DECISION SARMIENTO, J.

: The petitioners pray for injunctive relief, to stop the Energy Regulatory Board (Board hereinafter) from implementing its Order, dated September 21, 1990, mandating a provisional increase in the prices of petroleum and petroleum products, as follows: PRODUCTS IN PESOS PER LITER OPSF Premium Gasoline 1.7700 Regular Gasoline 1.7700 Avturbo 1.8664 Kerosene 1.2400 Diesel Oil 1.2400 Fuel Oil 1.4900 Feedstock 1.4900 LPG 0.8487 Asphalts 2.7160 Thinners 1.7121 1 It appears that on September 10, 1990, Caltex (Philippines), Inc., Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, and Petron Corporation proferred separate applications with the Board for permission to increase the wholesale posted prices of petroleum products, as follows: Caltex P3.2697 per liter Shell 2.0338 per liter Petron 2.00 per liter 2 and meanwhile, for provisional authority to increase temporarily such wholesale posted prices pending further proceedings.
:-cralaw

WHEREFORE, considering the foregoing, and pursuant to Section 8 of Executive Order No. 172, this Board hereby grants herein applicants' prayer for provisional relief and, accordingly, authorizes said applicants a weighted average provisional increase of ONE PESO AND FORTY-TWO CENTAVOS (P1.42) per liter in the wholesale posted prices of their various petroleum products enumerated below, refined and/or marketed by them locally. 3 The petitioners submit that the above Order had been issued with grave abuse of discretion, tantamount to lack of jurisdiction, and correctible by Certiorari. The petitioner, Senator Ernesto Maceda, 4 also submits that the same was issued without proper notice and hearing in violation of Section 3, paragraph (e), of Executive Order No. 172; that the Board, in decreeing an increase, had created a new source for the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF), or otherwise that it had levied a tax, a power vested in the legislature, and/or that it had "recollected", by an act of taxation, ad valorem taxes on oil which Republic Act No. 6965 had abolished. The petitioner, Atty. Oliver Lozano, 5 likewise argues that the Board's Order was issued without notice and hearing, and hence, without due process of law. The intervenor, the Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS/FSM)-W.F.T.U., 6 argues on the other hand, that the increase cannot be allowed since the respondents oil companies had not exhausted their existing oil stock which they had bought at old prices and that they cannot be allowed to charge new rates for stock purchased at such lower rates. The Court set the cases (in G.R. Nos. 95203-05) for hearing on October 25, 1990, in which Senator Maceda and his counsel, Atty. Alexander Padilla, argued. The Solicitor General, on behalf of the Board, also presented his arguments, together with Board Commissioner Rex Tantiangco. Attys. Federico Alikpala, Jr. and Joselia Poblador represented the oil firms (Petron and Caltex, respectively). The parties were thereafter required to submit their memorandums after which, the Court considered the cases submitted for resolution. On November consolidated. 20, 1990, the Court ordered these cases

On September 21, 1990, the Board, in a joint (on three applications) Order granted provisional relief as follows:

On November 27, 1990, we gave due course to both petitions.

The Court finds no merit in these petitions. Senator Maceda and Atty. Lozano, in questioning the lack of a hearing, have overlooked the provisions of Section 8 of Executive Order No. 172, which we quote: "SECTION 8. Authority to Grant Provisional Relief . The Board may, upon the filing of an application, petition or complaint or at any stage thereafter and without prior hearing, on the basis of supporting papers duly verified or authenticated, grant provisional relief on motion of a party in the case or on its own initiative, without prejudice to a final decision after hearing, should the Board find that the pleadings, together with such affidavits, documents and other evidence which may be submitted in support of the motion, substantially support the provisional order: Provided, That the Board shall immediately schedule and conduct a hearing thereon within thirty (30) days thereafter, upon publication and notice to all affected parties.
: nad

may resort to one but not to both at the same time. Section 3(e) outlines the jurisdiction of the Board and the grounds for which it may decree a price adjustment, subject to the requirements of notice and hearing. Pending that, however, it may order, under Section 8, an authority to increase provisionally, without need of a hearing, subject to the final outcome of the proceeding. The Board, of course, is not prevented from conducting a hearing on the grant of provisional authority which is of course, the better procedure however, it cannot be stigmatized later if it failed to conduct one. As we held in Citizens' Alliance for Consumer Protection v. Energy Regulatory Board. 7 In the light of Section 8 quoted above, public respondent Board need not even have conducted formal hearings in these cases prior to issuance of its Order of 14 August 1987 granting a provisional increase of prices. The Board, upon its own discretion and on the basis of documents and evidence submitted by private respondents, could have issued an order granting provisional relief immediately upon filing by private respondents of their respective applications. In this respect, the Court considers the evidence presented by private respondents in support of their applications i.e., evidence showing that importation costs of petroleum products had gone up; that the peso had depreciated in value; and that the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) had by then been depleted as substantial and hence constitutive of at least prima facie basis for issuance by the Board of a provisional relief order granting an increase in the prices of petroleum products. 8 We do not therefore find the challenged action of the Board to have been done in violation of the due process clause. The petitioners may contest however, the applications at the hearings proper. Senator Maceda's attack on the Order in question on premises that it constitutes an act of taxation or that it negates the effects of Republic Act No. 6965, cannot prosper. Republic Act No. 6965 operated to lower taxes on petroleum and petroleum products by imposing specific taxes rather than ad valorem taxes thereon; it is, not, however, an insurance against an "oil hike", whenever warranted, or is it a price control mechanism on petroleum and petroleum products. The statute had possibly forestalled a larger hike, but it operated no more.
: nad

As the Order itself indicates, the authority for provisional increase falls within the above provision. There is no merit in the Senator's contention that the "applicable" provision is Section 3, paragraph (e) of the Executive Order, which we quote: (e) Whenever the Board has determined that there is a shortage of any petroleum product, or when public interest so requires, it may take such steps as it may consider necessary, including the temporary adjustment of the levels of prices of petroleum products and the payment to the Oil Price Stabilization Fund created under Presidential Decree No. 1956 by persons or entities engaged in the petroleum industry of such amounts as may be determined by the Board, which will enable the importer to recover its cost of importation. What must be stressed is that while under Executive Order No. 172, a hearing is indispensable, it does not preclude the Board from ordering, ex parte, a provisional increase, as it did here, subject to its final disposition of whether or not: (1) to make it permanent; (2) to reduce or increase it further; or (3) to deny the application. Section 37 paragraph (e) is akin to a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary attachment issued by the courts, which are given ex parte, and which are subject to the resolution of the main case. Section 3, paragraph (e) and Section 8 do not negate each other, or otherwise, operate exclusively of the other, in that the Board

The Board Order authorizing the proceeds generated by the increase to be deposited to the OPSF is not an act of taxation. It is authorized by Presidential Decree No. 1956, as amended by Executive Order No. 137, as follows:

SECTION 8. There is hereby created a Trust Account in the books of accounts of the Ministry of Energy to be designated as Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) for the purpose of minimizing frequent price changes brought about by exchange rate adjustments and/or changes in world market prices of crude oil and imported petroleum products. The Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) may be sourced from any of the following: a) Any increase in the tax collection from ad valorem tax or customs duty imposed on petroleum products subject to tax under this Decree arising from exchange rate adjustment, as may be determined by the Minister of Finance in consultation with the Board of Energy; b) Any increase in the tax collection as a result of the lifting of tax exemptions of government corporations, as may be determined by the Minister of Finance in consultation with the Board of Energy; c) Any additional amount to be imposed on petroleum products to augment the resources of the Fund through an appropriate Order that may be issued by the Board of Energy requiring payment by persons or companies engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing and/or marketing petroleum products; d) Any resulting peso cost differentials in case the actual peso costs paid by oil companies in the importation of crude oil and petroleum products is less than the peso costs computed using the reference foreign exchange rates as fixed by the Board of Energy. Anent claims that oil companies cannot charge new prices for oil purchased at old rates, suffice it to say that the increase in question was not prompted alone by the increase in world oil prices arising from tension in the Persian Gulf. What the Court gathers from the pleadings as well as events of which it takes judicial notice, is that: (1) as of June 30, 1990, the OPSF has incurred a deficit of P6.1 Billion; (2) the exchange rate has fallen to P28.00 to $1.00; (3) the country's balance of payments is expected to reach $1 Billion; (4) our trade deficit is at $2.855 Billion as of the first nine months of the year. Evidently, authorities have been unable to collect enough taxes necessary to replenish the OPSF as provided by Presidential Decree No. 1956, and hence, there was no available alternative but to hike existing prices. The OPSF, as the Court held in the aforecited CACP cases, must not be understood to be a funding designed to guarantee oil firms' profits although as a subsidy, or a trust account, the Court has no

doubt that oil firms make money from it. As we held there, however, the OPSF was established precisely to protect the consuming public from the erratic movement of oil prices and to preclude oil companies from taking advantage of fluctuations occurring every so often. As a buffer mechanism, it stabilizes domestic prices by bringing about a uniform rate rather than leaving pricing to the caprices of the market. In all likelihood, therefore, an oil hike would have probably been imminent, with or without trouble in the Gulf, although trouble would have probably aggravated it.
: nad

