The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a Philippine Racing Commission (Philracom) directive ordering horse racing clubs to rid their facilities of horses infected with Equine Infectious Anemia. The court found that Philracom was properly delegated rule-making authority by the legislature to regulate horse racing and ensure safety. It also found that the directive was a reasonable exercise of this authority aimed at preserving security in horse races, rather than an improper delegation of power to the clubs. The clubs were obligated to comply with the directive based on their congressional franchises to support horse racing regulation.
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a Philippine Racing Commission (Philracom) directive ordering horse racing clubs to rid their facilities of horses infected with Equine Infectious Anemia. The court found that Philracom was properly delegated rule-making authority by the legislature to regulate horse racing and ensure safety. It also found that the directive was a reasonable exercise of this authority aimed at preserving security in horse races, rather than an improper delegation of power to the clubs. The clubs were obligated to comply with the directive based on their congressional franchises to support horse racing regulation.
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a Philippine Racing Commission (Philracom) directive ordering horse racing clubs to rid their facilities of horses infected with Equine Infectious Anemia. The court found that Philracom was properly delegated rule-making authority by the legislature to regulate horse racing and ensure safety. It also found that the directive was a reasonable exercise of this authority aimed at preserving security in horse races, rather than an improper delegation of power to the clubs. The clubs were obligated to comply with the directive based on their congressional franchises to support horse racing regulation.
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a Philippine Racing Commission (Philracom) directive ordering horse racing clubs to rid their facilities of horses infected with Equine Infectious Anemia. The court found that Philracom was properly delegated rule-making authority by the legislature to regulate horse racing and ensure safety. It also found that the directive was a reasonable exercise of this authority aimed at preserving security in horse races, rather than an improper delegation of power to the clubs. The clubs were obligated to comply with the directive based on their congressional franchises to support horse racing regulation.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
EN BANC
G.R. No. 175220 February 12, 2009
WILLIAM C. DAGAN, CARLOS H. REYES, NARCISO MORALES, BONIFACIO MANTILLA,
CESAR AZURIN, WEITONG LIM, MA. TERESA TRINIDAD, MA. CARMELITA FLORENTINO, Petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE RACING COMMISSION, MANILA JOCKEY CLUB, INC., and PHILIPPINE RACING CLUB, INC.,Respondents.
TINGA, J.:
Facts:
The subject of this petition for certiorari is the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 95212, affirming in toto the judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati in Civil Case No. 04- 1228.
The controversy stemmed from the 11 August 2004 directive3 issued by the Philippine Racing Commission (Philracom) 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)4 problem and to rid their facilities of horses infected with EIA. Said directive was issued pursuant to Administrative Order No. 5 dated 28 March 1994 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).
In compliance with the directive, MJCI and PRCI ordered the owners of racehorses stable in their establishments to submit the horses to blood sampling and administration of the Coggins Test to determine whether they are afflicted with the EIA virus. Subsequently, on 17 September 2004, Philracom issued copies of the guidelines for the monitoring and eradication of EIA. Petitioners and racehorse owners William Dagan (Dagan), Carlos Reyes, Narciso Morales, Bonifacio Montilla, Cezar Azurin, Weitong Lim, Ma. Teresa Trinidad and Ma. Carmelita Florentino refused to comply with the directive.
Despite resistance from petitioners, the blood testing proceeded. The horses, whose owners refused to comply were banned from the races, were removed from the actual day of race, prohibited from renewing their licenses or evicted from their stables.When their complaint went unheeded, the racehorse owners lodged a complaint before the Office of the President (OP) which in turn issued a directive instructing Philracom to investigate the matter.For failure of Philracom to act upon the directive of the OP, petitioners filed a petition for injunction with application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO). In an order dated 11 November 2004, the trial court issued a TRO. With respect to the subject guidelines, the trial court upheld their validity as an exercise of police power. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its Decision dated 27 October 2006, the appellate court affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court.
Issue: Whether or not the Philracom directive and the subsequent guidelines addressed to MJCI and PRCI are valid. Held: The validity of an administrative issuance, such as the assailed guidelines, hinges on compliance 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;
4. It must be reasonable.
All the prescribed requisites are met as regards the questioned issuances. Philracom’s authority is drawn from P.D. No. 420. The delegation made in the presidential decree is valid. Philracom did not exceed its authority. And the issuances are fair and reasonable.
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 30 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.
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. P.D. No. 420 is already complete in itself. 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.
There is no delegation of power to speak of between Philracom, as the delegator and MJCI and PRCI as delegates. The Philracom directive is merely instructive in character. Philracom had instructed PRCI and MJCI to "immediately come up with Club’s House Rule to address the problem and rid their facilities of horses infected with EIA." PRCI and MJCI followed-up when they ordered the racehorse owners to submit blood samples and subject their race horses to blood testing. Compliance with the Philracom’s directive is part of the mandate of PRCI and MJCI under Sections 1 of R.A. No. 7953 and Sections 1 and 2of 8407.
As correctly proferred by MJCI, its duty is not derived from the delegated authority of Philracom but arises from the franchise granted to them by Congress allowing MJCI "to do and carry out all such acts, deeds and things as may be necessary to give effect to the foregoing." As justified by PRCI, "obeying the terms of the franchise and abiding by whatever rules enacted by Philracom is its duty."
Instant download (Ebook) SBAs and EMIs for the General Surgery FRCS by Richard Molloy, Graham MacKay, Campbell S. D. Roxburgh, Martha Quinn ISBN 9780198794158, 0198794150 pdf all chapter
