People of the Philippines v.

Macaren Ponente: Aquino October 18, 1977 Statement of Facts The five accused in this case (Buenaventura, Reyes, Reyes, Aquino and del Rosario) are alleged to have resorted to electro fishing in the waters of Barrio San Pablo Norte Sta. Cruz in the morning of March 1, 1969 The Constabulary investigator charged the five of them with having violated Fisheries Administrative Order No. 84-1 Statement of the Case The MTC quashed the complaint The CFI affirmed the dismissal holding that electro fishing cannot be penalized because electric current is not an obnoxious or poisonous substances as contemplated in section 11 of the Fisheries Law, and that it is not a substance but a form of energy. Furthermore, the law itself does not clearly prohibit electro fishing so neither the executive nor the judiciary departments may consider it unlawful. As such, AO 84-1 should be held invalid o The prosecution appealed to the SC citing as the legal sanctions for the prohibition against electro fishing in fresh water fisheries The rule making power of the Department Secretary under sec 4 of the Fisheries Law The function of the Commissioner of Fisheries to enforce the provisions of the Fisheries Law and to execute the rules and regulations consistent with the purpose thereof The declared national policy to encourage, promote and conserver fishing resources Section 83 of the Fisheries Law provides that any other violation of the Fisheries Law or of any rules and regulations promulgated thereunder shall subject the offender to a find of not more than two hundred pesos, or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, in the discretion of the court Issue 1) Whether or not the CFI acted in excess of its jurisdiction 2) Whether or not Administrative Order 84-1 is valid 3) Whether or not the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources exceeded his authority in penalizing electro fishing by means of an administrative order Held Held 1. Yes

Ratio

2. Invalid

The CFI (and the prosecution) in assuming jurisdiction assumed that electro fishing is punishable under section 83 of the Fisheries Law, but this is incorrect. The crime of electro fishing as defined by Administrative Order 84-1 is punishable with a sum up to P500, which is more than the amount prescribed in section 83 of the Fisheries Law The Court ruled that the case falls within the concurrent original jurisdiction of the inferior courts and the CFI. As such, it is to be directly appealed to the Supreme Court and not to the CFI The CFI did not have any appellate jurisdiction over the case therefore its order affirming the MTCs order is void for lack of motion The reliance of the prosecution to section 83 is out of place because the penalty for electro fishing under AO 84-1 differs from the penalty fixed in section 83 The Fisheries Law does not expressly prohibit electro fishing if the lawmaking body intended to punish electro fishing, a penal provision to that effect could have been embodied in the old Fisheries Law, instead, what is prohibited are 1. The use of obnoxious or poisonous substance or explosives in fishing 2. Unlawful fishing in deepsea fisheries 3. Unlawful taking of marine molusca 4. Illegal taking of sponges 5. Failure of licensed to report the kind and quality of fish caught

 3. Yes

6. Other violations Nowhere in the law is electro fishing specifically punished. AO 84-1 does not contemplate that this offense falls with the same category as other violations because the penal provision for electro fishing differs from that of section 83 The lawmaking body cannot delegate to an executive official the power to declare what acts should constitute an offense The Court also notes that AO 84 initially punished electro fishing, but was later amended to punish electro fishing in fresh water fisheries only. As such, electro fishing is not condemnable per se Note: electro fishing is now clearly punishable under the Fisheries Law because of its inclusion in PD 704 Administrative agents are clothed with rule-making powers in order to cover any gaps that the lawmaking body failed to anticipate or provide for o This is a relaxation of the principle of separation of powers and is an exception to the non-delegation of legislative powers o They must be, however, in harmony with the provisions of law and should be for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions. An administrative order cannot amend an act of Congress; cannot amend or expand statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute The regulation penalizing electro fishing is not strictly in accordance with the Fisheries Law because the law itself does not expressly punish electro fishing. Because the law does not penalize the act, the act of the Secretary is equivalent to legislating on the matter, a power that has not been and cannot be delegated to him.

Judgment: CFI decision is set aside for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Order of dismissal rendered by the MTC is affirmed