Scribd
Upload
21 views2 pages

People v. Maceren

1) The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries exceeded their authority in issuing a regulation penalizing electrofishing, as the existing fisheries law did not clearly prohibit the practice. 2) While administrative agencies have rule-making powers, those powers must be confined to details for regulating the mode or proceeding to carry into effect the law as enacted by the legislature. Regulations cannot amend or expand statutory requirements. 3) The court affirmed the dismissal of charges against individuals engaged in electrofishing, holding that the administrative regulation penalizing the practice was invalid.

Uploaded by

bernadeth ranola
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
21 views2 pages

People v. Maceren

1) The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries exceeded their authority in issuing a regulation penalizing electrofishing, as the existing fisheries law did not clearly prohibit the practice. 2) While administrative agencies have rule-making powers, those powers must be confined to details for regulating the mode or proceeding to carry into effect the law as enacted by the legislature. Regulations cannot amend or expand statutory requirements. 3) The court affirmed the dismissal of charges against individuals engaged in electrofishing, holding that the administrative regulation penalizing the practice was invalid.

Uploaded by

bernadeth ranola
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

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.
October 18, 1977 [G.R. No.L-32166] AQUINO, J.

Provisions/Concepts/Doctrines and How Applied to the Case

The lawmaking body cannot delegate to an executive official the power to declare
what acts should constitute a criminal offense. While administrative agencies
have rule-making powers, those powers must be confined to details for regulating
the mode or proceeding to carry into effect the law as enacted by the legislature.
Administrative regulations cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the law
and cannot amend r expand the statutory requirements.
FACTS

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 (ANR) and the Commissioner of Fisheries under the old Fisheries Law
and the law creating the Fisheries Commission (FC). 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
when the five accused, in the morning of March 1, 1969, resorted to electro
fishing in the waters of Barrio San Pablo Norte, Sta. Cruz using electric current,
which destroy any aquatic animals within its cuffed reach, to the detriment and
prejudice of the populace".
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). Hence this appeal.
ISSUE

Whether or not the 1967 regulation, penalizing electro fishing in fresh water
fisheries, promulgated by the Secretary of ANR and the Commissioner of Fisheries
is valid. (NO)
RULING (include how the law was applied)

No. The court held that the Secretary of ANR and the Commissioner of Fisheries
exceeded their authority in issuing Fisheries Administrative Orders Nos. 94 and
84-1since the law does not clearly prohibit electro fishing. 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. Hence, the administrative agencies are powerless to
penalize it because of the lack of any legal basis. Had the law making body
intended to punish electro fishing, a penal provision to that effect could have
been easily embodied in the old Fisheries Law. 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, the law itself cannot be
extended to amend or expand the statutory requirements or to embrace matters
not covered by the statute.
DISPOSITIVE

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.
ADDITIONAL NOTES

You might also like