ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND REGULATIONS
REQUISITES FOR VALIDITY
I. Law authorizing the issuance of
rules and regulations must itself
declare as punishable the
violation of any rules and
regulations issued thereunder.
2. Law should define or fix the
penalty for the violation of the
rules and regulations.
3. Rules and regulations must be
published in the Official Gazetter.
Administrative Law 2016
Atty. Gallant Soriano
Marcos vs. CA
278 SCRA 843
- Sec 34, Central Bank Act provides thus:
violation of this Act or any ruled or regulation
issued by the Monetary Board, shall be
punished. . .
Marcos vs. CA
278 SCRA 843
- Sec 34, Central Bank Act provides thus:
violation of this Act or any rule or regulation
issued by the Monetary Board, shall be
punished by a fine of not more than twenty
thousand pesos and by imprisonment of not
more than five years.
People vs. Que Po Lay
94 Phil 640
- Circulars and regulations, which prescribes a
penalty for its violation should be punished
before becoming effective.
Tanada vs. Tuvera
146 SCRA 446
- Administrative rules and regulations must also
be published if their purpose is to enforce or
implement existing law pursuant to a valid
delegation.
MARCOS vs. CA
278 SCRA 843
Facts:
Central Bank Act expressly grants Monetary Board (MB) the power to
issue rules and regulatins necessary for the effective discharge of the
responsibilities and powers assigned to MB and CB.
Sec 34, CB Act provides, violation of this Act or any rule or regulation
issued by MB, shall be punished by a fine not more than P20,000 and by
imprisonment of not more than 5 years.
CB Circular 960 provides: Residents, firms, associations, or
corporations unless otherwise permitted under CB regulations are
prohibited from maintaining foreign exchange accounts abroad.
Imelda Marcos in 1991, was charged before RTC-Manila for allegedly
opening and maintaining foreign exchange accounts abroad from 1968-
1991 without prior authorization from CB. Her Motion to Quash was denied.
She went to CA, which likewise denied her petition. Thus, the appeal to
SC.
HELD:
a. CB Act itself defend the offense and provided the penalty therefor.
The questions circular merely spelled out the details of the offense.
b. Administrative bodies have the authority to issue administrative
regulations which are penal in nature where the law itself makes
the violation of the administrative regulation punishable and
provides for its penalty.
 PEOPLE vs. MACEREN
79 SCRA 450
Facts:
Section 11 of Old Fisheries Law (Act 4003) punishes use of obnoxious
or poisonous substance or explosive in fishing.
Administrative Order No 84 issued by the Secretary of Agriculture
prohibits Electro fishing in all Philippine waters. Said order was amended
by AO 84-1 by restricting the ban against electro fishing to fresh water
fisheries.
Jose Buenaventura and 4 others were charged with violation of AO 84-1
for having used electro cutting device called senso to catch fish in the
waters of Barrio San Pablo, Sta. Cruz, Laguna. Complaint was dismissed
by the lower court stating that electro fishing cannot be penalized because
electric current is not an obnoxious or poisonous substance as
contemplated in the Fisheries Law and since the law does not clearly
prohibit electro fishing, the executive and judicial departments cannot
consider it unlawful. CFI- Sta. Cruz presided by Judge Maximo Maceren
affirmed the dismissal. Thus, the appeal to SC.
HELD:
a. Since electro fishing is not banned under the Fisheries Law, and
the Secretary is powerless to penalize it, AO 84 and AO 84-1 are
devoid of any legal basis. Had the law making body intended to
punish electro-fishing, a penal provision to that effect could have
been easily embodied in the Old Fisheries Law.
b. The lawmaking body cannot delegate to an executive official the
power to declare what acts should constitute a criminal offense. It
can authorize the issuance of regulations and the imposition of the
penalty provided for the in the law itself.
Administrative Law 2016
Atty. Gallant Soriano
US vs. PANLILIO
28 Phil 608
Facts:
Act No. 1760 requires the quarantining of animals suffering from
dangerous or communicable diseases and provides for a penalty for
violations of any of its provisions.
Director of Agriculture declared and ordered that carabaos exposed to
rinderpest be under quarantine and ordered kept in a corral until released
by Director of Agriculture.
Adriano Panlilio owned carabaos that had been exposed to rinderpest
and in spite of knowledge of the order of the Director of Agriculture, took
his carabaos from the corral and drove them, from place to place in his
hacienda and used them as work animals. Thus, he was charged with
violation of the Act.
HELD:
a. Nowhere in Act No. 1760 is a violation of the Orders of the Bureau
of Agriculture made a penal offense, nor is such violation punished
in any way therein.
b. What the act penalizes is the violation of any of its provisions, and
not the violation of any of the rules and regulations that may be
issued thereunder.
 HON. SEC vs. LPG REFILLERS ASSOCIATION
G.R. No. 159149, June 26, 2006
PEOPLE vs. SANTOS
63 Phil 300 Facts:

Facts: LPG Refillers Association filed for prohibition. RTC - Pasig nullified Circular 2000-03-010 on
the ground that it introduced new offenses (no price display board no weighing scale, etc) not
Section 28 of Administrative Order No. 2 issued by Secretary of included in the BP 33. With the denial of MR, petitioners went to SC.
Agriculture pursuant to Sec. 4 of Act No. 4003, prohibits fishing within 3
kilometers from the shoreline of islands and reservations and provided that
boats not subject to license may fish in said areas only upon the written
permission of the Secretary. BP 33 Illegal trading/ hoarding overpricing Under-filling/ Penalty
adulteration underdelivery P20, 000
Augustus Santos was charged with violation of said AO, in that within P50, 000
1,500 yards north of Cavalry Point, Corregidor Island, Cavite, he willfully
had his boat operated by a fisherman and ordered them to fish, loiter, and
anchor without permission from the Secretary of Agriculture. CFI- Cavite
dismissed the case. Hence, the appeal to SC. Circular 2000- No trade name;
hoarding No price No weighing Penalty
Unbranded cylinders;
06-010 display scale; no or P20,000 for
No seal; no serial no.
board incorrect tare retail outlets
weight
HELD:

a. The conditional clause constitutes not only an excess of the

regulatory power conferred upon the Secretary of Agriculture and
Commerce, but also an exercise of legislative power which he
does not have.
b. Therefore, said conditional clause is null and void and without
effect.
HELD:
a. Under the general description of what constitutes criminal acts involving petroleum
products under BP 33, the DOE Circular merely lists various modes by which said
criminal acts may be perpetrated

b. The monetary penalty under BP 33 is limited to a minimum of P20, 000 and a minimum
of P50, 000. Under the Circular, the maximum pecuniary penalty for retail outlets is P20,
000, an amount within the range allowed by law. RA 7638 (Department of Energy Act of
1992) DOE is tasked with formulating and implementing policies and programs to ensure
sustainable, stable, sufficient, and accessible energy.

Administrative Law 2016

Atty. Gallant Soriano

PEOPLE vs. QUE PO LAY
94 Phil 640
Facts:
Central Bank (CB) Circular No. 20 required those who had foreign
currency to sell the same to the CB.
Que Po Lay has in his possession US $7,000 but failed to sell the same
to CB.
CFI- Manila found him guilty and meted the penalty of 6 months
imprisonment and a fine of P1,000. In his appeal to SC, Que Po Lay
claimed that the said circular has not yet been published in the Official
Gazette before his alleged violation of the same and he should therefore
be acquitted.
HELD:
a. It is true that Circular No. 20 is not a statute or law but being issued
for the implementation of the law authorizing its issuance, it has
the force and effect of law according to settled jurisprudence.
b. Circulars and regulations which prescribes a penalty for its
violation should be published before becoming effective, this, on
the general principle and theory that before the public is bound by
its contents, especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation, or
circular must first be established and the people officially and
specially informed of said contents and its penalties.
Administrative Law 2016
Atty. Gallant Soriano
TANADA VS TUVERA
146 SCRA 446 (Dec 29, 1986)
Facts:
Tuvera In a Motion for Reconsideration of the April 24, 1985 decision,
argued that while publication was necessary as a rule, it was not so when
it was otherwise as when the decrees themselves declared that they were
to become effective immediately upon their approval.
Tuvera sought clarification of the following questions:
1. What is meant by law of public nature or general
applicability?
2. Must distinction be made between laws of general applicability
and laws which are not?
3. What is meant by publication?
4. Where is the publication to be made?
5. When is the publication to be made?
HELD:
a. The clause unless it is otherwise provided refers to the date of
effectivity and not to requirement of publication itself, which cannot
in any event be omitted. This clause does not mean that legislature
may make law effective immediately upon approval, or in any other
date, without its previous publication.
b. Publication is indispensable in every case, but the legislature may
in its discretion provide that the usual 15 day period shall be
shortened or extended.
c. All statues, including those of local application and private laws,
shall be published as a condition for their effectivity; publication
must be in full or it is no publication at all; under Art 2 of the Civil
Code, the publication of laws must be made in the Official Gazette
and not elsewhere, p[publication must be made forthwith or at least
as soon as possible.
Administrative Law 2016
Atty. Gallant Soriano