The Court is not to be understood as having prejudged the justness of an oil price increase amid the above premises. What the Court is saying is that it thinks that based thereon, the Government has made out a prima facie case to justify the provisional increase in question. Let the Court therefore make clear that these findings are not final; the burden, however, is on the petitioners' shoulders to demonstrate the fact that the present economic picture does not warrant a permanent increase. There is no doubt that the increase in oil prices in question (not to mention another one impending, which the Court understands has been under consideration by policy-makers) spells hard(er) times for the Filipino people. The Court can not, however, debate the wisdom of policy or the logic behind it (unless it is otherwise arbitrary), not because the Court agrees with policy, but because the Court is not the suitable forum for debate. It is a question best judged by the political leadership which after all, determines policy, and ultimately, by the electorate, that stands to be better for it or worse off, either in the short or long run. At this point, the Court shares the indignation of the people over the conspiracy of events and regrets its own powerlessness, if by this Decision it has been powerless. The constitutional scheme of things has simply left it with no choice. In fine, we find no grave abuse of discretion committed by the respondent Board in issuing its questioned Order. WHEREFORE, these petitions are DISMISSED. No costs. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION 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.

cuffed reach, to the detriment and prejudice of the populace" (Criminal Case No. 5429). Upon motion of the accused, the municipal court quashed the complaint. The prosecution appealed. The Court of First Instance of Laguna affirmed the order of dismissal (Civil Case No. SC-36). The case is now before this Court on appeal by the prosecution under Republic Act No. 5440. The lower court held that electro fishing cannot be penalize because electric current is not an obnoxious or poisonous substance as contemplated in section I I of the Fisheries Law and that it is not a substance at all but a form of energy conducted or transmitted by substances. The lower court further held that, since the law does not clearly prohibit electro fishing, the executive and judicial departments cannot consider it unlawful. As legal background, it should be stated that section 11 of the Fisheries Law prohibits "the use of any obnoxious or poisonous substance" in fishing. Section 76 of the same law punishes any person who uses an obnoxious or poisonous substance in fishing with a fine of not more than five hundred pesos nor more than five thousand, and by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than five years. It is noteworthy that the Fisheries Law does not expressly punish .electro fishing." Notwithstanding the silence of the law, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Fisheries, promulgated Fisheries Administrative Order No. 84 (62 O.G. 1224), prohibiting electro fishing in all Philippine waters. The order is quoted below:
+.wph!1

AQUINO, J.:

t .hqw

This is a case involving the validity of a 1967 regulation, penalizing electro fishing in fresh water fisheries, 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. On March 7, 1969 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 having violated Fisheries Administrative Order No. 84-1. It was alleged in the complaint that the five accused in the morning of March 1, 1969 resorted to electro fishing in the waters of Barrio San Pablo Norte, Sta. Cruz by "using their own motor banca, equipped with motor; with a generator colored green with attached dynamo colored gray or somewhat white; and electrocuting device locally known as sensored with a somewhat webbed copper wire on the tip or other end of a bamboo pole with electric wire attachment which was attached to the dynamo direct and with the use of these devices or equipments catches fish thru electric current, which destroy any aquatic animals within its

SUBJECT: PROHIBITING ELECTRO FISHING IN ALL WATERS

+.wph!1

OF THE PHILIPPINES. Pursuant to Section 4 of Act No. 4003, as amended, and Section 4 of R.A. No. 3512, the following rules and regulations regarding the prohibition of electro fishing in all waters of the Philippines are promulgated for the information and guidance of all concerned.
+.w ph!1

SECTION 1. Definition. Words and terms used in this Order 11 construed as follows: (a) Philippine waters or territorial waters of the Philippines' includes all waters of the Philippine Archipelago, as defined in the t between the United States and Spain, dated respectively the tenth of December, eighteen hundred ninety eight and the seventh of November, nineteen hundred. For the purpose of this order, rivers, lakes and other bodies of fresh waters are included. (b) Electro Fishing. Electro fishing is the catching of fish with the use of electric current. The equipment used are of many electrical devices which may be battery or generator-operated and from and available source of electric current. (c) 'Persons' includes firm, corporation, association, agent or employee. (d) 'Fish' includes other aquatic products. SEC. 2. Prohibition. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in electro fishing or to catch fish by the use of electric current in any portion of the Philippine waters except for research, educational and scientific purposes which must be covered by a permit issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources which shall be carried at all times. SEC. 3. Penalty. Any violation of the provisions of this Administrative Order shall subject the offender to a fine of not exceeding five hundred pesos (P500.00) or imprisonment of not extending six (6) months or both at the discretion of the Court. SEC. 4. Repealing Provisions. All administrative orders or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Administrative Order are hereby revoked. SEC. 5. Effectivity. This Administrative Order shall take effect six (60) days after its publication in the Office Gazette.

On June 28, 1967 the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, upon the recommendation of the Fisheries Commission, issued Fisheries Administrative Order No. 84-1, amending section 2 of Administrative Order No. 84, by restricting the ban against electro fishing to fresh water fisheries (63 O.G. 9963). Thus, the phrase "in any portion of the Philippine waters" found in section 2, was changed by the amendatory order to read as follows: "in fresh water fisheries in the Philippines, such as rivers, lakes, swamps, dams, irrigation canals and other bodies of fresh water." The Court of First Instance and the prosecution (p. 11 of brief) assumed that electro fishing is punishable under section 83 of the Fisheries Law (not under section 76 thereof), which provides that any other violation of that law "or of any rules and regulations promulgated thereunder shall subject the offender to a fine of not more than two hundred pesos (P200), or in t for not more than six months, or both, in the discretion of the court." That assumption is incorrect because 3 of the aforequoted Administrative Order No. 84 imposes a fm of not exceeding P500 on a person engaged in electro fishing, which amount the 83. It seems that the Department of Fisheries prescribed their own penalty for swift fishing which penalty is less than the severe penalty imposed in section 76 and which is not Identified to the at penalty imposed in section 83. Had Administrative Order No. 84 adopted the fighter penalty prescribed in on 83, then the crime of electro fishing would be within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the inferior court (Sec. 44 [f], Judiciary Law; People vs. Ragasi, L-28663, September 22, We have discussed this pre point, not raised in the briefs, because it is obvious that the crime of electro fishing which is punishable with a sum up to P500, falls within the concurrent original jurisdiction of the inferior courts and the Court of First instance (People vs. Nazareno, L-40037, April 30, 1976, 70 SCRA 531 and the cases cited therein). And since the instant case was filed in the municipal court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, a provincial capital, the order of d rendered by that municipal court was directly appealable to the Court, not to the Court of First Instance of Laguna (Sec. 45 and last par. of section 87 of the Judiciary Law; Esperat vs. Avila, L-25992, June 30, 1967, 20 SCRA 596).

