LIMITATIONS ON

QUASI-LEGISLATIVE
POWER:
Clarifying this delegated power of administrative agencies

Submitted to:
Atty. MYRISH CADAPAN ANTONIO

Submitted by:
BEHVERLY GRACE M. TINAPAO
SUJD II

DECEMBER 17, 2010

 Quasi-legislative power may be defined as the authority delegated by the law-making
body to administrative bodies to adopt rules and regulations intended to carry out the provisions
of a law and implement legislative policy.1 The power to issue administrative rules and
regulations is different from the power to promulgate laws. Administrative regulations are
intended only to implement the law and to carry out the legislative policy. The power to make
rules to carry out a policy declared by the lawmaker is administrative and not legislative.
In principle, legislation and administration are distinct powers, but in application the line
which separates their exercise is not clearly marked. Distinction between the two is fundamental.
In their definition in practical application lies the difference between government by legislation
and government by administration.
With the proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant peculiar problems,
Congress has found it more and more necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the “power
of subordinate legislation”. With this power, administrative bodies may implement the broad
policies laid down in statute by filling in the details which Congress may not have the
opportunity to provide.2
In subordinate, delegated rule-making by administrative agencies, all that may be
reasonably demanded is a showing that the delegated legislation consisting of administrative
regulations are germane to the general purposes of the enabling statute.
Constitutional and statutory provisions control with respect to what rules and regulations
may be promulgated by such a body, as well as with respect to what fields are subject to
regulation by it.
The rule is that what has been delegated cannot be delegated, or as expressed in the Latin
maxim: potestas delegate non delegare potest. This rule is based upon the ethical principle that
such delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate by
the instrumentality of his own judgment acting immediately upon the matter of legislation and
not through the intervening mind of another. This rule however admits of recognized exceptions
such as the grant of rule-making power to administrative agencies. They have been granted by
Congress with the authority to issue rules to regulate the implementation of a law entrusted to
them. Delegated rule-making has become a practical necessity in modern governance due to the
increasing complexity and variety of public functions.3 Also one recognized exception to the rule
on non-delegability of legislative power is that local governments may be allowed to legislate on
purely local matters.4
LIMITATIONS
To be valid, the administrative regulation must comply with the following requisites; (1)
its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature; (2) it must be promulgated in accordance
with the prescribed procedure; (3) it must be within the scope of the authority given by the
legislature; and (4) it must be reasonable.5

1
Cruz, C. Philippine Administrative Law.1996 ed. Central Lawbook Publishing Company, Inc. :Quezon City. p 18.
2
Cruz, I. Philippine Political Law.1998 ed. Central Lawbook Publishing Company, Inc. :Quezon City. p 100.
3
Dagan, et.al., vs Philippine Racing Commission, G.R. No. 175220, February 12, 2009.
4
Bernas, J. G. The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary. 2009 ed. Rex Book Store, Inc. :
Manila. P695.
5
Dagan, et.al., vs Philippine Racing Commission, G.R. No. 175220, February 12, 2009.
First Requisite
Authority to promulgate the regulation is usually conferred by the charter itself of the
administrative body or by the law it is supposed to enforce. There are limitations on the rule-
making power of administrative agencies. A rule shaped out by jurisprudence is that when
Congress authorizes promulgation of administrative ruled and regulations to implement given
legislation, all that is required is that the regulation be not in contravention with it, but conform
to the standards that the law prescribes.
Second Requisite
Assuming a valid authorization, it is still necessary that the authority delegated be
properly exercised, which means simply that the regulation promulgated must not be ultra vires
or beyond the limits of the authority conferred. An administrative agency cannot amend an act of
congress.
To illustrate, the COMELEC is constitutionally mandated to enforce and administer all
laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, a plebiscite, an initiative, a
referendum, and a recall. In addition to the powers and functions conferred upon it by the
Constitution, the COMELEC may promulgate its own implementing rules and regulations (IRRs)
implementing the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code or other laws that the COMELEC
enforces and administers.6
In Lokin vs Comelec,7 Comelec issued Resolution No. 8219, whereby it resolved to set
the matter pertaining to the validity of the withdrawal of the nominations of petitioners and the
substitution of Borje for proper disposition and hearing. Petitioner now contends whether or not
COMELEC can issue implementing rules and regulations (IRRs) that provide a ground for the
substitution of a party-list nominee not written in RA 7941 otherwise known as the Party-List
System Act, the law that the COMELEC thereby implements. Administrative IRRs adopted by a
particular department of the Government under legislative authority must be in harmony with the
provisions of the law, and should be for the sole purpose of carrying the law’s general provisions
into effect. The law itself cannot be expanded by such IRRs, because an administrative agency
cannot amend an act of Congress. Thereby, the insertion of the new ground by the COMELEC
was invalid. An axiom in administrative law postulates that administrative authorities should not
act arbitrarily and capriciously in the issuance of their IRRs, but must ensure that their IRRs are
reasonable and fairly adapted to secure the end in view. If the IRRs are shown to bear no
reasonable relation to the purposes for which they were authorized to be issued, they must be
held to be invalid and should be struck down.
The power of administrative officials to promulgate rules and regulations in the
implementation of a statue is necessarily limited only to carrying into effect what is provided in
the legislative enactment.
8
The doctrine in People vs. Maceren is reiterated in the case of Easter Telecom vs ICC
where the court said that the rule was held invalid for the reason that it made punishable an act

