Araneta v Gatmaitan

Facts: The President issued E.O 22 - prohibiting the use of trawls in San Miguel Bay, and the E.O 66 and 80 as amendments to EO 22, as a response for the general clamor among the majority of people living in the coastal towns of San Miguel Bay that the said resources of the area are in danger of major depletion because of the effects of trawl fishing. A group of Otter trawl operators filed a complaint for injunction to restrain the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources from enforcing the said E.O. and to declare E.O 22 as null and void.

Issue: W/N E.O 22, 60 and 80 were valid, for the issuance thereof was not in the exercise of legislative powers unduly delegated to the Pres.

Held: VALID! Congress provided under the Fisheries Act that a.) it is unlawful to take or catch fry or fish eggs in the waters of the Phil and b.) it authorizes Sec. of Agriculture and Nat. Resources to provide regulations/ restrictions as may be deemed necessary. The Act was complete in itself and leaves it to the Sec. to carry into effect its legislative intent. The Pres. did nothing but show an anxious regard for the welfare of the inhabitants and dispose of issues of gen. concern w/c were in consonance and strict conformity with law.

Distinction bet: Delegation of Power to Legislate - involves discretion of what law shall be Execution of Law authority or discretion as to its execution has to be exercised under and in pursuance of law.

Philippines Interisland Shipping Association vs CAIt came to pass that a response from a clamor of harbour pilots for an increase in pilotagerates was given by the then President Marcos through the issuance of an E.O No. 1088 PROVIDING FOR UNIFORM AND MODIFIED RATES FOR PILOTAGE SERVICESRENDERED TO FOREIGN AND COASTWISE VESSELS IN ALL PRIVATE AND PUBLICPORTS. The executive order increased substantially the rates of the existing pilotage fees previously fixed by the PPA. Duri ng that time the President was exercisinglegislative power and was authorized

However, PPA was reluctant to enforce the same arguing that it was issued hastily and it was just an Administrative Order whereby PPA has the power to revised EO 1088 which it did so by issuing A.O. No. 43-86, which fixed lower rates of pilotage fees, and evenentirely left the fees to be paid for pilotage to the agreement of the parties to acontract.. Actually Philippine Interisland Shipping Association of the Philippines is jus an intervenorin the factual milieu that lead us to this issue. For Purposes of Admin Law we should not care about it.Issue: Is E.O. No. 1088 an Administrative Order and by virtue of which PPA has the powerto modify the same.Held: EO 1088 is a law. The fixing of rates is essentially a legislative power.is no basis for petitioners' argument that rate fixing is merely an exercise of administrative power, that if President Marcos had power to revise the ratespreviously fixed by the PPA through the issuance of E.O. No. 1088, the PPA could inturn revise those fixed by the President, as the PPA actually did in A.O. No. 43-86,which fixed lower rates of pilotage fees, and even entirely left the fees to be paid forpilotage to the agreement of the parties to a contract. The orders previously issuedby the PPA were in the nature of subordinate legislation, promulgated by it in theexercise of delegated power. As such these could only be amended or revised by law,as the President did by E.O. No. 1088.It is not an answer to say that E.O. No. 1088 should not be considered a statutebecause that would imply the withdrawal of power from the PPA. What determineswhether an act is a law or an administrative issuance is not its form but its nature.Here, as we have already said, the power to fix the rates of charges for services,including pilotage service, has always been regarded as legislative in character.(Note: Bold letters are copied from the Original Supreme Court decision)