It results that the Court of First Instance of Laguna had no appellate jurisdiction over the case. Its order affirming the municipal court's order of dismissal is void for lack of motion. This appeal shall be treated as a direct appeal from the municipal court to this Court. (See People vs. Del Rosario, 97 Phil. 67). In this appeal, the prosecution argues that Administrative Orders Nos. 84 and 84-1 were not issued under section 11 of the Fisheries Law which, as indicated above, punishes fishing by means of an obnoxious or poisonous substance. This contention is not well-taken because, as already stated, the Penal provision of Administrative Order No. 84 implies that electro fishing is penalized as a form of fishing by means of an obnoxious or poisonous substance under section 11. The prosecution cites as the legal sanctions for the prohibition against electro fishing in fresh water fisheries (1) the rule-making power of the Department Secretary under section 4 of the Fisheries Law; (2) the function of the Commissioner of Fisheries to enforce the provisions of the Fisheries Law and the regulations Promulgated thereunder and to execute the rules and regulations consistent with the purpose for the creation of the Fisheries Commission and for the development of fisheries (Sec. 4[c] and [h] Republic Act No. 3512; (3) the declared national policy to encourage, Promote and conserve our fishing resources (Sec. 1, Republic Act No. 3512), and (4) section 83 of the Fisheries Law which provides that "any other violation of" the Fisheries Law or of any rules and regulations promulgated thereunder "shall subject the offender to a fine of not more than two hundred pesos, or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, in the discretion of the court." As already pointed out above, the prosecution's reference to section 83 is out of place because the penalty for electro fishing under Administrative order No. 84 is not the same as the penalty fixed in section 83. We are of the opinion that the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries exceeded their authority in issuing Fisheries Administrative Orders Nos. 84 and 84-1 and that those orders are not warranted under the Fisheries Commission, Republic Act No. 3512. The reason is that the 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. In other words, Administrative Orders Nos. 84 and 84-1, in penalizing electro fishing, are devoid of any legal basis. 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. That law punishes (1) the use of obnoxious or poisonous substance, or explosive in fishing; (2) unlawful fishing in deepsea fisheries; (3) unlawful taking of marine molusca, (4) illegal taking of sponges; (5) failure of licensed fishermen to report the kind and quantity of fish caught, and (6) other violations. Nowhere in that law is electro fishing specifically punished. Administrative Order No. 84, in punishing electro fishing, does not contemplate that such an offense fails within the category of "other violations" because, as already shown, the penalty for electro fishing is the penalty next lower to the penalty for fishing with the use of obnoxious or poisonous substances, fixed in section 76, and is not the same as the penalty for "other violations" of the law and regulations fixed in section 83 of the 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. (People vs. Exconde 101 Phil. 11 25, citing 11 Am. Jur. 965 on p. 11 32). 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 condemnable per se. It could be tolerated in marine waters. That circumstances strengthens the view that the old law does not eschew all forms of electro fishing. However, at present, there is no more doubt that electro fishing is punishable under the Fisheries Law and that it cannot be penalized merely by executive revolution because Presidential Decree No. 704, which is a revision and consolidation of all laws and decrees affecting fishing and fisheries and which was promulgated on May 16, 1975 (71 O.G. 4269), expressly punishes electro fishing in fresh water and salt water areas. That decree provides:
+.wph!1

SEC. 33. Illegal fishing, dealing in illegally caught fish or fishery/aquatic products. It shall he unlawful for any person to catch, take or gather or cause to be caught, taken or gathered fish or fishery/aquatic products in Philippine waters with the use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substance, or by the use of electricity as defined in paragraphs (1), (m) and (d), respectively, of Section 3 hereof: ... The decree Act No. 4003, as amended, Republic Acts Nos. 428, 3048, 3512 and 3586, Presidential Decrees Nos. 43, 534 and 553, and all , Acts, Executive Orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with it (Sec. 49, P. D. No. 704). The inclusion in that decree of provisions defining and penalizing electro fishing is a clear recognition of the deficiency or silence on that point of the old Fisheries Law. It is an admission that a mere executive regulation is not legally adequate to penalize electro fishing. Note that the definition of electro fishing, which is found in section 1 (c) of Fisheries Administrative Order No. 84 and which is not provided for the old Fisheries Law, is now found in section 3(d) of the decree. Note further that the decree penalty electro fishing by "imprisonment from two (2) to four (4) years", a punishment which is more severe than the penalty of a time of not excluding P500 or imprisonment of not more than six months or both fixed in section 3 of Fisheries Administrative Order No. 84. An examination of the rule-making power of executive officials and administrative agencies and, in particular, of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (now Secretary of Natural Resources) under the Fisheries Law sustains the view that he ex his authority in penalizing electro fishing by means of an administrative order. Administrative agent are clothed with rule-making powers because the lawmaking body finds it impracticable, if not impossible, to anticipate and provide for the multifarious and complex situations that may be encountered in enforcing the law. All that is required is that the regulation should be germane to the defects and purposes of the law and that it should conform to the standards that the law prescribes (People vs. Exconde 101 Phil. 1125; Director of Forestry vs. Mu;oz, L-24796, June 28, 1968, 23 SCRA 1183, 1198; Geukeko vs. Araneta, 102 Phil. 706, 712).

The lawmaking body cannot possibly provide for all the details in the enforcement of a particular statute (U.S. vs. Tupasi Molina, 29 Phil. 119, 125, citing U.S. vs. Grimaud 220 U.S. 506; Interprovincial Autobus Co., Inc. vs. Coll. of Internal Revenue, 98 Phil. 290, 295-6). The grant of the rule-making power to administrative agencies is a relaxation of the principle of separation of powers and is an exception to the nondeleption of legislative, powers. Administrative regulations or "subordinate legislation calculated to promote the public interest are necessary because of "the growing complexity of modem life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulations, and the increased difficulty of administering the law" Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil. 726; People vs. Rosenthal and Osme;a, 68 Phil. 328). 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, of course, the law itself cannot be extended. (U.S. vs. Tupasi Molina, supra). An administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress (Santos vs. Estenzo, 109 Phil. 419, 422; Teoxon vs. Members of the d of Administrators, L-25619, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 585; Manuel vs. General Auditing Office, L-28952, December 29, 1971, 42 SCRA 660; Deluao vs. Casteel, L-21906, August 29, 1969, 29 SCRA 350). The rule-making power must be confined to details for regulating the mode or proceeding to carry into effect the law as it his been enacted. The power cannot be extended to amending or expanding the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute. Rules that subvert the statute cannot be sanctioned. (University of Santo Tomas vs. Board of Tax A 93 Phil. 376, 382, citing 12 C.J. 845-46. As to invalid regulations, see of Internal Revenue vs. Villaflor 69 Phil. 319, Wise & Co. vs. Meer, 78 Phil. 655, 676; Del March vs. Phil. Veterans Administrative, L-27299, June 27, 1973, 51 SCRA 340, 349). There is no question that the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources has rule-making powers. Section 4 of the Fisheries law provides that the Secretary "shall from time to time issue instructions, orders, and regulations consistent" with that law, "as may be and proper to carry into effect the provisions thereof." That power is now vested in the Secretary of Natural Resources by on 7 of the Revised Fisheries law, Presidential December No. 704.

