maceren-fulltext

8/9/2019 maceren-fulltext

1/9

epublic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-32166 October 18, 1977

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHLPPNES, plaintiff-appellant,vs.HON. M!"MO !. M!CEREN CF, St#. Cr$%, L#&$'#, (OSE )UEN!*ENTUR!, GO+OFRE+OREES, )EN(!MN REES, N!!RO !UNO #'/ C!RLO +EL ROS!RO, accused-appellees.

Office of the Solicitor General for appellant.

Rustics F. de los Reyes, Jr. for appellees.

!UNO, J.:t.hqw

This is a case involvin the validit! of a "#$% &eulation, penali'in elect&o fishin in f&esh (ate&fishe&ies, p&o)ulated b! the Sec&eta&! of *&icultu&e and Natu&al +esou&ces and the Co))issione&of ishe&ies unde& the old ishe&ies a( and the la( c&eatin the ishe&ies Co))ission.

On Ma&ch %, "#$# ose /uenaventu&a, 0odof&edo +e!es, /en1a)in +e!es, Na'a&io *2uino andCa&lito del +osa&io (e&e cha&ed b! a Constabula&! investiato& in the )unicipal cou&t of Sta. C&u',auna (ith havin violated ishe&ies *d)inist&ative O&de& No. 34-".

It (as alleed in the co)plaint that the five accused in the )o&nin of Ma&ch ", "#$# &eso&ted toelect&o fishin in the (ate&s of /a&&io San Pablo No&te, Sta. C&u' b! 5usin thei& o(n )oto& banca,e2uipped (ith )oto&6 (ith a ene&ato& colo&ed &een (ith attached d!na)o colo&ed &a! o&so)e(hat (hite6 and elect&ocutin device locall! 7no(n as senso&ed (ith a so)e(hat (ebbedcoppe& (i&e on the tip o& othe& end of a ba)boo pole (ith elect&ic (i&e attach)ent (hich (asattached to the d!na)o di&ect and (ith the use of these devices o& e2uip)ents catches fish th&uelect&ic cu&&ent, (hich dest&o! an! a2uatic ani)als (ithin its cuffed &each, to the det&i)ent andp&e1udice of the populace5 8C&i)inal Case No. 94:#;.

.

The lo(e& cou&t held that elect&o fishin cannot be penali'e because elect&ic cu&&ent is not anobno?ious o& poisonous substance as conte)plated in section I I of the ishe&ies a( and that it isnot a substance at all but a fo&) of ene&! conducted o& t&ans)itted b! substances. The lo(e& cou&tfu&the& held that, since the la( does not clea&l! p&ohibit elect&o fishin, the e?ecutive and 1udicialdepa&t)ents cannot conside& it unla(ful.

*s leal bac7&ound, it should be stated that section "" of the ishe&ies a( p&ohibits 5the use ofan! obno?ious o& poisonous substance5 in fishin.


2/9

Section %$ of the sa)e la( punishes an! pe&son (ho uses an obno?ious o& poisonous substance infishin (ith a fine of not )o&e than five hund&ed pesos no& )o&e than five thousand, and b!i)p&ison)ent fo& not less than si? )onths no& )o&e than five !ea&s.

It is note(o&th! that the ishe&ies a( does not e?p&essl! punish .elect&o fishin.5 Not(ithstandinthe silence of the la(, the Sec&eta&! of *&icultu&e and Natu&al +esou&ces, upon the

&eco))endation of the Co))issione& of ishe&ies, p&o)ulated ishe&ies *d)inist&ative O&de& No.34 8$: O.0. "::4;, p&ohibitin elect&o fishin in all Philippine (ate&s. The o&de& is 2uoted belo(@ +.wph!

S>=, as a)ended, and Section 4 of +.*. No. =9":, the follo(in&ules and &eulations &ea&din the p&ohibition of elect&o fishin in all (ate&s of the Philippines a&ep&o)ulated fo& the info&)ation and uidance of all conce&ned. +.wph!

SECTION ". "efinition. Bo&ds and te&)s used in this O&de& "" const&ued as

follo(s@

8a; Philippine (ate&s o& te&&ito&ial (ate&s of the Philippines includes all (ate&s of thePhilippine *&chipelao, as defined in the t bet(een the >.>>; o&

i)p&ison)ent of not e?tendin si? 8$; )onths o& both at the disc&etion of the Cou&t.

