1

G.R. No. 163980 August 3, 2006

HOLY SPIRIT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. and NESTORIO F. APOLINARIO, in his

personal capacity and as President of Holy Spirit Homeowners Association,
Inc., Petitioners,
vs.
SECRETARY MICHAEL DEFENSOR, in his capacity as Chairman of the Housing and
Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC)

FACTS:

A petition has been filed against the Philippines' National Government Center for Housing
and Land Utilization (NGC) in Manila. The petition seeks to prevent the NGC from enforcing the
implementing rules and regulations of Republic Act No. 9207, otherwise known as the "National
Government Center" housing and land use Act.
Holy Spirit Homeowners Association, Inc. (Association) is a homeowners association from
the West Side of the NGC. It is represented by its president, Nestorio F. Apolinario, Jr., who is a co-
petitioner in his own personal capacity.
Named respondents are the ex-officio members of the National Government Center
Administration Committee (Committee). At the filing of the instant petition, the Committee was
composed of Secretary Michael Defensor, Chairman of the Housing and Urban Development
Coordinating Council (HUDCC) and other officials.
The National Government Center (NGC) was established in 1972 after the passage of
Republic Act No. 9207, which provided for the establishment of a national government site in the
Philippines. Former President Ferdinand Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1826 reserving a parcel of
land in Constitution Hills, Quezon City, covering a little over 440 hectares to be known as the NGC.
On August 11, 1987, then President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 137, excluding
150 of the 440 hectares of the reserved site from the coverage of Proclamation no. 1826 and
authorizing instead the disposition of the excluded portion by direct sale to bona fide residents. In
view of the rapid increase in population density in the portion excluded by that Proclamation, former
President Fidel Ramos issued a new Proclamation on September 7, 1993, authorizing the vertical
development of that portion.
In accordance with Section 5 of R.A. No. 9207, 4 the Committee formulated the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), which were published on June 29, 2004. Petitioners
subsequently filed the instant petition, raising the following issues.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT SECTION 3.1 (A.4), 3.1 (B.2), 3.2 (A.1) AND 3.2 (C.1) OF THE RULES AND
REGULATIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9207, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
CENTER (NGC) HOUSING AND LAND UTILIZATION ACT OF 2003" SHOULD BE DECLARED NULL AND
VOID FOR BEING INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAW IT SEEKS TO IMPLEMENT.
WHETHER OR NOT SECTION 3.1 (A.4), 3.1 (B.2), 3.2 (A.1) AND 3.2 (C.1) OF THE RULES AND
REGULATIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9207, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
CENTER (NGC) HOUSING AND LAND UTILIZATION ACT OF 2003" SHOULD BE DECLARED NULL AND
VOID FOR BEING ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND WHIMSICAL.
RULINGS:
FIRST,

Administrative agencies possess quasi-legislative or rule-making powers and quasi-judicial or

administrative adjudicatory powers. Quasi-legislative or rule-making power is the power to make
 2

rules and regulations which results in delegated legislation that is within the confines of the granting
statute and the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of powers
In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by an
administrative agency, a party need not exhaust administrative remedies before going to court. This
principle, however, applies only where the act of the administrative agency concerned was
performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial function, and not when the assailed act pertained to its rule-
making or quasi-legislative power.

G.R. No. 190837               March 5, 2014

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the BUREAU OF FOOD AND DRUGS

(now FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION), Petitioner,
vs.
DRUGMAKER'S LABORATORIES, INC. and TERRAMEDIC, INC., Respondents.

Facts:

The Department of Health (DOH) issued Administrative Order No. 67, s. on March 15, 1989,
through then-Secretary Alfredo R.A. Bengzon. "Revised Rules and Regulations on
Pharmaceutical Product Registration" was published in 1989. This order mandated that drug
manufacturers register certain drug and medicine products with the FDA before releasing them to
the market.

