People v Maceren79 SCRA 450

G.R. No. L-32166 October 18, 1977

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
HON. MAXIMO A. MACEREN CFI, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, JOSE BUENAVENTURA,
GODOFREDO REYES, BENJAMIN REYES, NAZARIO AQUINO and CARLO DEL
ROSARIO, accused-appellees.

Office of the Solicitor General for appellant.

Rustics F. de los Reyes, Jr. for appellees.

Facts:
Defendants Jose Buenaventura, Godofredo Reyes, Benjamin Reyes, Nazario Aquino
and Carlito del Rosario were charged by a Constabulary investigator in the municipal
court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna with the complaint that the five accused resorted to electro
fishing in the waters of Barrio San Pablo Norte, Sta. Cruz by using their own motor
banca, equipped with electrocuting device that catches fish thru electric current.
which destroy any aquatic animals. Upon motion of the Maceren and others, the
municipal court quashed the complaint -- that electro fishing cannot be penalize
because electric current is not an obnoxious or poisonous substance as
contemplated in section I of the Fisheries Law and that it is not a substance at all but
a form of energy conducted or transmitted by substance. The prosecution appealed.
The Court of First Instance of Laguna affirmed the order of dismissal. The case is
now before this Court on appeal by the prosecution under Republic Act No. 5440.

Issue:
 Whether or not executive officials have a rule-making function as embodied in the
issued Administrative Order No. 84?
Ruling:
No. The Supreme Court held that the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Commissioner of Fisheries went beyond the scope of their power. The fisheries law
does not expressly prohibit or penalize. Had the law making body intended to punish
electro fishing, a penal provision to that effect could have been embodied in the old
Fisheries Law.The lawmaking body cannot delegate to an executive official the power
to declare what acts should constitute a criminal offense. It can only authorize the
issuance of regulations and the imposition of the penalty provided for in the law itself.
Originally, Administrative Order No. 84 punished electro fishing in all waters. Later,
the ban against electro fishing was confined to fresh water fisheries. The amendment
created the impression that electro fishing is not prohibited. It could be tolerated in
marine waters. The administrative order penalizing electro fishing exceeded their
authority. Generally, what has been delegated cannot be delegated, like the
Congress where legislative power is delegated to them. One of the exceptions of this
is subordinate legislation made by administrative agencies. Under the theory of
Administrative Law, what is delegated is in fact not “law-making” power, but “law
executing power.” Hence, administrative agencies have the power to “fill up the
details” of a statute passed by Congress in the course of its implementation. In this
case, the act constitutes not only an excess of the regulatory power conferred upon
the Secretary but also an exercise of a legislative power which he does not have, and
therefore the said provision "is null and void and without effect."