SEC. 4. Repealin$ %ro'isions. *ll ad)inist&ative o&de&s o& pa&ts the&eofinconsistent (ith the p&ovisions of this *d)inist&ative O&de& a&e he&eb! &evo7ed.

SEC. 9. #ffecti'ity. This *d)inist&ative O&de& shall ta7e effect si? 8$>; da!safte& its publication in the Office 0a'ette.


3/9

On une :3, "#$% the Sec&eta&! of *&icultu&e and Natu&al +esou&ces, upon the &eco))endation ofthe ishe&ies Co))ission, issued ishe&ies *d)inist&ative O&de& No. 34-", a)endin section : of

*d)inist&ative O&de& No. 34, b! &est&ictin the ban aainst elect&o fishin to fresh water fisheries 8$=O.0. ##$=;.

Thus, the ph&ase 5in an! po&tion of the Philippine (ate&s5 found in section :, (as chaned b! the

a)endato&! o&de& to &ead as follo(s@ 5in fresh water fisheries in the Philippines, such as &ive&s,la7es, s(a)ps, da)s, i&&iation canals and othe& bodies of f&esh (ate&.5

The Cou&t of i&st Instance and the p&osecution 8p. "" of b&ief; assu)ed that elect&o fishin ispunishable unde& section 3= of the ishe&ies a( 8not unde& section %$ the&eof;, (hich p&ovides thatan! othe& violation of that la( 5o& of an! &ules and &eulations p&o)ulated the&eunde& shall sub1ectthe offende& to a fine of not )o&e than t(o hund&ed pesos 8P:>>;, o& in t fo& not )o&e than si?)onths, o& both, in the disc&etion of the cou&t.5

That assu)ption is inco&&ect because = of the afo&e2uoted *d)inist&ative O&de& No. 34 i)poses af) of not e?ceedin P9>> on a pe&son enaed in elect&o fishin, (hich a)ount the 3=. It see)sthat the Depa&t)ent of ishe&ies p&esc&ibed thei& o(n penalt! fo& s(ift fishin (hich penalt! is less

than the seve&e penalt! i)posed in section %$ and (hich is not Identified to the at penalt! i)posedin section 3=.

Aad *d)inist&ative O&de& No. 34 adopted the fihte& penalt! p&esc&ibed in on 3=, then the c&i)e ofelect&o fishin (ould be (ithin the e(clusi'e ori$inal )urisdiction of the infe&io& cou&t 8Sec. 44 fF,udicia&! a(6 People vs. +aasi, -:3$$=, Septe)be& ::,

Be have discussed this p&e point, not &aised in the b&iefs, because it is obvious that the c&i)e ofelect&o fishin (hich is punishable (ith a su) up to P9>>, falls (ithin the concurrent ori$inal

)urisdiction of the infe&io& cou&ts and the Cou&t of i&st instance 8People vs. Na'a&eno, -4>>=%, *p&il=>, "#%$, %> SC+* 9=" and the cases cited the&ein;.

*nd since the instant case (as filed in the )unicipal cou&t of Sta. C&u', auna, a p&ovincial capital,the o&de& of d &ende&ed b! that )unicipal cou&t (as di&ectl! appealable to the Cou&t, not to the Cou&tof i&st Instance of auna 8Sec. 49 and last pa&. of section 3% of the udicia&! a(6 Espe&at vs.

*vila, -:9##:, une =>, "#$%, :> SC+* 9#$;.

It &esults that the Cou&t of i&st Instance of auna had no appellate 1u&isdiction ove& the case. Itso&de& affi&)in the )unicipal cou&ts o&de& of dis)issal is void fo& lac7 of )otion. This appeal shall bet&eated as a di&ect appeal f&o) the )unicipal cou&t to this Cou&t. 8See People vs. Del +osa&io, #%Phil. $%;.

In this appeal, the p&osecution a&ues that *d)inist&ative O&de&s Nos. 34 and 34-" (e&e not issuedunde& section "" of the ishe&ies a( (hich, as indicated above, punishes fishin b! )eans of anobno?ious o& poisonous substance. This contention is not (ell-ta7en because, as al&ead! stated, the

Penal p&ovision of *d)inist&ative O&de& No. 34 i)plies that elect&o fishin is penali'ed as a fo&) offishin b! )eans of an obno?ious o& poisonous substance unde& section "".