Respondents manufacture and sell a "multisource pharmaceutical product"with the generic name
rifampicin12 - branded as "Refam 200mg/5mL Suspension" (Refam) - for the treatment of
pulmonary and extra-pulmonary tuberculosis in adults and children. Respondents applied for and
were granted a CPR for such drug on November 15, 1996, which was valid for five (5) years, or
until November 15, 2001 Respondents applied for and were granted numerous yearly renewals
of their CPR for such drug.

As a result, respondents hired the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of

Medicine at the University of the Philippines (Manila) to conduct BA/BE testing on Refam, the
results of which were submitted to the FDA. As a result, the FDA sent respondents a letter dated
July 31, 2006, stating that Refam is "not bioequivalent with the reference drug." Despite this, the
FDA still revalidated respondents' CPR for Refam two (2)

Respondents filed a petition for prohibition and annulment of Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s.
1997 instead of submitting satisfactory BA/BE test results for Refam. Before the RTC, claiming
that the DOH, not the FDA, was given the authority to issue and implement RA 3720 rules. As a
result, the issuance of the aforementioned circulars, as well as the manner in which they were
promulgated, violated both the law and the Constitution.They also claimed that the non-renewal
of the CPR due to failure to submit satisfactory BA/BE test results would affect not only Refam,
but also their other products.

Issue:

The primordial issue in this case is whether or not the FDA may validly issue and implement
Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s. 1997. In resolving this issue, there is a need to determine whether or
not the aforesaid circulars partake of administrative rules and regulations and, as such, must
comply with the requirements of the law for its issuance.
 3

The FDA contends that it has the authority to issue Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s. 1997 as it is the
agency mandated by law to administer and enforce laws, including rules and regulations issued
by the DOH, that pertain to the registration of pharmaceutical products.

For their part, respondents maintain that under RA 3720, the power to make rules to implement
the law is lodged with the Secretary of Health, not with the FDA. They also argue that the
assailed circulars are void for lack of prior hearing, consultation, and publication.

Ruling:

Administrative agencies may exercise quasi-legislative or rule-making powers only if there exists
a law which delegates these powers to them.—Administrative agencies may exercise quasi-
legislative or rule-making powers only if there exists a law which delegates these powers to
them. Accordingly, the rules so promulgated must be within the confines of the granting statute
and must involve no discretion as to what the law shall be, but merely the authority to fix the
details in the execution or enforcement of the policy set out in the law itself, so as to conform with
the doctrine of separation of powers and, as an adjunct, the doctrine of non-delegability of
legislative power.

An administrative regulation may be classified as a legislative rule, an interpretative rule, or a

contingent rule.—An administrative regulation may be classified as a legislative rule, an
interpretative rule, or a contingent rule. Legislative rules are in the nature of subordinate
legislation and designed to implement a primary legislation by providing the details thereof. They
usually implement existing law, imposing general, extra-statutory obligations pursuant to
authority properly delegated by Congress and effect a change in existing law or policy which
affects individual rights and obligations. Meanwhile, interpretative rules are intended to interpret,
clarify or explain existing statutory regulations under which the administrative body operates.
Their purpose or objective is merely to construe the statute being administered and purport to do
no more than interpret the statute. Simply, they try to say what the statute means and refer to no
single person or party in particular but concern all those belonging to the same class which may
be covered by the said rules. Finally, contingent rules are those issued by an administrative
authority based on the existence of certain facts or things upon which the enforcement of the law
depends.

When an administrative rule is merely interpretative in nature, its applicability needs nothing
further than its bare issuance, for it gives no real consequence more than what the law itself has
already prescribed.—In general, an administrative regulation needs to comply with the
requirements laid down by Executive Order No. 292, s. 1987, otherwise known as the
“Administrative Code of 1987,” on prior notice, hearing, and publication in order to be valid and
binding, except when the same is merely an interpretative rule. This is because “when an
administrative rule is merely interpretative in nature, its applicability needs nothing further than its
bare issuance, for it gives no real consequence more than what the law itself has already
prescribed. When, on the other hand, the administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for
the means that can facilitate or render least cumbersome the implementation of the law but
substantially increases the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at least
to those directly affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed, before that
new issuance is given the force and effect of law.
 4

G.R. No. 101279 August 6, 1992

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC., petitioner,

vs.
HON. RUBEN D. TORRES, as Secretary of the Department of Labor & Employment, and
JOSE N. SARMIENTO, as Administrator of the PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT
ADMINISTRATION, respondents.

