People - v - Maceren
Facts:
1.
The 5 accused resorted to electro fishing in the waters of Barrio San
Pablo Norte, Sta. Cruz.
Jose Buenaventura and 4 others were charged by a
Constabulary investigator in the municipal court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna with
having violated Fisheries AO No. 84-1.
Notwithstanding the silence of the old Fisheries
Law, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, upon the recommendation
of the Commissioner of Fisheries, promulgated Fisheries AO No. 84 prohibiting
electro fishing in all Philippine waters; issued Fisheries AO No. 84-1,
amending section 2 of Administrative Order No. 84, by restricting the ban
against electro fishing to fresh water fisheries.
2.
Upon motion of the accused, municipal court quashed the complaint. Prosecution
appealed. CFI Laguna affirmed order of dismissal.
3.
The lower court held that electro fishing cannot be penalize because
electric current is not an obnoxious or poisonous substance as contemplated in section
11[1] of
the Fisheries Law and that it is not a substance at all but a form of energy
conducted or transmitted by substances. Since the law does not clearly prohibit
electro fishing, the executive and judicial departments cannot consider it
unlawful.
4.
On appeal, the prosecution cites as the legal sanctions for the
prohibition against electro fishing in fresh water fisheries
a.
(1) the
rule-making power of the Department Secretary under section 4 of the Fisheries
Law;
b.
(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
c.
(3) the declared
national policy to encourage, Promote and conserve our fishing resources (Sec.
1, Republic Act No. 3512), and
d.
(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."
Issue: WON the Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources exceeded his authority in promulgating Fisheries AO No.
84. YES.
Held:
-
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.
-
Administrative agents 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. The lawmaking body cannot possibly
provide for all the details in the enforcement of a particular statute.
-
The rule-making power must be
confined to details for regulating the mode or proceeding to carry into effect
the law as it has 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.
-
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.
-
The rule or regulation should be within the scope of the statutory
authority granted by the legislature to the administrative agency. 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.
-
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.
-
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.
The lower court's decision 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 is affirmed.
[1] Law
prohibits "the use of any obnoxious or poisonous substance" in
fishing.
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.