The p&osecution cites as the leal sanctions fo& the p&ohibition aainst elect&o fishin in f&esh (ate&fishe&ies 8"; the &ule-)a7in po(e& of the Depa&t)ent Sec&eta&! unde& section 4 of the ishe&iesa(6 8:; the function of the Co))issione& of ishe&ies to enfo&ce the p&ovisions of the ishe&ies a(and the &eulations P&o)ulated the&eunde& and to e?ecute the &ules and &eulations consistent (iththe pu&pose fo& the c&eation of the ishe&ies Co))ission and fo& the develop)ent of fishe&ies 8Sec.4cF and hF +epublic *ct No. =9":6 8=; the decla&ed national polic! to encou&ae, P&o)ote and


4/9

conse&ve ou& fishin &esou&ces 8Sec. ", +epublic *ct No. =9":;, and 84; section 3= of the ishe&iesa( (hich p&ovides that 5an! othe& violation of5 the ishe&ies a( o& of an! &ules and &eulationsp&o)ulated the&eunde& 5shall sub1ect the offende& to a fine of not )o&e than t(o hund&ed pesos, o&i)p&ison)ent fo& not )o&e than si? )onths, o& both, in the disc&etion of the cou&t.5

*s al&ead! pointed out above, the p&osecutions &efe&ence to section 3= is out of place because the

penalt! fo& elect&o fishin unde& *d)inist&ative o&de& No. 34 is not the sa)e as the penalt! fi?ed insection 3=.

Be a&e of the opinion that the Sec&eta&! of *&icultu&e and Natu&al +esou&ces and the Co))issione&of ishe&ies e?ceeded thei& autho&it! in issuin ishe&ies *d)inist&ative O&de&s Nos. 34 and 34-"and that those o&de&s a&e not (a&&anted unde& the ishe&ies Co))ission, +epublic *ct No. =9":.

The &eason is that the ishe&ies a( does not e?p&essl! p&ohibit elect&o fishin. *s elect&o fishin isnot banned unde& that la(, the Sec&eta&! of *&icultu&e and Natu&al +esou&ces and theCo))issione& of ishe&ies a&e po(e&less to penali'e it. In othe& (o&ds, *d)inist&ative O&de&s Nos.34 and 34-", in penali'in elect&o fishin, a&e devoid of an! leal basis.

Aad the la()a7in bod! intended to punish elect&o fishin, a penal p&ovision to that effect couldhave been easil! e)bodied in the old ishe&ies a(.

That la( punishes 8"; the use of obno?ious o& poisonous substance, o& e?plosive in fishin6 8:;unla(ful fishin in deepsea fishe&ies6 8=; unla(ful ta7in of )a&ine )olusca, 84; illeal ta7in ofspones6 89; failu&e of licensed fishe&)en to &epo&t the 7ind and 2uantit! of fish cauht, and 8$; othe&violations.

No(he&e in that la( is elect&o fishin specificall! punished. *d)inist&ative O&de& No. 34, in punishinelect&o fishin, does not conte)plate that such an offense fails (ithin the cateo&! of 5othe&violations5 because, as al&ead! sho(n, the penalt! fo& elect&o fishin is the penalt! ne?t lo(e& to thepenalt! fo& fishin (ith the use of obno?ious o& poisonous substances, fi?ed in section %$, and is not

the sa)e as the penalt! fo& 5othe& violations5 of the la( and &eulations fi?ed in section 3= of theishe&ies a(.

The la()a7in bod! cannot deleate to an e?ecutive official the po(e& to decla&e (hat acts shouldconstitute an offense. It can autho&i'e the issuance of &eulations and the i)position of the penalt!p&ovided fo& in the la( itself. 8People vs. E?conde ">" Phil. "" :9, citin "" *). u&. #$9 on p. ""=:;.