Section 4(h) of Republic Act No. 3512 empower the Co of Fisheries "to prepare and execute upon the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, forms instructions, rules and regulations consistent with the purpose" of that enactment "and for the development of fisheries." Section 79(B) of the Revised Administrative Code provides that "the Department Head shall have the power to promulgate, whenever he may see fit do so, all rules, regulates, orders, memorandums, and other instructions, not contrary to law, to regulate the proper working and harmonious and efficient administration of each and all of the offices and dependencies of his Department, and for the strict enforcement and proper execution of the laws relative to matters under the jurisdiction of said Department; but none of said rules or orders shall prescribe penalties for the violation thereof, except as expressly authorized by law." Administrative regulations issued by a Department Head in conformity with law have the force of law (Valerie vs. Secretary of culture and Natural Resources, 117 Phil. 729, 733; Antique Sawmills, Inc. vs. Zayco, L- 20051, May 30, 1966, 17 SCRA 316). As he exercises the rule-making power by delegation of the lawmaking body, it is a requisite that he should not transcend the bound demarcated by the statute for the exercise of that power; otherwise, he would be improperly exercising legislative power in his own right and not as a surrogate of the lawmaking body. Article 7 of the Civil Code embodies the basic principle that administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution." As noted by Justice Fernando, "except for constitutional officials who can trace their competence to act to the fundamental law itself, a public office must be in the statute relied upon a grant of power before he can exercise it." "department zeal may not be permitted to outrun the authority conferred by statute." (Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Santiago, L-29236, August 21, 1974, 58 SCRA 493, 496-8). "Rules and regulations when promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or authority conferred upon the administrative agency by law, partake of the nature of a statute, and compliance therewith may be enforced by a penal sanction provided in the law. This is so because statutes are usually couched in general terms, after expressing the policy, purposes, objectives, remedies and sanctions intended by the legislature. The

details and the manner of carrying out the law are oftentimes left to the administrative agency entrusted with its enforcement. In this sense, it has been said that rules and regulations are the product of a delegated power to create new or additional legal provisions that have the effect of law." The rule or regulation should be within the scope of the statutory authority granted by the legislature to the administrative agency. (Davis, Administrative Law, p. 194, 197, cited in Victories Milling Co., Inc. vs. Social Security Commission, 114 Phil. 555, 558). In case of discrepancy between the basic law and a rule or regulation issued to implement said law, the basic law prevails because said rule or regulation cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law (People vs. Lim, 108 Phil. 1091). This Court in its decision in the Lim case, supra, promulgated on July 26, 1960, called the attention of technical men in the executive departments, who draft rules and regulations, to the importance and necessity of closely following the legal provisions which they intend to implement so as to avoid any possible misunderstanding or confusion. The rule is that the violation of a regulation prescribed by an executive officer of the government in conformity with and based upon a statute authorizing such regulation constitutes an offense and renders the offender liable to punishment in accordance with the provisions of the law (U.S. vs. Tupasi Molina, 29 Phil. 119, 124). In other words, a violation or infringement of a rule or regulation validly issued can constitute a crime punishable as provided in the authorizing statute and by virtue of the latter (People vs. Exconde 101 Phil. 1125, 1132). It has been held that "to declare what shall constitute a crime and how it shall be punished is a power vested exclusively in the legislature, and it may not be delegated to any other body or agency" (1 Am. Jur. 2nd, sec. 127, p. 938; Texas Co. vs. Montgomery, 73 F. Supp. 527). In the instant case the regulation penalizing electro fishing is not strictly in accordance with the Fisheries Law, under which the regulation was issued, because the law itself does not expressly punish electro fishing. The instant case is similar to People vs. Santos, 63 Phil. 300. The Santos case involves section 28 of Fish and Game Administrative Order No. 2 issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural

Resources pursuant to the aforementioned section 4 of the Fisheries Law. Section 28 contains the proviso that a fishing boat not licensed under the Fisheries Law and under the said administrative order may fish within three kilometers of the shoreline of islands and reservations over which jurisdiction is exercised by naval and military reservations authorities of the United States only upon receiving written permission therefor, which permission may be granted by the Secretary upon recommendation of the military or naval authorities concerned. A violation of the proviso may be proceeded against under section 45 of the Federal Penal Code. Augusto A. Santos was prosecuted under that provision in the Court of First Instance of Cavite for having caused his two fishing boats to fish, loiter and anchor without permission from the Secretary within three kilometers from the shoreline of Corrigidor Island. This Court held that the Fisheries Law does not prohibit boats not subject to license from fishing within three kilometers of the shoreline of islands and reservations over which jurisdiction is exercised by naval and military authorities of the United States, without permission from the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources upon recommendation of the military and naval authorities concerned. As the said law does not penalize the act mentioned in section 28 of the administrative order, the promulgation of that provision by the Secretary "is equivalent to legislating on the matter, a power which has not been and cannot be delegated to him, it being expressly reserved" to the lawmaking body. "Such an 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". Hence, the charge against Santos was dismiss. A penal statute is strictly construed. While an administrative agency has the right to make ranks and regulations to carry into effect a law already enacted, that power should not be confused with the power to enact a criminal statute. An administrative agency can have only the administrative or policing powers expressly or by necessary implication conferred upon it. (Glustrom vs. State, 206 Ga. 734, 58 Second 2d 534; See 2 Am. Jr. 2nd 129-130). 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 but constitute an attempt by an administrative body to legislate (State vs. Miles, Wash. 2nd 322, 105 Pac. 2nd 51). In a prosecution for a violation of an administrative order, it must clearly appear that the order is one which falls within the scope of the authority conferred upon the administrative body, and the order will be scrutinized with special care. (State vs. Miles supra). The Miles case involved a statute which authorized the State Game Commission "to adopt, promulgate, amend and/or repeal, and enforce reasonable rules and regulations governing and/or prohibiting the taking of the various classes of game. Under that statute, the Game Commission promulgated a rule that "it shall be unlawful to offer, pay or receive any reward, prize or compensation for the hunting, pursuing, taking, killing or displaying of any game animal, game bird or game fish or any part thereof." Beryl S. Miles, the owner of a sporting goods store, regularly offered a ten-down cash prize to the person displaying the largest deer in his store during the open for hunting such game animals. For that act, he was charged with a violation of the rule Promulgated by the State Game Commission. It was held that there was no statute penalizing the display of game. What the statute penalized was the taking of game. If the lawmaking body desired to prohibit the display of game, it could have readily said so. It was not lawful for the administrative board to extend or modify the statute. Hence, the indictment against Miles was quashed. The Miles case is similar to this case. WHEREFORE, the lower court's decision of June 9, 1970 is set aside for lack of appellate jurisdiction and the order of dismissal rendered by the municipal court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna in Criminal Case No. 5429 is affirmed. Costs de oficio. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 91023 July 13, 1990 METROPOLITAN TRAFFIC COMMAND WEST TRAFFIC DISTRICT, petitioner, vs. HON. ARSENIO M. GONONG, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8 at Manila, and DANTE S. DAVID, respondents. Dante S. David for and in his own behalf as private respondent.

positions, following which the respondent judge rendered the assailed decision. In ruling for the complainant, Judge Gonong held that LOI 43, which the defendant had invoked, did not empower it "to detach, remove and confiscate vehicle plates of motor vehicles illegally parked and unattended as in the case at bar. It merely authorizes the removal of said vehicles when they are obstacles to free passage or continued flow of traffic on streets and highways." At any rate, he said, the LOI had been repealed by PD 1605. Moreover, the defendant had not been able to point to any MMC rule or regulation or to any city ordinance to justify the questioned act. On the allegation that the practice was "the root cause of graft and corruption or at the very least the equivalent of street racket among defendant's deployed agents," His Honor made the following pointed observations:
At this juncture, it may not be amiss to say, that if the arbitrary and capricious detachment and confiscation of vehicles plates illegally parked and unattended as in the act complained of in the instant case, the image of the man clothed in a traffic or police uniform will be greatly impaired if not cursed with disrespect on the part of those who have suffered at his hands. Worse, he will cease (if he had not already ceased) to be the law-abiding, courageous and valiant protector of a citizen of the Republic that he is meant to be, and instead his real oppressor and enemy, thereby fortifying the contemporaneous public perception that he is a dyed-in-the-wool extortionist if not an unmitigated chiseler. 1

CRUZ, J.: We deal here with a practice known to many motorists in Metro Manila: the removal of the license plates of illegally parked vehicles. This was challenged by the private respondent in the regional trial court of Manila, which held the practice unlawful. The petitioner is now before us, urging reversal of the decision for grave abuse of discretion. The original complaint was filed with the said court on August 10, 1989, by Dante S. David, a lawyer, who claimed that the rear license plate, of his car was removed by the Metropolitan Traffic Command while the vehicle was parked on Escolta. He questioned the petitioner's act on the ground not only that the car was not illegally parked but, more importantly, that there was no ordinance or law authorizing such removal. He asked that the practice be permanently enjoined and that in the meantime a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction be issued. Judge Arsenio M. Gonong issued a temporary restraining order on August 14, 1989, and hearings on the writ of preliminary injunction were held on August 18, 23, and 25, 1989. The writ was granted on this last date. The parties also agreed to submit the case for resolution on the sole issue of whether there was a law or ordinance authorizing the removal of the license plates of illegally parked vehicles. The parties then submitted simultaneous memoranda in support of their respective

