs strictly speaking, all laws relate to the people in general albeit there are some
imprinted or exhibited by the Philippine Government and/or other that do not apply to them directly. A law without any bearing on the public
departments, and (2) newsreels. “Muro Ami: The Making” was a would be invalid as an intrusion of privacy or as class legislation or as an ultra
publicity for the movie“ Muro Ami” , therefore it did not fall under any vires act of the legislature. To be valid, the law must invariably affect the public
of the exemptions and was therefore within the power of review of the interest eve if it might be directly applicable only to one individual, or some of
MTRCB. the people only, and not to the public as a whole.

Administrative Law Wednesday

Judge Augusto Jose Arreza 2nd Semester Academic Year 2018-2019 6:00-9:00 pm
All statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be Whenever a banking institution persists in violating its charter or by-laws or
published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin 15 days after any law, or orders, instructions, rules or regulations legally issued by the
publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. Monetary Board, or whenever a banking institution persists in carrying on its
business in an unlawful or unsafe manner, the Board shall, by the Solicitor
Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all, since its purpose is to General, and without prejudice to the penalties provided in the preceding
inform the public of the content of the law. paragraph of this section, file a petition in the Court of First Instance praying
the assistance of the court to compel the banking institution to discontinue the
Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that publication of laws must be made in violations or practices objected to in the petition of the Board. The Monetary
the Official Gazette, and not elsewhere, as a requirement for their effectivity. Board may, with the approval of the court, take such action as the court may
The Supreme Court is not called upon to rule upon the wisdom of a law or to deem necessary compel the banking institution complained against to
repeal or modify it if it finds it impractical. discontinue the violations or practices set forth in the Boards petition, and, if
necessary, the Board may, under order of the court, direct the Superintendent
The publication must be made forthwith, or at least as soon as possible. of Banks to liquidate the business of the institution.)

J. Cruz:
Laws must come out in the open in the clear light of the sun instead of skulking
in the shadows with their dark, deep secrets. Mysterious pronouncements and
rumored rules cannot be recognized as binding unless their existence and
contents are confirmed by a valid publication intended to make full disclosure
and give proper notice to the people. The furtive law is like a scabbarded saber
that cannot faint, parry or cut unless the naked blade is drawn.
GUTIERREZ, Jr., J., concurring:
He was sentenced to suffer six months imprisonment, to pay a fine of P1,000
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
Appellant appeals on the claim that the said circular had no force or effect
because the same was not published in the official Gazette prior to the act or
omission imputed to said appellant. The Solicitor General counters that
Commonwealth Act. No. 638 and 2930 do not require the publication in the
Official Gazette of said circular issued for the implementation of a law in order
to have force and effect.

I concur insofar as publication is necessary but reserve my vote as to the ISSUE: Whether or not circulars and regulations should be published in order
necessity of such publication being in the Official Gazette. to have force and effect.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
QUE PO LAY, defendant-appellant.
Que Po Lay was charge in possession of foreign exchange consisting of US
dollors, US checks and US money orders amounting to about $7,000. He failed
to sell the same to the Central Bank after one day of receiving it as required
by Circular No. 20 of the Central Bank. Que Po Lay was found guilty of
violating the Circular in connection with Section 34 of RA 265 (SEC.
34. Proceedings upon violation of laws and regulations.— Whenever any
person or entity willfully violates this Act or any order, instruction, rule or
regulation legally issued by the Monetary Board, the person or persons
responsible for such violation shall be punished by a fine of not more than
twenty thousand pesos and by imprisonment of not more than five years.
HELD: Yes, circulars and regulations especially like Circular No. 20 of the
Central Bank which prescribes a penalty for its violation should be published
before becoming effective. Before the public is bound by its contents,
especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation or circular must first be
published and the people officially and specifically informed of said contents
and its penalties.
Section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code provides that statutes passed
by Congress shall, in the absence of special provision, take effect at the
beginning of the fifteenth day after the completion of the publication of the
statute in the Official Gazette. Article 2 of the new Civil Code (Republic Act No.
386) equally provides that laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the
completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise
provided. SC reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila and
acquit Que Po Lay.

Administrative Law Wednesday

Judge Augusto Jose Arreza 2nd Semester Academic Year 2018-2019 6:00-9:00 pm
PEOPLE VS. MACEREN

Administrative regulations adopted under legislative authority by a particular

department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and should be
for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions. By such
regulations, the law itself cannot be extended. An administrative agency
cannot amend an act of Congress.

FACTS: The respondents were charged with violating Fisheries Administrative

Order No. 84-1 which penalizes electro fishing in fresh water fisheries. This
was promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and
the Commissioner of Fisheries under the old Fisheries Law and the law
creating the Fisheries Commission. The municipal court quashed the
complaint and held that the law does not clearly prohibit electro fishing, hence
the executive and judicial departments cannot consider the same. On appeal,
the CFI affirmed the dismissal. Hence, this appeal to the SC.

ISSUE: Whether the administrative order penalizing electro fishing is valid?

HELD: NO. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the
Commissioner of Fisheries exceeded their authority in issuing the
administrative order. The old Fisheries Law does not expressly prohibit electro
fishing. As electro fishing is not banned under that law, the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries are
powerless to penalize it. Had the lawmaking body intended to punish electro
fishing, a penal provision to that effect could have been easily embodied in the
old Fisheries Law. The lawmaking body cannot delegate to an executive
official the power to declare what acts should constitute an offense. It can
authorize the issuance of regulations and the imposition of the penalty
provided for in the law itself. Where the legislature has delegated to executive
or administrative officers and boards authority to promulgate rules to carry out
an express legislative purpose, the rules of administrative officers and boards,
which have the effect of extending, or which conflict with the authority granting
statute, do not represent a valid precise of the rule-making power.

Administrative Law Wednesday

Judge Augusto Jose Arreza 2nd Semester Academic Year 2018-2019 6:00-9:00 pm