O&iinall!, *d)inist&ative O&de& No. 34 punished elect&o fishin in all (ate&s. ate&, the ban aainstelect&o fishin (as confined to fresh water fisheries. The a)end)ent c&eated the i)p&ession thatelect&o fishin is not conde)nable pe& se. It could be tole&ated in )a&ine (ate&s. That ci&cu)stancesst&enthens the vie( that the old la( does not esche( all fo&)s of elect&o fishin.

Ao(eve&, at p&esent, the&e is no )o&e doubt that elect&o fishin is punishable unde& the ishe&iesa( and that it cannot be penali'ed )e&el! b! e?ecutive &evolution because P&esidential Dec&ee No.%>4, (hich is a &evision and consolidation of all la(s and dec&ees affectin fishin and fishe&ies and(hich (as p&o)ulated on Ma! "$, "#%9 8%" O.0. 4:$#;, e?p&essl! punishes elect&o fishin in f&esh(ate& and salt (ate& a&eas.

That dec&ee p&ovides@ +.wph!


5/9

S#*. . lle$al fishin$, dealin$ in ille$ally cau$ht fish or fishery-auatic products. It shall he unla(ful fo& an! pe&son to catch, ta7e o& athe& o& cause to be cauht,ta7en o& athe&ed fish o& fishe&!Ga2uatic p&oducts in Philippine (ate&s (ith the use ofe?plosives, obno?ious o& poisonous substance, o& b! the use of elect&icit! as definedin pa&a&aphs 8";, 8); and 8d;, &espectivel!, of Section = he&eof@ ...

The dec&ee *ct No. 4>>=, as a)ended, +epublic *cts Nos. 4:3, =>43, =9": and =93$, P&esidentialDec&ees Nos. 4=, 9=4 and 99=, and all , *cts, E?ecutive O&de&s, &ules and &eulations o& pa&tsthe&eof inconsistent (ith it 8Sec. 4#, P. D. No. %>4;.

The inclusion in that dec&ee of p&ovisions definin and penali'in elect&o fishin is a clea& &econitionof the deficienc! o& silence on that point of the old ishe&ies a(. It is an ad)ission that a )e&ee?ecutive &eulation is not leall! ade2uate to penali'e elect&o fishin.

Note that the definition of elect&o fishin, (hich is found in section " 8c; of ishe&ies *d)inist&ativeO&de& No. 34 and (hich is not p&ovided fo& the old ishe&ies a(, is no( found in section =8d; of thedec&ee. Note fu&the& that the dec&ee penalt! elect&o fishin b! 5i)p&ison)ent f&o) t(o 8:; to fou& 84;!ea&s5, a punish)ent (hich is )o&e seve&e than the penalt! of a ti)e of not e?cludin P9>> o&

i)p&ison)ent of not )o&e than si? )onths o& both fi?ed in section = of ishe&ies *d)inist&ative O&de&No. 34.

*n e?a)ination of the &ule-)a7in po(e& of e?ecutive officials and ad)inist&ative aencies and, inpa&ticula&, of the Sec&eta&! of *&icultu&e and Natu&al +esou&ces 8no( Sec&eta&! of Natu&al+esou&ces; unde& the ishe&ies a( sustains the vie( that he e? his autho&it! in penali'in elect&ofishin b! )eans of an ad)inist&ative o&de&.

*d)inist&ative aent a&e clothed (ith &ule-)a7in po(e&s because the la()a7in bod! finds iti)p&acticable, if not i)possible, to anticipate and p&ovide fo& the )ultifa&ious and co)ple? situationsthat )a! be encounte&ed in enfo&cin the la(. *ll that is &e2ui&ed is that the &eulation should bee&)ane to the defects and pu&poses of the la( and that it should confo&) to the standa&ds that thela( p&esc&ibes 8People vs. E?conde ">" Phil. "":96 Di&ecto& of o&est&! vs. MuH6o', -:4%#$, une:3, "#$3, := SC+* ""3=, ""#36 0eu7e7o vs. *&aneta, ">: Phil. %>$, %":;.

The la()a7in bod! cannot possibl! p&ovide fo& all the details in the enfo&ce)ent of a pa&ticula&statute 8# Phil. 4"#, 4::6 Teo?on vs. Me)be&s of the d of *d)inist&ato&s, -:9$"#, une =>,"#%>, == SC+* 9396 Manuel vs. 0ene&al *uditin Office, -:3#9:, Dece)be& :#, "#%", 4: SC+*$$>6 Deluao vs. Casteel, -:"#>$, *uust :#, "#$#, :# SC+* =9>;.


