Rashida N. Edding Administrative Law Atty.

Gallant Soriano
 
People vs. Santos
GR No L-44291 August 15, 1936
Villareal, J.:
FACTS:
Section 28 of Administrative Order No 2 provides that boats not subject to license under Act
No 4003 may fish within prescribed areas only upon written permission by the Secretary of
Agriculture and Commerce. Augusta Santos was charged with ordering his fishermen to fish in
prohibited areas without the permission of the Secretary.

ISSUE:
Is the condition set forth under Sec 28 a valid exercise of the Secretary’s rule-making
power?

HELD:
NO. The only authority granted to the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce under Sec 4 of
Act No 4003 is to issue from time to time such instruction, orders, rules, and regulations
consistent with said Act as may be necessary and proper to carry into effect the provisions
thereof and for the conduct of proceedings arising under such provisions; and inasmuch as said
Act contains no provisions similar to those contained in the conditional clause of Sec 28 of
Administrative Order No 2, the conditional clause supplies a defect of the law, extending it.
This is equivalent to legislating on the matter, a power which has not been and cannot be
delegated to him, it being exclusively reserved to the legislature. Such act constitutes not only
an excess of the regulatory power conferred upon the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce,
but also an exercise of a legislative power which he does not have, and therefore said conditional
clause is null and void and without effect.
Rashida N. Edding Administrative Law Atty. Gallant Soriano
 
Sec. Perez vs. LPG Refillers Association of the Phil, Inc
GR No 159149 June 26, 2006
Quisumbing, J.:
FACTS:
BP Blg 33 penalizes illegal trading, hoarding, overpricing, adulteration, underdelivery, and
underfilling of petroleum products, as well as possession for trade of adulterated petroleum
products and of underfilled liquefied petroleum gas cylinders, . Circular No 2000-06-010
was issued by DOE to implement BP Blg 33, providing for the fines corresponding to acts
which constitutes as violation of BP Blg 33.
ISSUE:
Is the DOE circular valid?
HELD:
YES. For an administrative regulation to have the force of penal law, (1) the violation of the
administrative regulation must be made a crime by the delegating statute itself; and (2) the
penalty for such violation must be provided by the statute itself. The circular satisfies the
first requirement. BP Blg 33 crminalizes illegal trading, adulteration, underfilling,
hoarding, and overpricing of petroleum products. Under this general description of what
constitutes criminal acts involving petroleum products, the circular merely lists the various
modes by which the said criminal acts may be perpetrated. As for the second requirement, the
circular is in accord. Under BP Blg 33, the monetary penalty for any person who commits any
of the acts is limited to a minimum of P20,00 and a maximum of P50,000. Under the
circular, the maximum penalty for retail outlets is P20,000. However, for the refillers,
marketers, and dealers, the circular is silent as to any maximum monetary penalty. This mere
silence does not amount to a violation of the statutory maximum limit. The mere fact that the
circular provides penalties on a per cylinder basis does not in itself run counter to the law since
all that BP Blg 33 prescribes are the minimum and the maximum limits of penalties.
Clearly, BP Blg 33 defines what constitute punishable acts involving petroleum products and
which set the minimum and maximum limits for the corresponding penalties. The circular merely
implements the said law, albeit it is silent on the maximum pecuniary penalty for refillers,
marketers, and dealers.
Rashida N. Edding Administrative Law Atty. Gallant Soriano
 
People vs Que Po Lay
GR No L-6791 March 29, 1954
Montemayor, J.:
FACTS:
Que Po Lay, who was in possession of foreign exchange consisting of US dollars, US checks,
and US money orders amounting to $7,000, failed to sell the same to the Central Bank
through its agents within one day following the receipt of such foreign exchange as required by
Circular No 20. He was charged and convicted of violation of said circular. However, Circular
No 20 was not published in the Official Gazette.

ISSUE:
Is there a necessity for the circular to be published for it to be valid and binding?

HELD:
YES. Sec 11 of the Revised Administrative Code provides that statutes passed by Congress
shall, in the absence of special provision, take effect at the beginning of the 15th day after the
completion of the publication of the statute in the Official Gazette. Art 2 of the Civil Code
equally provides that laws shall take effect after 15 day following the completion of their
publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. It is true that Circular
No 20 of the Central Bank is not a statue or law but being issued for the implementation of the
law authorizing its issuance, it has the force and effect of law according to settled
jurisprudence. Moreover, as a rule, circulars and regulation which prescribe a penalty for its
violation should be published before becoming effective, this, on the general principle and theory
that before the public is bound by its contents, especially its penal provisions, a law,
regulation or circular must first be published and the people officially and specifically
informed of said contents and its penalties. Although Circular No 20 of the Central Bank
was issued in 1949, it was not published until November 1951 – about 3 months after Que Po
Lay’s conviction of its violation. It is clear that said circular, particularly its penal
provision, did not have any legal effect and bound no one until its publication in the Official
Gazette or after November 1951/
Rashida N. Edding Administrative Law Atty. Gallant Soriano
 
Tanada vs Tuvera
GR No L-63915 April 24 1985
Escolin, J.:
FACTS:
Invoking the people’s right to be informed on matters of public concern as well as the
principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette or
otherwise effectively promulgated, Tanada et al sought a writ of mandamus to compel Tuvera
et al to publish and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette of various presidential
decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of
implementation, and administrative orders.
ISSUE:
Is publication a requirement sine qua non for the effectivity of laws even for laws providing for
their own effectivity dates?
HELD:
YES. Article 2 of the Civil Code does not preclude the requirement of publication in the
Official Gazette even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity. The clear object
of publication is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws which are to
regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without such notice and publication, there would
be no basis for the application of the maxim ignorantia legis non excusat. It would be the height
of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of which he had
no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one. The publication of all presidential issuances of
a public nature and of general applicability is mandated by law. Presidential decrees that
provide for fines, forfeitures or penalties for their violation or otherwise impose a burden on the
people such as tax and revenue measures fall within this category. Other presidential issuances
which apply only to particular persons or class of persons such as administrative and executive
orders need not be published on the assumption that they have been circularized to all concerned.
The publication of presidential issuances of a public nature or of general applicability is a
requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he
must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents.