Dagan - v - Philippine Racing Commission
Facts:
3. MJCI and PRCI ordered the owners of racehorses
stable in their establishments to submit the horses to blood sampling and
administration of the Coggins Test to determine whether they
are afflicted with the EIA virus.
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
1. The controversy stemmed from the 11 August
2004 directive issued by the Philippine Racing Commission (Philracom)
directing the Manila Jockey Club, Inc. (MJCI) and Philippine Racing Club, Inc.
(PRCI) to immediately come up with their respective Clubs House Rule to address
Equine Infectious Anemia (EIA) problem and to rid their facilities of
horses infected with EIA.
2. It was issued pursuant to Administrative Order
No. 5 by the Department of Agriculture declaring it unlawful for any person,
firm or corporation to ship, drive, or transport horses from any locality or
place except when accompanied by a certificate issued by the authority of the
Director of the Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI).
4. Subsequently, Philracom issued copies of the
guidelines for the monitoring and eradication of EIA.
5. Petitioners and racehorse owners Dagan and 7
others refused to comply with the directive; alleged that:
a.
there had been no prior
consultation with horse owners.
b.
neither official
guidelines nor regulations had been issued relative to the taking of blood
samples.
c.
no documented case of
EIA had been presented to justify the undertaking.
6. Despite resistance from petitioners, the blood
testing proceeded. The horses, whose owners refused to comply were banned
from the races, were removed from the actual day of race, prohibited from
renewing their licenses or evicted from their stables.
7. Racehorse owners lodged a complaint before the
Office of the President (OP) which in turn issued a directive instructing
Philracom to investigate the matter.
8. For failure of Philracom to act upon the
directive of the OP, petitioners filed a petition for injunction with
application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO).
9. RTC – In favor of respondents. CA – Affirmed
RTC.
10. Hence, this petition for certiorari.
Issues: WON respondents had acted with
whim and caprice in the implementation of the contested guideline.
Held: Dismissed. Cost against Dagan.
-
Petitioners essentially
assail two issuances of Philracom 1) the
Philracom directive and 2) the
subsequent guidelines addressed to MJCI and PRCI.
-
The validity of an
administrative issuance, such as the assailed guidelines, hinges on
compliance with the following requisites:
a.
Its promulgation must be
authorized by the legislature;
b.
It must be promulgated
in accordance with the prescribed procedure;
c.
It must be within the
scope of the authority given by the legislature;
d.
It must be reasonable.
-
All the prescribed
requisites are met as regards the questioned issuances. Philracoms authority is
drawn from P.D. No. 420. The delegation made in the presidential decree is
valid. Philracom did not exceed its authority. And the issuances are fair
and reasonable.
-
The rule is that what
has been delegated cannot be delegated, or as expressed in the Latin
maxim: potestas delegate non delegare potest.
-
This rule however admits
of recognized exceptions such as the grant of rule-making power to
administrative agencies. Delegated rule-making has become a practical
necessity in modern governance due to the increasing complexity and variety of
public functions.
-
However, in every case
of permissible delegation, there must be a showing that the delegation itself
is valid. It is valid only if the law
(a)
is complete in itself,
setting forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by
the delegate; and
(b)
fixes a standard, the
limits of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable to which the
delegate must conform in the performance of his functions.
-
A sufficient standard is
one which defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries
and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances
under which the legislative command is to be effected.
-
P.D. No. 420 hurdles the
tests of completeness and standards sufficiency.
On validity of an
administrative issuance:
-
First requisite: Philracom
was created for the purpose of carrying out the declared policy in Section 1
which is to promote and direct the accelerated development and continued growth
of horse racing not only in pursuance of the sports development program but
also in order to insure the full exploitation of the sport as a source of
revenue and employment. Philracom was granted exclusive jurisdiction and
control over every aspect of the conduct of horse racing, including the framing
and scheduling of races, the construction and safety of race tracks, and the
security of racing.
Note: There is no
delegation of power to speak of between Philracom, as the delegator and MJCI
and PRCI as delegates. The Philracom directive is merely instructive in
character. Compliance with the Philracom’s directive is part of the mandate of
PRCI and MJCI under Sections 11 of R.A. No. 7953 and Sections 1 and 2 of 8407.
MCJI: The duty to comply is not derived from the delegated authority of
Philracom but arises from the franchise granted to them by Congress. PRCI:
“obeying the terms of the franchise and abiding by whatever rules enacted by
Philracom is its duty.”
-
Second requisite:
petitioners questions the belated issuance of the guidelines (only after the
collection of blood samples for the Coggins Test was ordered); and lack of
publication and failure to file copies with the (UP) LawCenter as
required by law
-
The directives validity
and effectivity are not dependent on any supplemental guidelines. Philracom
has every right to issue directives to MJCI and PRCI with respect to the
conduct of horse racing, with or without implementing guidelines.
-
As a rule, the issuance
of rules and regulations in the exercise of an administrative agency of its
quasi-legislative power does not require notice and hearing since there is no
determination of past events or facts that have to be established or
ascertained.
-
Third requisite: The
assailed guidelines prescribe the procedure for monitoring and eradicating
EIA. These guidelines are in accord with Philracoms mandate under the law
to regulate the conduct of horse racing in the country.
-
Fourth requisite: The
assailed guidelines do not appear to be unreasonable or discriminatory. All
horses stabled at the MJCI and PRCIs premises underwent the same
procedure. The guidelines implemented were undoubtedly reasonable as they
bear a reasonable relation to the purpose sought to be accomplished, i.e.,
the complete riddance of horses infected with EIA.
Additional info: The
case has become moot and academic since most of petitioners had complied with
the guidelines by subjecting their race horses to EIA testing. The horses found
unafflicted with the disease were eventually allowed to join the races. It appears on record that only Dagan had
refused to comply with the orders of respondents. Therefore, the case subsists
as regards Dagan.