6/9

The &ule-)a7in po(e& )ust be confined to details fo& &eulatin the )ode o& p&oceedin to ca&&!into effect the la( as it his been enacted. The po(e& cannot be e?tended to a)endin o& e?pandinthe statuto&! &e2ui&e)ents o& to e)b&ace )atte&s not cove&ed b! the statute. +ules that subve&t thestatute cannot be sanctioned. 8, =4#;.

The&e is no 2uestion that the Sec&eta&! of *&icultu&e and Natu&al +esou&ces has &ule-)a7inpo(e&s. Section 4 of the ishe&ies la( p&ovides that the Sec&eta&! 5shall f&o) ti)e to ti)e issueinst&uctions, o&de&s, and &eulations consistent5 (ith that la(, 5as )a! be and p&ope& to ca&&! intoeffect the p&ovisions the&eof.5 That po(e& is no( vested in the Sec&eta&! of Natu&al +esou&ces b! on% of the +evised ishe&ies la(, P&esidential Dece)be& No. %>4.

Section 48h; of +epublic *ct No. =9": e)po(e& the Co of ishe&ies 5to p&epa&e and e?ecute uponthe app&oval of the Sec&eta&! of *&icultu&e and Natu&al +esou&ces, fo&)s inst&uctions, &ules and&eulations consistent (ith the pu&pose5 of that enact)ent 5and fo& the develop)ent of fishe&ies.5

Section %#8/; of the +evised *d)inist&ative Code p&ovides that 5the Depa&t)ent Aead shall have thepo(e& to p&o)ulate, (heneve& he )a! see fit do so, all &ules, &eulates, o&de&s, )e)o&andu)s,and othe& inst&uctions, not contrary to law, to &eulate the p&ope& (o&7in and ha&)onious andefficient ad)inist&ation of each and all of the offices and dependencies of his Depa&t)ent, and fo&the st&ict enfo&ce)ent and p&ope& e?ecution of the la(s &elative to )atte&s unde& the 1u&isdiction ofsaid Depa&t)ent6 but none of said &ules o& o&de&s shall p&esc&ibe penalties fo& the violation the&eof,e?cept as e?p&essl! autho&i'ed b! la(.5

*d)inist&ative &eulations issued b! a Depa&t)ent Aead in confo&)it! (ith la( have the fo&ce of la(8Vale&ie vs. Sec&eta&! of cultu&e and Natu&al +esou&ces, ""% Phil. %:#, %==6 *nti2ue Sa()ills, Inc.vs. Ja!co, - :>>9", Ma! =>, "#$$, "% SC+* ="$;. *s he e?e&cises the &ule-)a7in po(e& b!deleation of the la()a7in bod!, it is a &e2uisite that he should not t&anscend the boundde)a&cated b! the statute fo& the e?e&cise of that po(e&6 othe&(ise, he (ould be i)p&ope&l!

e?e&cisin leislative po(e& in his o(n &iht and not as a su&&oate of the la()a7in bod!.

*&ticle % of the Civil Code e)bodies the basic p&inciple that ad)inist&ative o& e?ecutive acts, o&de&sand &eulations shall be valid onl! (hen the! a&e not cont&a&! to the la(s o& the Constitution.5

*s noted b! ustice e&nando, 5e?cept fo& constitutional officials (ho can t&ace thei& co)petence toact to the funda)ental la( itself, a public office )ust be in the statute &elied upon a &ant of po(e&befo&e he can e?e&cise it.5 5depa&t)ent 'eal )a! not be pe&)itted to out&un the autho&it! confe&&edb! statute.5 8+adio Co))unications of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Santiao, -:#:=$, *uust :", "#%4,93 SC+* 4#=, 4#$-3;.

