7/30/2019 37 - People v Maceren

1/2

LIMITS OF RULE-MAKING POWER - 37

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. MAXIMO A. MACEREN CFI, Sta. Cruz,Laguna, JOSE BUENAVENTURA, GODOFREDO REYES, BENJAMIN REYES, NAZARIOAQUINO and CARLO DEL ROSARIO, accused-appellees. (1977)

Since electro fishing is not expressly punished by the Fisheries Law, the Secretary ofAgriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries may not issue aregulation penalizing it. Administrative agencies may not enact criminal statutes.

FactsBuenaventura et al were charged with a violation of Fisheries Administrative Order No. 84-1,which penalizes and prohibits against electro fishing, which is the catching of fish with theuse of electric current.

The lower court held that electro fishing is not punishable because it cannot be consideredan obnoxious or poisonous substance contemplated by Section 11 of the Fisheries Law. Inthe first place, the Fisheries Law does not expressly punish electro fishing.

The prosecution argues that the prohibition against electro fishing is valid because of1. the rule-making power of the Department Secretary under Section 4 of the Fisheries Law2. the function of the Commissioner of Fisheries to enforce the provisions of the FisheriesLaw and make necessary rules and regulations3. the national policy to encourage, promote and conserve fishing resources4. Section 83 of the Fisheries Law which is a catch-all penalty for any other violation of theFisheries Law or its related rules and regulations

IssueDid the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheriesexceed their authority in issuing AO 84-1? YES

HeldIt is undisputed that the Secretary has rule-making powers. Section 4 of the Fisheries Lawallows the him to issue instructions, orders and regulations consistent with the law in orderto enforce it. Granting rule-making power to administrative agencies is an exception to thenondelegation of legislative powers. However, this power must be restricted to regulatingthe mode or carrying into effect of enacted laws

The Fisheries Law does not expressly prohibit electro fishing. Since there is no expressprovision, the Secretary and Commissioner cannot penalize it. Thus, AO 84-1and itsprecursor, AO 84, have no legal basis. Mere executive regulation is not legally adequate topenalize electro fishing.

As per People v Exconde, lawmakers cannot delegate the power to declare what acts shouldconstitute an offense to executive officials. It can only authorize the issuance of regulations

and the imposition of the penalty provided for in the law itself. This is because declaringwhat constitutes a crime is a power exclusively belonging to the Legislature.

According to the same case, administrative agents are given rulemaking powers because itis impossible for lawmakers to anticipate and provide for all possible scenarios may arisefrom enforcement of the law.

When there is a discrepancy between a statute and an implementing rule or regulation, thestatute must prevail because the latter cannot go beyond what the former provides.

7/30/2019 37 - People v Maceren

2/2

As per Glustrom v State, penal statutes are strictly construed and while administrativeagencies may make rules and regulations to effect an enacted law, they still cannot enactcriminal statutes. Administrative agencies are only given administrative or policing powers.

The enactment of rules by executive officials that extend or conflict with the statute they arebased on is an administrative attempt to legislate.

Digested by Dee Agustin (A2015)