It bears noting that this petition should have been filed first with the Court of Appeals, which has concurrent jurisdiction with this Court on decisions of the regional trial courts involving questions of law. However, in view of the importance of the issue raised, we have decided to take cognizance thereof under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court so we can address and resolve the question directly. Upon the filing of this petition, we issued a temporary restraining order dated February 6, 1990, to prevent enforcement of the said decision until further orders from this Court. Thereafter, we required a comment from the private respondent, to which the petitioner filed a reply as also directed. The petitioner reiterates and reinforces its argument in the court below and insists that LOI 43 remains in force despite the issuance of PD 1605. It contends that there is no inconsistency between the two measures

because the former deals with illegally parked vehicles anywhere in the Philippines whereas the latter deals with the regulation of the flow of traffic in the Metro Manila area only. The two measures may be enforced together because implied repeals are not favored and, furthermore, to look at them another way, LOI 43 is the special law dealing only with illegal parking while PD 1605 is the general law dealing with all other kinds of traffic violations. The special law must of course prevail over the general law. The petitioner also deplores the above-quoted remarks of the trial judge, pointing out that the parties had agreed to limit the issue to whether there was a statutory basis for the act complained of. And even assuming that abuses have been committed in the enforcement of LOI 43, the remedy is not to disregard it or consider it revoked but to prosecute the guilty parties. In his comment, the private respondent argues that LOI 43 has been repealed by PD 1605, which specifies all the sanctions available against the various traffic violations, including illegal parking. He stresses that removal and confiscation of the license plates of illegally parked vehicles is not one of them, the penalties being limited in the decree to imposition of fine and suspension or revocation of driver's licenses or certificates of public convenience, etc. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. He agrees that the special law prevails over the general law but maintains it is PD 1605 that is the special law because it is applicable only on Metro Manila and LOI 43 that is the general law because it was intended to operate throughout the country. As for his allegation that the challenged practice is a source of graft, he maintains that it was not improper to discuss it in his memorandum because it was pertinent to the central issue under consideration. Finally, he claims that removal and confiscation of the license plate without notice and hearing violates due process because such license plate is a form of property protected by the Bill of Rights against unlawful deprivation. In its reply, the petitioner faults the private respondent for belatedly raising the constitutionality of LOI 43, suggesting faintly that this should not be permitted. In any case, it maintains, the license plate is not property in the constitutional sense, being merely the identification of the vehicle, and its "temporary confiscation" does not deprive the owner of the use of the vehicle itself. Hence, there is no unlawful taking under the due process clause. The petitioner also takes issue with the contention that it is PD 1605 that should be considered the special law because of its limited territorial application. Repeal of LOI 43 on that ground would run counter to the legislative intention as it is in fact in Metro Manila that the problem of illegal parking is most acute.

LOI 43, entitled Measures to Effect a Continuing Flow of Transportation on Streets and Highways, was issued on November 28, 1972, with the following pertinent provisions: Motor vehicles that stall on the streets and highways, streets and sidewalks, shall immediately be removed by their owners/users; otherwise said vehicles shall be dealt with and disposed in the manner stated hereunder; 1. For the first offense the stalled or illegally parked vehicle shall be removed, towed and impounded at the expense of the owner, user or claimant; 2. For the second and subsequent offenses, the registry plates of the vehicles shall be confiscated and the owner's certificate of registration cancelled. (Emphasis supplied). PD 1605 (Granting the Metropolitan Manila Commission Central Powers Related to Traffic Management, Providing Penalties, and for Other Purposes) was issued, also by President Marcos, on November 21, 1978, and pertinently provides: Section 1. The Metropolitan Manila Commission shall have the power to impose fines and otherwise discipline drivers and operators of motor vehicles for violations of traffic laws, ordinances, rules and regulations in Metropolitan Manila in such amounts and under such penalties as are herein prescribed. For his purpose, the powers of the Land Transportation Commission and the Board of Transportation under existing laws over such violations and punishment thereof are hereby transferred to the Metropolitan Manila Commission. When the proper penalty to be imposed is suspension or revocation of driver's license or certificate of public convenience, the Metropolitan Manila Commission or its representatives shall suspend or revoke such license or certificate. The suspended or revoked driver's license or the report of suspension or revocation of the certificate of public convenience shall be sent to the Land Transportation Commission or the Board of Transportation, as the case may be, for their records update. xxx xxx xxx

Section 3. Violations of traffic laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, committed within a twelve-month period, reckoned from the date of birth of the licensee, shall subject the violator to graduated fines as follows: P10.00 for the first offense, P20.00 for the second offense, P50.00 for the third offense, a one-year suspension of driver's license for the fourth offense, and a revocation of the driver' license for the fifth offense: Provided, That the Metropolitan Manila Commission may impose higher penalties as it may deem proper for violations of its ordinances prohibiting or regulating the use of certain public roads, streets or thoroughfares in Metropolitan Manila. xxx xxx xxx Section 5. In case of traffic violations, the driver's license shall not be confiscated but the erring driver shall be immediately issued a traffic citation ticket prescribed by the Metropolitan Manila Commission which shall state the violation committed, the amount of fine imposed for the violation and an advice that he can make payment to the city or municipal treasurer where the violation was committed or to the Philippine National Bank or Philippine Veterans Bank or their branches within seven days from the date of issuance of the citation ticket. If the offender fails to pay the fine imposed within the period herein prescribed, the Metropolitan Manila Commission or the law enforcement agency concerned shall endorse the case to the proper fiscal for appropriate proceedings preparatory to the filing of the case with the competent traffic court, city or municipal court. If at the time a driver renews his driver's license and records show that he has an unpaid fine, his driver's license shall not be renewed until he has paid the fine and corresponding surcharges. xxx xxx xxx Section 8. Insofar as the Metropolitan Manila area is concerned, all laws, decrees, orders, ordinances, rules and regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent herewith are

hereby repealed or modified accordingly. (Emphasis supplied). A careful reading of the above decree will show that removal and confiscation of the license plate of any illegally parked vehicle is not among the specified penalties. Moreover, although the Metropolitan Manila Commission is authorized by the decree to "otherwise discipline" and "impose higher penalties" on traffic violators, whatever sanctions it may impose must be "in such amounts and under such penalties as are herein prescribed." The petitioner has not pointed to any such additional sanctions, relying instead on its argument that the applicable authority for the questioned act is LOI 43. The petitioner stresses that under the decree, "the powers of the Land Transportation Commission and the Board of Transportation over such violations and punishment thereof are (hereby) transferred to the Metropolitan Manila Commission," and one of such laws is LOI 43. The penalties prescribed by the LOI are therefore deemed incorporated in PD 1605 as additional to the other penalties therein specified. It would appear that what the LOI punishes is not a traffic violation but a traffic obstruction, which is an altogether different offense. A violation imports an intentional breach or disregard of a rule, as where a driver leaves his vehicle in a no-parking area against a known and usually visible prohibition. Contrary to the common impression, LOI 43 does not punish illegal parking per se but parking of stalled vehicles, i.e., those that involuntarily stop on the road due to some unexpected trouble such as engine defect, lack of gasoline, punctured tires, or other similar cause. The vehicle is deemed illegally parked because it obstructs the flow of traffic, but only because it has stalled. The obstruction is not deliberate. In fact, even the petitioner recognizes that "there is a world of difference between a stalled vehicle and an illegally parked and unattended one" and suggests a different treatment for either. "The first means one which stopped unnecessarily or broke down while the second means one which stopped to accomplish something, including temporary rest. 2 LOI 43 deals with motor vehicles "that stall on the streets and highways' and not those that are intentionally parked in a public place in violation of a traffic law or regulation. The purpose of the LOI evidently is to discipline the motorist into keeping his vehicle in good condition before going out into the streets so as not to cause inconvenience to the public when the car breaks down and blocks other vehicles. That is why, for the first offense, the stalled vehicle is immediately towed at the owner's expense to clear the street of the traffic obstruction. Where it appears that the