The Philippine Association of Service Exporters (PASEI) filed this petition for prohibition with
temporary restraining order to prohibit and enjoin the Secretary of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) and the Administrator of the Philippine National Labor Relations Board (PNLRB).

Overseas Employment Administration (or POEA) from enforcing and implementing DOLE
Department Order No. 16, Series of 1991 and POEA Memorandum Circulars Nos. 30 and 37,
Series of 1991, temporarily suspending the recruitment of Filipino domestic workers by private
employment agencies... Helpers for Hong Kong and DOLE vesting... the responsibility for
processing and deploying such workers

PASEI is the largest national organization of licensed and authorized private employment and
recruitment agencies... Following the publication of stories about the mistreatment of Filipino
housemaids working in Hong Kong, DOLE Secretary... issued Department Order No. 16, Series
of 1991, temporarily suspending private employment agency recruitment... "Filipino domestic
workers heading to Hong Kong"

The DOLE itself, through the POEA took over the business of deploying such Hong Kong-bound
workers.

Pursuant to the above DOLE circular, the POEA issued Memorandum Circular No. 30, Series of
1991, dated July 10, 1991, providing GUIDELINES on the Government processing and
deployment of Filipino domestic helpers to Hong Kong and the accreditation of Hong Kong
recruitment... agencies intending to hire Filipino domestic helpers.

The POEA Administrator also issued Memorandum Circular No. 37, Series of 1991, on the
processing of employment contracts of domestic workers for Hong Kong.

The petitioner, PASEI, filed this petition for prohibition to annul the aforementioned DOLE and
POEA circulars and to prohibit their implementation for the following reasons:

That the respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion and/or in excess of their rule-making
authority in issuing said circulars;

That the assailed DOLE and POEA circulars are contrary to the Constitution, are unreasonable,
unfair and oppressive; and

That the requirements of publication and filing with the Office of the National Administrative
Register were not complied with.

ISSUE:

1. that the respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion and/or in excess of
their rule-making authority in issuing said circulars;
2. that the assailed DOLE and POEA circulars are contrary to the Constitution, are
unreasonable, unfair and oppressive; and
 5

3. that the requirements of publication and filing with the Office of the National
Administrative Register were not complied with
Ruling:

Administrative Law; Quasi-legislative and quasijudicial powers; The vesture of quasi-

legislative and quasi-judicial powers in administrative bodies is not unconstitutional,
unreasonable and oppressive. It has been necessitated by “the growing complexity of
the modern society.”—The vesture of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers in
administrative bodies is not unconstitutional, unreasonable and oppressive. It has
been necessitated by “the growing complexity of the modern society” (Solid Homes,
Inc. vs. Payawal, 177 SCRA 72, 79). More and more administrative bodies are
necessary to help in the regulation of society’s ramified activities. “Specialized the
particular field assigned to them, they can deal with the problems thereof with more
expertise and dispatch than can be expected from the legislature or the courts of
justice” (Ibid.).

Same; Labor Law; Police power; The power to restrict and regulate conferred by Art.
36 of the Labor Code involves a grant of police power.—It is noteworthy that the
assailed circulars do not prohibit the petitioner from engaging in the recruitment and
deployment of Filipino landbased workers for overseas employment. A careful
reading of the challenged administrative issuances discloses that the same fall within
the “administrative and policing powers expressly or by necessary implication
conferred” upon the respondents (People vs. Maceren, 79 SCRA 450). The power to
“restrict and regulate conferred by Article 36 of the Labor Code involves a grant of
police power (City of Naga vs. Court of Appeals, 24 SCRA 898). To “restrict” means
“to confine, limit or stop” (p. 62, Rollo) and whereas the power to “regulate” means
“the power to protect, foster, promote, preserve, and control with due regard for the
interests, first and foremost, of the public, then of the utility and of its patrons”
(Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation vs. Alcuaz, 180 SCRA 218).