6
De Leon, H.S. The Law on Public Officers and Election Law. 2003 ed. Rex Book Store, Inc. : Manila. p. 522.
7
Lokin vs Comelec, G.R. Nos. 179431-32 , June 22, 2010.
8
Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. vs. International Communication Corporation, GR 135992, Jan. 31, 2006.
which the law did not specify as punishable even as the rule conformed to the legislative policy
of protecting marine life. This case is peculiar as it involved an administrative issuance which
contained a penal provision. As a rule, laws with penal provisions are strictly construed for they
subject a person to punishment and sanctions. Anent the rule that administrative issuances should
be construed liberally, issuances with penal provisions can be said to be an exception by their
very nature. Moreover, while it is true that administrative issuances enjoy the presumption of
legality and accorded great respect, it is likewise true the courts may declare them invalid based
on grounds such as grave abuse of discretion, lack of jurisdiction, error of law, abuse of power,
and clear conflict between the statute and the issuance. No matter how wise a rule may be, if it is
not in harmony with the law, it is invalid.
Third Requisite
In order to determine whether the rule has been issued or promulgated in accordance with
the prescribed procedure, it is necessary that the nature of the administrative issuance is properly
determined. As in the enactment of laws, the general rule is that, the promulgation of
administrative issuances requires previous notice and hearing, the only exception being where
the legislature itself requires it and mandates that the regulation shall be based on certain facts as
determined at an appropriate investigation. This exception pertains to the issuance of legislative
rules as distinguished from interpretative rules which give no real consequence more than what
the law itself has already prescribed; and are designed merely to provide guidelines to the law
which the administrative agency is in charge of enforcing. A legislative rule, on the other hand,
is in the nature of subordinate legislation, crafted to implement a primary legislation.
When an administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that can
facilitate or render less cumbersome the implementation of the law and substantially increases
the burden of those governed, it behoves the agency to accord at least to those directly affected a
chance to be heard, and thereafter, to be duly informed, before the issuance is given the force and
effect of law.9
Fourth Requisite
Like statutes, administrative regulations promulgated thereunder must be not be
unreasonable or arbitrary as to violate due process.
It is an axiom in administrative law that administrative authorities should not act
arbitrarily and capriciously in the issuance of rules and regulations. To be valid, such rules and
regulations must be reasonable and fairly adapted to secure the end in view. If shown to bear no
reasonable relation to the purposes for which they were authorized to be issued, then they must
be held to be invalid.10
TEST OF DELEGATION
However, in every case of permissible delegation, there must be a showing that the
delegation itself is valid. It is valid only if the law (a) is complete in itself, setting forth therein
the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate; and (b) fixes a standard—
the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable—to which the delegate must
conform in the performance of his functions. A sufficient standard is one which defines

9
Hon. Executive Secretary vs. Southwing Heavy Industries, G.R. No. 164171, Feb. 20, 2006.
10
Hon. Executive Secretary vs. Southwing Heavy Industries, G.R. No. 164171, Feb. 20, 2006.
legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to
apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected.11
12
To illustrate, in Dagan vs Philracom, the Philippine Racing Commission (Philracom)
issued a directive directing the Manila Jockey Club, Inc. (MJCI) and Philippine Racing Club,
Inc. (PRCI) to immediately come up with their respective Clubs’ House Rule to address Equine
Infectious Anemia (EIA) problem and to rid their facilities of horses infected with EIA. Said
directive was issued pursuant to AO 55 by the Department 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 (BAI). Dagan refused to comply with the directives because, according to him,
the same are unfair as there are no implementing rules on the banning of sick horses from races.
Philracom was created for the purpose of carrying out the declared policy in Section 1 which is
"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." Furthermore, Philracom 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. PD 420 is already complete in itself. Section 9 of the law fixes the standards
and limitations to which Philracom must conform in the performance of its functions. Clearly,
there is a proper legislative delegation of rule-making power to Philracom. Clearly too, for its
part Philracom has 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.
Except where prohibited by statute or judicial precedent, quasi-legislative activity may be
challenged in a court of law. Generally, a person challenging quasi-legislative activity must wait
until the rule-making process is complete and the rule or regulation is set before challenging it.
Moreover, a challenge to an agency's rule or regulation usually must be made first to the agency
itself. If no satisfaction is received from the agency, the complainant can then challenge the rule
or regulation in a court of law.13

11
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Leonila P. Celada, G.R. No. 164876, Jan. 23, 2006.
12
Dagan, et.al., vs Philippine Racing Commission, G.R. No. 175220, February 12, 2009.
13
Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-legislative. December 12, 2010.