owner has not learned from his first experience because the vehicle has stalled again, presumably due to his failure to repair it, the penalty shall be confiscation of the license plate and cancellation of the certificate of registration petition. It is worth noting that it is not the driver's license that is confiscated and canceled when the vehicle stalls on a public street. The LOI goes against the vehicle itself. The object of the measure is to ensure that only motor vehicles in good condition may use the public streets, and this is effected by confiscating the license plates and canceling the certificates of registration of those vehicles that are not roadworthy. In the case of the private respondent, it is not alleged or shown that his vehicle stalled on a public thoroughfare and obstructed the flow of traffic. The charge against him is that he purposely parked his vehicle in a no parking area (although this is disputed by him). The act, if true, is a traffic violation that may not be punished under LOI 43. The applicable law is PD 1605, which does not include removal and confiscation of the license plate of the vehicle among the imposable penalties.
itc-asl

We find that there is no inconsistency between LOI 43 and PD 1605, whichever is considered the special law either because of its subject or its territorial application. The former deals with motor vehicles that have stalled on a public road while the latter deals with motor vehicles that have been deliberately parked in a no-parking area; and while both cover illegal parking of motor vehicles, the offense is accidental under the first measure and intentional under the second. This explains why the sanctions are different. The purpose of the LOI is to discourage the use of the public streets by motor vehicles that are likely to break down while that of the decree is to penalize the driver for his defiance of the traffic laws. As it has not been shown that the private respondent's motor vehicle had stalled because of an engine defect or some other accidental cause and, no less importantly, that it had stalled on the road for a second or subsequent time, confiscation of the license plate cannot be justified under LOI 43. And neither can that sanction be sustained under PD 1605, which clearly provides that "in case of traffic violations, (even) the driver's license shall not be confiscated," let alone the license plate of the motor vehicle. If at all, the private respondent may be held liable for illegal parking only and subjected to any of the specific penalties mentioned in Section 3 of the decree. We recognize the problem of the traffic policeman who comes upon an illegally parked and unattended vehicle and is unable to serve a citation on the offending driver who is nowhere in sight. But that problem is not addressed to the courts; it is for the legislative and administrative authorities to solve. What is clear to the Court is that the difficulty cannot be avoided by the removal of the license plate of the offending vehicle because the petitioner has not shown that this penalty is authorized by a valid law or ordinance. The petitioner complains that the respondent judge did not confine himself to the issue agreed upon by the parties and made gratuitous accusations that were not only irrelevant but virtually condemned the whole traffic force as corrupt. Assuming that this issue was indeed not properly raised at the trial, the Court is nevertheless not inhibited from considering it in this proceeding, on the basis of its own impressions on the matter. This Court is not isolated from the mainstream of society and secluded in a world of its own, unconcerned with the daily lives of the rest of the nation. On the contrary, the members of this Court mix with the people

Indeed, even if LOI 43 were applicable, the penalty of confiscation would still not be justified as it has not been alleged, much less shown, that the illegal parking was a second or subsequent offense. That circumstance must be established at a trial before a court of justice where the vehicle owner shall have a right to be heard in his defense. The second or subsequent offense cannot be simply pronounced by the traffic authorities without hearing and without proof. Confiscation of the registry plate without a judicial finding that the offense charge is a second or subsequent one would, unless the owner concedes this point, be invalid. While it is true that the license plate is strictly speaking not a property right, it does not follow that it may be removed or confiscated without lawful cause. Due process is a guaranty against all forms of official arbitrariness. Under the principle that ours is a government of laws and not of men, every official must act by and within the authority of a valid law and cannot justify the lack of it on the pretext alone of good intentions. It is recalled that more than seventy years ago, the mayor of Manila deported one hundred seventy prostitutes to Davao for the protection of the morals and health of the city. This Court acknowledged his praiseworthy purpose but just the same annulled his unauthorized act, holding that no one could take the law into his own hands. 3 We can rule no less in the case before us.

and know their problems and complaints. And among these are the alleged abuses of the police in connection with the issue now before us. It is claimed that the removal of the license plates of illegally parked motor vehicles in Metro Manila has become a veritable gold mine for some police officers. To be sure, we do not have hard, provable facts at hand but only vague and unsubstantiated rumors that could be no more than malicious and invented charges. Nevertheless, these accusations have become too prevalent and apparently too persuasive that they cannot be simply swept under the rug. The widespread report is that civilian "agents," mostly street urchins under the control and direction of certain policemen, remove these license plates from illegally parked vehicles and later discreetly suggest to the owners that these may be retrieved for an unofficial fee. This ranges from P50.00 to P200.00, depending on the type of vehicle. If the owner agrees, payment is usually made and the license plate returned at a private rendezvous. No official receipt is issued. Everything is done quietly. The owners, it is said, prefer this kind of fast settlement to the inconvenience of an official proceeding that may entail not only the payment of a higher fine but also other administrative impositions, like attendance at a traffic seminar. The Court is not saying that these reports are true nor is it stigmatizing the entire police force on the basis of these unsubstantiated charges. But it does believe and stress that the proper authorities should take official notice of these reports instead of blandly dismissing them as mere canards that do not deserve their attention and concern. An inquiry is in our view indicated. The old adage that where there's smoke there's fire is not necessarily true and can hardly be the rationale of a judicial conclusion; but the Court feels just the same that serious steps should be taken, especially because of the persistence of these charges, to determine the source of the smoke. We realize the seriousness of our traffic problems, particularly in Metro Manila, and commend the earnest efforts of the police to effect a smoother flow of vehicles in the public thoroughfares for the comfort and convenience of the people. But we must add, as a reminder that must be made, that such efforts must be authorized by a valid law, which must clearly define the offenses proscribed and as clearly specify the penalties prescribed. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Court holds that LOI 43 is valid but may be applied only against motor vehicles that have stalled

in the public streets due to some involuntary cause and not those that have been intentionally parked in violation of the traffic laws. The challenged decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED in so far as it enjoins confiscation of the private respondent's license plate for alleged deliberate illegal parking, which is subject to a different penalty. The temporary restraining order dated February 6, 1990, is LIFTED. SO ORDERED.

THIRD DIVISION

resolutions of the BES by the regular courts of law is an ultra viresact and is void for being issued without or in excess of jurisdiction, as its issuance is not a mere act of supervision but rather an exercise of control over the Ligas internal organization. On June 22, 1999, the RTC denied Onons motion to dismiss. In its order, the RTC ratiocinated that the Secretary of the Department of Interior [2] and Local Government is vested with the power to establish and prescribe rules, regulations and other issuances and implementing laws on the general supervision of local government units and the promotion of local autonomy [3] and monitor compliance thereof by said units. The RTC added that DILG Circular No. 97-193 was issued by the DILG Secretary pursuant to his rulemaking power as provided for under Section 7, Chapter II, Book IV of the [4] Administrative Code. Consequently, the RTC ruled that it had jurisdiction [5] over the petition for review filed by Quejada. Motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid Order was [6] denied prompting the petitioner to file the present petition wherein the following issues are raised: A. WHETHER OR NOT THE QUESTIONED PROVISION IN MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR 97-193 WAS ISSUED BY THE DILG SECRETARY IN EXCESS OF HIS AUTHORITY. B. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ISSUING THE [7] QUESTIONED ORDERS. In support of his petition, Onon argues that the Supplemental Guidelines for the 1997 Synchronized Election of the Provincial and Metropolitan Chapters and for the Election of the National Chapter of the Liga ng mga Barangay contradicts the Implementing Rules and Guidelines for the 1997 General Elections of the Liga ng mga Barangay Officers and Directors and is therefore invalid. Onon alleges that the Liga ng mga Barangay (LIGA) is not a local government unit considering that a local government unit must have its own source of income, a certain number of population, and a specific land area in order to exist or be created as such. Consequently, the DILG only has a limited supervisory authority over the LIGA. Moreover, Onon argues that even if the DILG has supervisory authority over the LIGA, the act of the DILG in issuing Memorandum Circular No. 97-193 or the supplemental rules and guidelines for the conduct of the 1997 LIGA elections had the effect of modifying, altering and nullifying the rules prescribed by the National Liga Board. Onon posits that the issuance of said guidelines allowing an appeal of the decision of the BES to the regular courts rather than to the National Liga Board is no longer an exercise [8] of supervision but an exercise of control. In his comment to the petition, private respondent Quejano argues that the Secretary of the DILG has competent authority to issue rules and

