DAGAN v PHILIPPINE RACING COMMISSION
It must be promulgated in accordance with the
Tinga, J.:
12 February 2009
Facts:
On 11 August 2004, the Philippine Racing Commission
(Philracom) directed the Manila Jockey Club, Inc. (MJCI) and
Philippine Racing Club, Inc. (PRCI) to come up with rules to
address Equine Infectious Anemia (EIA) problem and to rid its
facilities of horses infected with EIA. The directive was issued
pursuant to Admin. Order No. 5 by the Dept. of Agriculture
declaring it unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to ship,
drive, or transport horses from any locality or place except
when accompanied by a certificate issued by the authority of
the Director of the Bureau of Animal Industry.
In compliance with the directive, MJCI and PRCI ordered the
owners of racehorses stabled in their establishments to summit
their horses for blood testing and administration of the Coggins
Test to determine whether they were afflicted with the EIA
virus.
Petitioners and racehorse owners refused to comply with the
directive alleging that they were not consulted, that no rules or
regulations were issued relative to the taking of blood samples
and that there were no documented cases of EIA to justify the
undertaking. Despite resistance from petitioners, the blood
testing proceeded. Those who refused were banned from
races, were not allowed to renew their licenses or were evicted
from the stables. Petitioners lodged a complaint with the Office
of the President which in turn directed the Philracom to
investigate the matter. However, Philracom failed to act on the
matter so petitioners sought recourse from the TC which
issued a TRO.
By this time, most of the racehorse owners had subjected their
horses to the blood tests except for Dagan whose horses were
evicted from the stables and transferred to an isolation area.
Also, three of his horses were found positive of EIA.
TC: Since most (except for Dagan) had complied with the
contested guidelines, the acts sought to be enjoined had been
rendered moot and academic. Moreover, the subject guidelines
were held valid as en exercise of police power the horseracing
industry being imbued with public interest. It also held that
participation in the business of horseracing is but a privilege
not a right and that petitioners must abide with the rules and
conditions issued and imposed by the contracts of lease they
entered into with MCJI.
CA: Upheld the authority of Philracom to formulate guidelines
since it is vested with exclusive jurisdiction over and control of
the horseracing industry.
Issues:
Whether or not Philracom had the authority to issue the subject
guidelines.
Whether or not Philracom unconstitutionally delegated its rule-
making power to PRCI and MCJI in directing said clubs to
formulate their own rules.
Held and Ratio:
1. YES.
Philracom did not exceed in issuing the subject directive for it
has complied with the following guidelines:
a. Its promulgation must be authorized by the
legislature;
b.
prescribed procedure;
c. It must be within the scope of the authority given
by the legislature;
d. It must be reasonable.
(a) Philracom’s authority is drawn from PD420. Philracom was
created in order to promote and direct the accelerated
development and continued growth of horse racing not
only in pursuance of the sports development program but
also in order to insure the full exploitation of the sport as a
source of revenue and employment. It was granted
exclusive jurisdiction and control over every aspect of the
conduct of horse racing, including the framing and
scheduling of races, the construction and safety of race
tracks, and the security of racing. Philracom ha exercised
its rule-making power in a proper and reasonable manner.
More specifically, its discretion to rid the facilities of MJCI
and PRCI of horses afflicted with EIA is aimed at
preserving the security and integrity of horse races.
(b) Even though the implementing guidelines were issued a
month after the issuance of Philracom’s directive, this
does not render them void. The directive’s validity and
effectivity are not dependent on any supplemental
guidelines. Furthermore, the issuance of rules and
regulations in the exercise of an administrative agency of
its quasi-legislative power does not require notice and
hearing.
(c) As a rule, an administrative body may not make rules that
are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or a
statute, particularly the statute administering or which
created it, or which are in derogation of, or defeat, the
purpose of a statute. The assailed guidelines are in accord
with Philracom’s mandate under the law to regulate the
conduct of horse racing in the country.
(d) The guidelines were not unreasonable or discriminatory.
All horses stabled at the MCJI and PRCI premises
underwent the same procedure, horse owners were
notified before the tests were conducted and those who
failed to comply were repeatedly warned of the
consequences and sanctions. The guidelines implemented
bore a reasonable relation to the purpose sought to be
accomplished, i.e., the complete riddance of horses
infected with EIA.
2. NO.
There is no delegation of power to speak of between Philracom
and the clubs. The Philracom directive was merely instructive
in character to ordering said clubs to come up with rules to
address the problem and to rid their facilities of infected
horses. MJCI and PRCI’s duty arose from the franchise
granted to them by Congress allowing the clubs “to do and
carry out all such acts, deeds and things as may be necessary
to give effect” to the objectives of the Philracom.
Petition dismissed.
- Crystal Dunuan -