8/13/2019 6. People vs Macaren

1/2

6. People v Maceren

FACTS: The respondents were charged with violating Fisheries Administrative OrderNo. 84-1 which penalizes electro fishing in fresh water fisheries. This was promulgated

! the "ecretar! of Agriculture and Natural #esources and the $ommissioner ofFisheries under the old Fisheries %aw and the law creating the Fisheries $ommission.The municipal court &uashed the complaint and held that the law does not clearl!prohiit electro fishing' hence the e(ecutive and )udicial departments cannot considerthe same. On appeal' the $F* affirmed the dismissal. +ence' this appeal to the "$.

ISSUE: ,hether the administrative order penalizing electro fishing is valid

HELD: NO. The "ecretar! of Agriculture and Natural #esources and the $ommissioner

of Fisheries e(ceeded their authorit! in issuing the administrative order. The oldFisheries %aw does not e(pressl! prohiit electro fishing. As electro fishing is not

anned under that law' the "ecretar! of Agriculture and Natural #esources and the

$ommissioner of Fisheries are powerless to penalize it. +ad the lawmaing od!

intended to punish electro fishing' a penal provision to that effect could have een easil!

emodied in the old Fisheries %aw. The lawmaing od! cannot delegate to an

e(ecutive official the power to declare what acts should constitute an offense. *t can

authorize the issuance of regulations and the imposition of the penalt! provided for in

the law itself. ,here the legislature has delegated to e(ecutive or administrative officers

and oards authorit! to promulgate rules to carr! out an e(press legislative purpose' the

rules of administrative officers and oards' which have the effect of e(tending' or which

conflict with the authorit! granting statute' do not represent a valid precise of the rule-

maing power.

8/13/2019 6. People vs Macaren

2/2

38. Villalu v !al"ivar

Facts/ 0illaluz was appointed as the Administrator of the otor 0ehicles Office in 1238.*n 125' $ongressman #oces alleged that 0illaluz was an ineffective leader and hadcaused losses to the government. +e indorsed the removal of 0illaluz. The 6(ec "ecsuspended 0illaluz and ordered a committee to investigate the matter. Afterinvestigation' it was recommended that she e removed. The president then issued an

AO removing 0illaluz from his post. 0illaluz averred that the president has no )urisdictionto remove him.

ISSUE: ,hether or not 0illaluz is under the )urisdiction of the 7resident to e removedconsidering that he is an appointee of the president.

HELD:The 7resident of the 7hilippines has )urisdiction to investigate and remove himsince he is a presidential appointee who elongs to the non-competitive or unclassifiedservice under "ec 3 of #A 59 eing a presidential appointee' 0illaluz elongs to thenon-competitive or unclassified service of the government and as such he can onl! einvestigated and removed from office after due hearing ! the 7resident of the7hilippines under the principle that :the power to remove is inherent in the power toappoint; . There is some point in the argument that the power of control of the 7residentma! e(tend to the power to investigate' suspend or remove officers and emplo!ees whoelong to the e(ecutive department if the! are presidential appointees or do not elongto the classified service for such can e )ustified under the principle that the power toremove is inherent in the power to appoint ut not with regard to those officers oremplo!ees who elong to the classified service for as to them that inherent powercannot e e(ercised. This is in line with the provision of our $onstitution which sa!s that