[G.R. No. 139813. January 31, 2001]

JOELBITO-ONON, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE NELIA YAP FERNANDEZ, R.T.C. Br. 50 Puerto Princesa City and Palawan, and ELEGIO QUEJANO, JR., respondents. DECISION GONZAGA-REYES, J.: This Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and writ of injunction seeks the reversal of the Order of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa [1] City, Branch 50 in SPL. PROC. NO. 1056 entitled Elegio F. Quejano, Jr., petitioner vs. Joel Bito-Onon, et. al., respondents which denied herein petitioners motion to dismiss the Petition for Review of the Resolution of the Board of Election Supervisors dated August 25, 1997 in case number L-1097 filed by herein private respondent with said court. It appears from the records that the petitioner, Joel Bito-Onon is the duly elected Barangay Chairman of Barangay Tacras, Narra, Palawan and is the Municipal Liga Chapter President for the Municipality of Narra, Palawan. The private respondent, Elegio Quejano, Jr. on the other hand, is the duly elected Barangay Chairman of Barangay Rizal, Magsaysay, Palawan and is the Municipal Liga Chapter President for the Municipality of Magsaysay, Palawan. Both Onon and Quejano were candidates for the position of Executive Vice-President in the August 23, 1997 election for the Liga ng Barangay Provincial Chapter of the province of Palawan. Onon was proclaimed the winning candidate in the said election prompting Quejano to file a post proclamation protest with the Board of Election Supervisors (BES), which was decided against him on August 25, 1997. Not satisfied with the decision of the BES, Quejano filed a Petition for Review of the decision of the BES with the Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City (RTC). On April 26, 1999, Onon filed a motion to dismiss the Petition for Review raising the issue of jurisdiction. Onon claimed that the RTC had no jurisdiction to review the decisions rendered by the BES in any post proclamation electoral protest in connection with the 1997 Liga ng mga Barangay election of officers and directors. In his motion to dismiss, Onon claimed that the Supplemental Guidelines for the 1997 Liga ng mga Barangay election issued by the DILG on August 11, 1997 in its Memorandum Circular No. 97-193, providing for review of decisions or

regulations like Memorandum Circular No. 97-893. The Secretary of DILGs rule-making power is conferred by the Administrative Code. Considering that the Memorandum Circular was issued pursuant to his rule making power, Quejano insists that the lower court did not commit any reversible error when [9] it denied Onon s motion to dismiss. On the other hand, the public respondent represented herein by the Solicitor General, filed a separate Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Comment agreeing with the position of petitioner Onon. The Solicitor General affirms Onons claim that in issuing the questioned Memorandum Circular, the Secretary of the DILG effectively amended the rules and guidelines promulgated by National Liga Board. This act was no longer a mere act of supervision but one of control. The Solicitor General submits that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the petition for review of the BES decision filed before it for failure of the petitioner to exhaust the rightful remedy which was to appeal to the National [10] Liga Board. On October 27, 1999, this Court denied petitioner Onons motion for the issuance of restraining order for lack of merit. After a careful review of the case, we sustain the position of the petitioner. The resolution of the present controversy requires an examination of the questioned provision of Memorandum Circular No. 97-193 and the Implementing Rules and Guidelines for the 1997 General Elections of the Liga ng mga Barangay Officers and Directors (GUIDELINES). The memorandum circular reads, insofar as pertinent, as follows: Any post-proclamation protest must be filed with the BES within twenty-four (24) hours from the closing of the election. The BES shall decide the same within forty-eight (48) hours from receipt thereof. The decision of the BES shall be final and immediately executory without prejudice to the filing of a [11] Petition for Review with the regular courts of law. (emphasis supplied) On the other hand, the GUIDELINES provides that the BES shall have the following among its duties: To resolve any post-proclamation electoral protest which must be submitted in writing to this Board within twenty-four (24) hours from the close of election; provided said Board shall render its decision within forty-eight (48) hours from receipt hereof; and provided further that the decision must be submitted to the National Liga Headquarters within twenty-four (24) hours from the said decision. The decision of the Board of Election Supervisors in this respect shall be subject to review by the National Liga Board the [12] decision of which shall be final and executory. (emphasis supplied)

Memorandum Circular No. 97-193 was issued by the DILG Secretary pursuant to the power of general supervision of the President over all local government units which was delegated to the DILG Secretary by virtue of [13] Administrative Order No. 267 dated February 18, 1992. The Presidents power of general supervision over local government units is conferred upon [14] him by the Constitution. The power of supervision is defined as the power of a superior officer to see to it that lower officers perform their functions in [15] accordance with law. This is distinguished from the power of control or the power of an officer to alter or modify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the [16] judgment of the former for the latter. On many occasions in the past, this court has had the opportunity to distinguish the power of supervision from the power of control. In Taule vs. [17] Santos, we held that the Chief Executive wielded no more authority than that of checking whether a local government or the officers thereof perform their duties as provided by statutory enactments. He cannot interfere with local governments provided that the same or its officers act within the scope of their authority. Supervisory power, when contrasted with control, is the power of mere oversight over an inferior body; it does not include any [18] restraining authority over such body. Officers in control lay down the rules in the doing of an act. If they are not followed, it is discretionary on his part to order the act undone or re-done by his subordinate or he may even decide to do it himself. Supervision does not cover such authority. Supervising officers merely sees to it that the rules are followed, but he himself does not lay down such rules, nor does he have the discretion to modify or replace them. If the rules are not observed, he may order the work done or re-done to conform to the prescribed rules. He cannot prescribe his own manner for [19] the doing of the act. Does the Presidents power of general supervision extend to the liga ng [20] mga barangay, which is not a local government unit? We rule in the affirmative. In Opinion No. 41, Series of 1995, the Department of Justice ruled that the liga ng mga barangay is a government organization, being an association, federation, league or union created by law or by authority of law, whose members are either appointed or elected [21] government officials. The Local Government Code defines the liga ng mga barangay as an organization of all barangays for the primary purpose of determining the representation of the liga in the sanggunians, and for ventilating, articulating and crystallizing issues affecting barangay government administration and securing, through proper and legal means, [22] solutions thereto. The liga shall have chapters at the municipal, city, provincial and metropolitan political subdivision levels. The municipal and city chapters of the liga shall be composed of the barangay representatives of the municipal and city barangays respectively. The duly elected presidents of the component municipal and city chapters shall constitute the provincial chapter or the metropolitan political subdivision chapter. The duly

