Upload
slumba
View
223
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
1/26
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
2/26
SCERT INMENT OF F CT
LEGISLATIVE RULES v s à v s INTERPRETATIVE RULES
LEGISLATIVE INTERPRETATIVE
Subordinate legislation Product of interpreting previously
existing laws
Issued only under express delegation May be deemed as necessary incident
of administration
Have force and effect of law unless
ultra vires or unconstitutional
No statutory sanction
When valid have same force and effect
as valid statutes
Always subject to judicial
determination
No vested right upon wrong
construction
Gives no vested right upon wrong
interpretation
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
3/26
CONSISTENCY WITH LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION
1. Must be within SCOPE and PURVIEW of the statutory authority granted
by the legislature to the administrative agency
2. Must be confined to details for regulating the mode of proceeding to
carry into effect the law as it has been enacted
Rule-making power cannot be extended to amending or expanding the
statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute
or beyond its terms and provisions
In case of discrepancy between basic law and the implementing rule or
regulation, the former prevails
GR: Law > Rule
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
4/26
QUESTIONS RELEVANT IN DETERMINING VALIDITY OF RULES
LEGISLATIVE RULE
1. Whether the rule relates to the subject matter on which power to legislate
has been delegated;
2. Whether the rule conforms to the standards prescribed in the delegatory
statute;
3. Whether the rule is invalid on constitutional grounds, such as due process
INTEPRETATIVE RULE
1. Whether the rule correctly interprets the statute;
2. Whether the rule amounts to an attempt to exercise legislative powers which
have not been delegated
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
5/26
TESTS APPLIED IN DETERMINING VALIDITY OF RULES
1. A rule is INVALID if it EXCEEDS THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED TO
IT.
2. A rule is INVALID if it CONFLICTS WITH THE GOVERNING STATUTE.
3. A rule if VOID if it EXTENDS/MODIFIES the STATUTE.
4. A rule is VOID if it has NO REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO THE
STATUTORY PURPOSE.
5. Courts will set aside rules deemed to be ARBITRARY or
UNREASONABLE or UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
6/26
INVALID IF IT EXCEEDS AUTHORITY CONFERRED
Where a power has been delegated to make legislative rules
within a plainly limited sphere and subject to defined standards,
and rule adopted EXCEEDS THIS SPHERE or is CONTRARY TO THE
STANDARDS;
Where there has been NO DELEGATION of LEGISLATIVE POWER,
and where rule issued as an administrative interpretation of the
statute is found to go beyond the sphere of interpretation and
into the FORBIDDEN REALM OF LEGISLATION
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
7/26
OLDEN V. ALDANESE
Aldanese refused to issue Certificates of Origin to Walter Olsen for importing the
latter’s tobacco the United States.
LAW: Act 2613 empowered the Collector of Internal Revenue to establish rules for the
classification for domestic sale or export
RULE: The CIR issued Administrative Order 35 which required the tobacco must come
from either Cagayan, Isabela, or Nueva Vizcaya.
COURT: Adminsitrative Order is VOID. Nothing in Act 2613 provides the tobacco must
come from any of these three specific provinces.
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
8/26
INVALID IF IT CONFLICTS WITH GOVERNING STATUTE
Where, for example, a procedural rule attempt to limit a right of
appeal granted by statute. It is void because it conflicts with the
statute.
Where an interpretative rule is in conflict with the court’s
interpretation of the statute, the conclusion of invalidity is
premised on the agency’s interpretation as being in conflict with
the statute.
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
9/26
GMCR, INC. V. BELL TELECOM
BellTel applied for a Certificate of Public Convenience with the National
Telecommunications Commission. Upon the inaction of the NTC on its application
for a provisional authority, BellTel filed an Urgent Ex Parte Motion to Resolve
Application and for the Issuance of a Provisional Authority, which was green-
lighted by one NTC Chair Kintanar alone, without deciding with two other
commissioners.
LAW: EO 546 provided that the NTC, as a collegial body, must be composed of three
Commissioners.
RULE: The NTC Chairman’s Resolution provided that the decision of the Chairperson
will be binding.
COURT: Rule is INVALID. The law created NTC as a collegial body requiring the majority
vote of the three members.
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
10/26
MAXIMA REALTY V. PARKWAY REAL ESTATE
Maxima defaulted on payments to Parkway for the purchase of a condominium unit.
Parkway nullified the sale so Maxima filed a case with the HLURB, which affirmed
the nullification in a decision dated April 19, 2004. On May 10, 1994, Maxima
appealed the decision to the Office of the President.
LAW: PD 1344 and PD 957 provide that HLURB Decisions will be final and executory
15 days from the receipt of the party of the decision.
RULE: Sec. 27 of the HLURB Rules of Procedure provides for a 30-day appeal period
to the OP before they become final and executory.
COURT: The rule is INVALID. Special laws such as PD 1344 and PD 954 on appeals
from the HLURB to the OP) shall prevail over the HLURB Rules of Procedure.
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
11/26
VOID IF IT EXTENDS/MODIFIES THE STATUTE
Cannot make a rule or regulation that alters, restricts,
or enlarges the terms of a legislative enactment or
engrafts additional requirements on the statute which
were not contemplated by the legislature
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
12/26
SYMAN V. JACINTO
The Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila seized cargo belonging to Sy Man,
the former penalizing the latter. Sy Man did not appeal. The Collector did not
return the cargo despite the finality of the decision because the Commissioner
had not yet decided on the case, despite Sy Man not having appealed
therefrom.
LAW: Sec. 1393 of the Administrative Code allows for the appeal of the assessment
cases to the Commissioner by the person aggrieved “may appeal”)
Rule: Bureau of Customs issued a Memorandum Order stating that seizure cases,
whether appealed or not, are subject to the review of the Commissioner.
COURT: The Memorandum Order is VOID and of no EFFECT because it is
INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAW.
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
13/26
CIR V. CA
The President issued EO 41 which granted a tax amnesty from 1981 to 1985. The
Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued Revenue Memorandum Order saying
only taxes assessed prior to August 22, 1986, the date EO 141 was issued.
LAW: EO 41, in Sec. 1 providing for scope, says a tax amnesty shall be granted from
the years 1981 to 1985.
RULE: Amnesty coverage extends only to assessments made after the EO was issued.
COURT: Revenue Memorandum Order is VOID for amending EO 141. The law was
clear as to the scope of amnesty.
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
14/26
APCD V. PHILCOA
By virtue of PD 232, the Philippine Coconut Authority came into being, for the purpose
of promoting the development and growth of the coconut trade, as well as for
regulatory purposes. The PCA subsequently issued a resolution deregulating the
establishment of new coconut plants. The Association of Phil. Coconut
Dessicators assailed the resolution for being an undue exercise of legislative
power by an administrative body.
LAW: PD 1468 gave the PCA the authority to adopt a general program for the
development of the coconut industry.
Rule: The PCA Resolution allowed the operation of new coconut plants even in
congested areas to promote free trade in the industry.
Court: Resolution was held to be void. The resolution virtually dismantled the
regulatory infrastructure and removed quality standards for coconuts.
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
15/26
PHIL. BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS V. CIR
Petitioner is claiming several tax refunds and credits for 1985. It filed a claim for
refund with the CTA on 1988, which the latter denied for being filed beyond the
two-year reglementary period provided in the NIRC. Petitioner appealed the CIR
decision on the ground that it still has a cause of action according to RMC 7-85.
LAW: Sec. 230 of the NIRC provides for a 2-year prescriptive period for the filing of
claims from erroneously collected taxes.
RULE: CIR issued RMC 7-85 which allows for a 10-year prescriptive period in filing tax
refund claims.
HELD: Rule is INVALID. The NIRC is clear as to the two-year prescriptive period for
refunds after payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause.
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
16/26
CHINA BANKING V. MEMBERS, HDMF
The HDMF granted petitioner Certificates of Waiver due to their superior retirement
plans to that provided by PAG-IBIG. The HDMF Board issued an Amendment to the
Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 7742, providing instead that to be
granted a Certificate of Waiver, a company must have a provident retirement AND
housing plan superior to that provided by PAG-IBIG.
LAW: Sec. 19 of PD 1752, as amended, allows employers to avail of HDMF’s housing
and retirement program if the employer offers a superior housing AND/OR
retirement plan over that offered by PAG-IBIG.
Rule: HDMF Circular 124-B requires that for a waiver to be allowed, the employer
must have superior housing AND retirement plants.
HELD: Rule is INVALID. The administrative agency added another requirement as
provided by the law itself.
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
17/26
LOKIN, JR. V. COMELEC
CIBAC the partylist) submitted its lit of nominees to the COMELEC for the 2007
elections, which included Lokin, Jr as second nominee. CIBAC President Joel
Villanueva filed a certificate of amendment of its nominees to withdraw some
nominations, including Lokin’s. CIBAC won three seats without Lokin as nominee.
LAW: Sec. 8 of RA 7491 states that alteration of the order of nominees will only be
allowed if a) the nominee dies; b) becomes incapacitated; or c) he withdraws
his nomination.
RULE: Sec. 13 of COMELEC Resolution 7804 allows the partylist to withdraw the
nomination.
HELD: Rule is INVALID. The Rule added an exception not present in the law alteration
through withdrawal of the partylist, not the nominee).
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
18/26
BARTOLOME V. SSS
Petitioner is the biological mother of John Colcol J. Colcol) who died in a ship as an
electrician for Scanmar Maritime Services. She tried to claim death benefits from
the SSS but the latter denied her claim as J.Colcol’s great grandfather Cornelio
Colcol adopted J. Colcol, ultimately severing the filial ties between Bernardina
Bartolome and J. Colcol.
LAW: Art. 167 of the Labor Code provides that a secondary beneficiary may be a
“dependent parent”.
RULE: The Employees’ Compensation Commission Amended Rules provides that
“legitimate parent” shall be a secondary beneficiary.
COURT: Rule XV of the ECC’s Amended Rules is INVALID for equating dependency to
legitimacy.
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
19/26
VOID IF NO REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO STATUTORY PURPOSE
Occurs when the general policy of the rule seems
unrelated to the policy of the statute
May lead to burdensome and inequitable results
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
20/26
LANDBANK V. CA
Landbank leased several parcels of land from the private respondents, which it then
offered to buy. Instead of paying for the land in cash and bonds as mandated by
RA 6557, Landbank opened trust accounts for private respondents pursuant to
DAR Administrative Order No. 9.
LAW: Sec. 16 of RA 6557 requires that just compensation be paid in cash or in bonds.
RULE: Allowed for payment to be earmarked and the use of trust accounts instead of
cash deposits instead of payment to the owners.
COURT: Rule is VOID as RA 6557 is clear as to payment through cash or bonds. Led
to inequitable results for private respondents.
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
21/26
ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE, OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The rule is invalid if it goes beyond what the
legislature could authorize e.g. a rule may be invalid f
it amounts to a taking of property without
compensation, or denies due process or equal
protection of the laws
Law may be set aside if the administrative agencyconcerned fails to follow due process requirements
i.e. notice and hearing
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
22/26
TOLEDO V. CSC
Toledo was appointed to the COMELEC at age 57 by a COMELEC Chairman. The
COMELEC belatedly found out there were no legal circumstances which would
have allowed him to work in his advanced age. Toledo appealed saying there was
nothing in the law that prohibited persons of his age from being appointed and
that the Rule was not published.
LAW: RA 2260, as amended by PD 807, authorized the CSC to prescribe or amend
rules and regulations governing the civil service.
RULE: Sec. 22 of Rule III of the CSC Rules on Personnel Action prohibits the
appointment of persons beyond 57 years old.
COURT: Rules is INVALID. The rule should be germane to the purpose of the law. RA
2260 did not contemplate an age limit.
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
23/26
OPLE V. TORRES
Then Pres. Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order No. 308 for the Adoption of a
National Computerized Identification System, purportedly in furtherance of the
Revised Administrative Code of 1987. Senator Blas F. Ople petitioned the Court to
strike down the AO for having infringed the Constitution.
LAW: The Administrative Code of 1987 gives the President the power to enforce rules
for the efficient functioning of administrative agencies.
RULE: AO 308 adopts a national computerized ID system.
COURT: Rule is invalid. Aside from infringing the right to privacy, the Administrative
Code is a law so broad. The adoption of the ID system creates rights and imposes
duties on the people. It also raises issues on basic civil rights of the people which
can be better achieved through legislation by the Congress.
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
24/26
REQUIREMENT OF REASONABLENESS
1. Bear reasonable relation to the purpose sought to be
accomplished
2. Supported by good reasons
3. Free from constitutional infirmities or charges of
arbitrariness.
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
25/26
PENAL RULES AND REGULATIONS
REQUISITES FOR VALIDITY
Law which authorizes promulgation of rules and regulations must itself provide forthe imposition of a penalty for their violation
It must fix or define such penalty
Violation for which the rules and regulations impose a penalty must be
punishable or made a crime under the law itself
Rules and regulations must be published in the Official Gazette
NATURE OF POWER TO PRESCRIBE PENALTIES
The law making body cannot delegate to an administrative agency or official the
power to declare what acts shall constitute a criminal offense and how it shall be
punished
8/17/2019 Group 2 Limitations to Rule Making Power
26/26
PEOPLE V. MACEREN
Several accused were charged with violations of the Fisheries Law after they resorted
to electro fishing. Maceren acquitted the accused because electro fishing was not
penalized by the Fisheries Law. The Republic appealed arguing it was penalized
by Fisheries Admin Order 84-01.
LAW: Fisheries Law punishes the use of toxic or obnoxious substances in fishing.
RULE: Fisheries Admin Order 84-01, issued by the Secretary of the DENR, penalized
electro fishing.
COURT: Rule is INVALID. Defining a crime is legislative, and agencies are not allowed
to punish an act as a crime if not defined by law.