Same; Same; Administrative Circulars; Publication; Administrative rules and

regulations must be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law
pursuant to a valid delegation.—Once more, we advert to our ruling in Tañada vs.
Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446 that: “x x x Administrative rules and regulations must also be
published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a
valid delegation.” (p. 447.) “Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in
nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the
public, need not be published. Neither is publication required of the so-called letters
of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to
be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties.” (p. 448.) “We
agree that publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to
inform the public of the content of the laws.” (p. 448.) For lack of proper publication,
the administrative circulars in question may not be enforced and implemented. Phil.
 6

Association of Service Exporters, Inc. vs. Torres, 212 SCRA 298, G.R. No. 101279
August 6, 1992

G.R. No. 116356 June 29, 1998

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and DAVAO PILOTS ASSOCIATION, respondents.

Facts:

Respondent elevated a complaint against petitioner for unpaid fees for pilotage service
rendered. Despite repeated demands, petitioner failed to pay and prays bedirected to
pay with legal rate of interest from the filing of the complaint and othersuch other relief.
The petitioner assailed the constitutionality of the EO 1088 upon which
respondentbased its claims. Petitioner insists that it should pay pilotage fees in
accordance withand on the basis of the memorandum circulars issued by the PPA, the
administrativebody vested under PD 857. The trial court directed the petitioner to pay
respondent on sum of unpaid pilotagefees, legal rate of interest, attorney's fees and
costs. The trial court added that thefactual antecedents of the controversy are simple;
the petitioner insists on paying thefees prescribed under PPA circulars because EO 1088
sets a higher rate, petitionerthen assailed its constitutionality. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court’sdecision in toto

Issue :

In sum, petitioner raises this main issue: whether Executive Order 1088 is unconstitutional.

Ruling:

Petitioner contends that EO 1088 10 is unconstitutional, because (1) its interpretation and
application are left to private respondent, a private person, 11 and (2) it constitutes an undue
delegation of powers. Petitioner insists that it should pay pilotage fees in accordance with and on
the basis of the memorandum circulars issued by the PPA, the administrative body vested under
PD 857 12 with the power to regulate and prescribe pilotage fees. In assailing the
constitutionality of EO 1088, the petitioner repeatedly asks: "Is the private respondent vested
with power to interpret Executive Order No. 1088

Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 291 SCRA 485, G.R. No. 116356 June 29,
1998 Administrative Law; Statutes; Public Utilities;
Rate Fixing; Ships and Shipping; The power to fix the rates of charges for services, including
pilotage service, has always been regarded as legislative in character; Executive Order No. 1088
is a valid statute and the Philippine Ports Authority is duty bound to comply with its provisions.—
In Philippine Interisland Shipping Association of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, the
Supreme Court, through Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, upheld the validity and constitutionality
of Executive Order 1088 in no uncertain terms. We aptly iterate our pronouncement in said case,
viz.: “It is not an answer to say that E.O. No. 1088 should not be considered a statute because
that would imply the withdrawal of power from the PPA. What determines whether an act is a law
or an administrative issuance is not its form but its nature. Here as we have already said, the
power to fix the rates of charges for services, including pilotage service, has always been
regarded as legislative in character. x x x x x x x x x It is worthy to note that E.O. No. 1088
provides for adjusted pilotage service rates without withdrawing the power of the PPA to impose,
 7

prescribe, increase or decrease rates, charges or fees. The reason is because E.O. No. 1088 is
not meant simply to fix new pilotage rates. Its legislative purpose is the “rationalization of pilotage
service charges, through the imposition of uniform and adjusted rates for foreign and coastwise
vessels in all Philippine ports. x x x x x x x x x We conclude that E.O. No. 1088 is a valid statute
and that the PPA is duty bound to comply with its provisions. The PPA may increase the rates
but it may not decrease them below those mandated by E.O. No. 1088. x x x.”