elected presidents of highly urbanized cities, provincial chapters, the Metropolitan Manila chapter and metropolitan political subdivision chapters [23] shall constitute the National Liga ng mga Barangay. The liga at the municipal, city, provincial, metropolitan political subdivision, and national levels directly elect a president, a vice-president and five (5) members of the board of directors. The board shall appoint its secretary and treasurer and create such other positions as it may deem [24] necessary for the management of the chapter. The ligas are primarily governed by the provisions of the Local [25] Government Code. However, their respective constitution and by-laws shall govern all other matters affecting the internal organization of the liga not otherwise provided for in the Local Government Code provided that the constitution and by-laws shall be suppletory to the provisions of Book III, Title VI of the Local Government Code and shall always conform to the provisions [26] of the Constitution and existing laws. Having in mind the foregoing principles, we rule that Memorandum Circular No. 97-193 of the DILG insofar as it authorizes the filing a Petition for Review of the decision of the BES with the regular courts in a post proclamation electoral protest is of doubtful constitutionality. We agree with both the petitioner and the Solicitor General that in authorizing the filing of the petition for review of the decision of the BES with the regular courts, the DILG Secretary in effect amended and modified the GUIDELINES promulgated by the National Liga Board and adopted by the LIGA which provides that the decision of the BES shall be subject to review by the National Liga Board. The amendment of the GUIDELINES is more than an exercise of the power of supervision but is an exercise of the power of control, which the President does not have over the LIGA. Although the DILG is given the power to prescribe rules, regulations and other issuances, the Administrative Code limits its authority to merely monitoring compliance [27] by local government units of such issuances. To monitor means to watch, observe or check and is compatible with the power of supervision of the DILG Secretary over local governments, which is limited to checking whether the local government unit concerned or the officers thereof perform their [28] duties as per statutory enactments. Besides, any doubt as to the power of the DILG Secretary to interfere with local affairs should be resolved in favor [29] of the greater autonomy of the local government. The public respondent judge therefore committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in not dismissing the respondents Petition for Review for failure to exhaust all administrative remedies and for lack of jurisdiction. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The Order of the Regional Trial Court dated June 22, 1999 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Petition for Review filed by the private respondent docketed as SPL. PROC. NO. 1056 is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 78385 August 31, 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSUMERS FOUNDATION, INC., petitioner, vs. THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, respondent.

(2) Any private school may increase its total school fees in excess of the ceiling, provided that the total schools fees will not exceed P1,000.00 for the schoolyear in the elementary and secondary levels, and P50.00 per academic unit on a semestral basis for the collegiate level. 1

GANCAYCO, J.: This is an original Petition for prohibition with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. The record of the case discloses that the herein petitioner Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. is a non-stock, non-profit corporate entity duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. The herein respondent Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports is a ranking cabinet member who heads the Department of Education, Culture and Sports of the Office of the President of the Philippines. On February 21, 1987, the Task Force on Private Higher Education created by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (hereinafter referred to as the DECS) submitted a report entitled "Report and Recommendations on a Policy for Tuition and Other School Fees." The report favorably recommended to the DECS the following courses of action with respect to the Government's policy on increases in school fees for the schoolyear 1987 to 1988 (1) Private schools may be allowed to increase its total school fees by not more than 15 per cent to 20 per cent without the need for the prior approval of the DECS. Schools that wish to increase school fees beyond the ceiling would be subject to the discretion of the DECS;

The DECS took note of the report of the Task Force and on the basis of the same, the DECS, through the respondent Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Secretary), issued an Order authorizing, inter alia, the 15% to 20% increase in school fees as recommended by the Task Force. The petitioner sought a reconsideration of the said Order, apparently on the ground that the increases were too high. 2 Thereafter, the DECS issued Department Order No. 37 dated April 10, 1987 modifying its previous Order and reducing the increases to a lower ceiling of 10% to 15%, accordingly. 3 Despite this reduction, the petitioner still opposed the increases. On April 23, 1987, the petitioner, through counsel, sent a telegram to the President of the Philippines urging the suspension of the implementation of Department Order No. 37. 4 No response appears to have been obtained from the Office of the President. Thus, on May 20, 1987, the petitioner, allegedly on the basis of the public interest, went to this Court and filed the instant Petition for prohibition, seeking that judgment be rendered declaring the questioned Department Order unconstitutional. The thrust of the Petition is that the said Department Order was issued without any legal basis. The petitioner also maintains that the questioned Department Order was issued in violation of the due process clause of the Constitution in asmuch as the petitioner was not given due notice and hearing before the said Department Order was issued. In support of the first argument, the petitioner argues that while the DECS is authorized by law to regulate school fees in educational institutions, the power to regulate does not always include the power to increase school fees. 5 Regarding the second argument, the petitioner maintains that students and parents are interested parties that should be afforded an opportunity for a hearing before school fees are increased. In sum, the petitioner stresses that the questioned Order constitutes a denial of substantive and procedural due process of law. Complying with the instructions of this Court, 6 the respondent Secretary submitted a Comment on the Petition. 7The respondent Secretary

maintains, inter alia, that the increase in tuition and other school fees is urgent and necessary, and that the assailed Department Order is not arbitrary in character. In due time, the petitioner submitted a Reply to the Comment. 8 Thereafter, We considered the case submitted for resolution. After a careful examination of the entire record of the case, We find the instant Petition devoid of merit. We are not convinced by the argument that the power to regulate school fees "does not always include the power to increase" such fees. Section 57 (3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232, otherwise known as The Education Act of 1982, vests the DECS with the power to regulate the educational system in the country, to wit: SEC. 57. Educations and powers of the Ministry. The Ministry shall: xxx xxx xxx (3) Promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the administration, supervision and regulation of the educational system in accordance with declared policy.
xxx xxx xxx 9

maintains that the due process clause requires that prior notice and hearing are indispensable for the Department Order to be validly issued. We disagree. The function of prescribing rates by an administrative agency may be either a legislative or an adjudicative function. If it were a legislative function, the grant of prior notice and hearing to the affected parties is not a requirement of due process. As regards rates prescribed by an administrative agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial function, prior notice and hearing are essential to the validity of such rates. When the rules and/or rates laid down by an administrative agency are meant to apply to all enterprises of a given kind throughout the country, they may partake of a legislative character. Where the rules and the rates imposed apply exclusively to a particular party, based upon a finding of fact, then its function is quasi-judicial in character. 9a Is Department Order No. 37 issued by the DECS in the exercise of its legislative function? We believe so. The assailed Department Order prescribes the maximum school fees that may be charged by all private schools in the country for schoolyear 1987 to 1988. This being so, prior notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of its issuance. This observation notwithstanding, there is a failure on the part of the petitioner to show clear and convincing evidence of such arbitrariness. As the record of the case discloses, the DECS is not without any justification for the issuance of the questioned Department Order. It would be reasonable to assume that the report of the Task Force created by the DECS, on which it based its decision to allow an increase in school fees, was made judiciously. Moreover, upon the instance of the petitioner, as it so admits in its Petition, the DECS had actually reduced the original rates of 15% to 20% down to 10% to 15%, accordingly. Under the circumstances peculiar to this case, We cannot consider the assailed Department Order arbitrary. Under the Rules of Court, it is presumed that official duty has been regularly performed. 10 In the absence of proof to the contrary, that presumption prevails. This being so, the burden of proof is on the party assailing the regularity of official proceedings. In the case at bar, the petitioner has not successfully disputed the presumption. We commend the petitioner for taking the cudgels for the public, especially the parents and the students of the country. Its zeal in advocating the protection of the consumers in its activities should be

Section 70 of the same Act grants the DECS the power to issue rules which are likewise necessary to discharge its functions and duties under the law, to wit: SEC. 70. Rule-making Authority. The Minister of Education and Culture, charged with the administration and enforcement of this Act, shall promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations. In the absence of a statute stating otherwise, this power includes the power to prescribe school fees. No other government agency has been vested with the authority to fix school fees and as such, the power should be considered lodged with the DECS if it is to properly and effectively discharge its functions and duties under the law. We find the remaining argument of the petitioner untenable. The petitioner invokes the due process clause of the Constitution against the alleged arbitrariness of the assailed Department Order. The petitioner

lauded rather than discouraged. But a more convincing case should be made out by it if it is to seek relief from the courts some time in the future. Petitioner must establish that respondent acted without or in excess of her jurisdiction; or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law before the extraordinary writ of prohibition may issue. 11 This Court, however, does not go to the extent of saying that it gives its judicial imprimatur to future increases in school fees. The increases must not be unreasonable and arbitrary so as to amount to an outrageous exercise of government authority and power. In such an eventuality, this Court will not hesitate to exercise the power of judicial review in its capacity as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant Petition for prohibition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. We make no pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.