5+ules and &eulations (hen p&o)ulated in pu&suance of the p&ocedu&e o& autho&it! confe&&ed upon

the ad)inist&ative aenc! b! la(, pa&ta7e of the natu&e of a statute, and co)pliance the&e(ith )a!be enfo&ced b! a penal sanction p&ovided in the la(. This is so because statutes a&e usuall! couchedin ene&al te&)s, afte& e?p&essin the polic!, pu&poses, ob1ectives, &e)edies and sanctions intendedb! the leislatu&e. The details and the )anne& of ca&&!in out the la( a&e oftenti)es left to thead)inist&ative aenc! ent&usted (ith its enfo&ce)ent. In this sense, it has been said that &ules and&eulations a&e the p&oduct of a deleated po(e& to c&eate ne( o& additional leal p&ovisions thathave the effect of la(.5 The &ule o& &eulation should be (ithin the scope of the statuto&! autho&it!&anted b! the leislatu&e to the ad)inist&ative aenc!. 8Davis, *d)inist&ative a(, p. "#4, "#%, citedin Victo&ies Millin Co., Inc. vs. Social Secu&it! Co))ission, ""4 Phil. 999, 993;.


7/9

In case of disc&epanc! bet(een the basic la( and a &ule o& &eulation issued to i)ple)ent said la(,the basic la( p&evails because said &ule o& &eulation cannot o be!ond the te&)s and p&ovisions ofthe basic la( 8People vs. i), ">3 Phil. ">#";.

This Cou&t in its decision in the i) case, supra, p&o)ulated on ul! :$, "#$>, called the attentionof technical )en in the e?ecutive depa&t)ents, (ho d&aft &ules and &eulations, to the i)po&tance

and necessit! of closel! follo(in the leal p&ovisions (hich the! intend to i)ple)ent so as to avoidan! possible )isunde&standin o& confusion.

The &ule is that the violation of a &eulation p&esc&ibed b! an e?ecutive office& of the ove&n)ent inconfo&)it! (ith and based upon a statute autho&i'in such &eulation constitutes an offense and&ende&s the offende& liable to punish)ent in acco&dance (ith the p&ovisions of the la( 8"Phil. "":9, ""=:;.

It has been held that 5to decla&e (hat shall constitute a c&i)e and ho( it shall be punished is apo(e& vested e?clusivel! in the leislatu&e, and it )a! not be deleated to an! othe& bod! o& aenc!58" *). u&. :nd, sec. ":%, p. #=36 Te?as Co. vs. Monto)e&!, %= . Supp. 9:%;.

In the instant case the &eulation penali'in elect&o fishin is not st&ictl! in acco&dance (ith theishe&ies a(, unde& (hich the &eulation (as issued, &ecause the law itself does not e(pressly

punish electro fishin$.

The instant case is si)ila& to %eople 's. Santos, $= Phil. =>>. The Santos case involves section :3of ish and 0a)e *d)inist&ative O&de& No. : issued b! the Sec&eta&! of *&icultu&e and Natu&al+esou&ces pu&suant to the afo&e)entioned section 4 of the ishe&ies a(.

Section :3 contains the p&oviso that a fishin boat not licensed unde& the ishe&ies a( and unde&the said ad)inist&ative o&de& )a! fish (ithin th&ee 7ilo)ete&s of the sho&eline of islands and&ese&vations ove& (hich 1u&isdiction is e?e&cised b! naval and )ilita&! &ese&vations autho&ities of the


8/9

Sec&eta&! but also an e?e&cise of a leislative po(e& (hich he does not have, and the&efo&e5 the saidp&ovision 5is null and void and (ithout effect5. Aence, the cha&e aainst Santos (as dis)iss.

* penal statute is st&ictl! const&ued. Bhile an ad)inist&ative aenc! has the &iht to )a7e &an7s and&eulations to ca&&! into effect a la( al&ead! enacted, that po(e& should not be confused (ith thepo(e& to enact a c&i)inal statute. *n ad)inist&ative aenc! can have onl! the ad)inist&ative o&

policin po(e&s e?p&essl! o& b! necessa&! i)plication confe&&ed upon it. 80lust&o) vs. State, :>$0a. %=4, 93 Second :d 9=46 See : *). &. :nd ":#-"=>;.

Bhe&e the leislatu&e has deleated to e?ecutive o& ad)inist&ative office&s and boa&ds autho&it! top&o)ulate &ules to ca&&! out an e?p&ess leislative pu&pose, the &ules of ad)inist&ative office&s andboa&ds, (hich have the effect of e?tendin, o& (hich conflict (ith the autho&it! &antin statute, donot &ep&esent a valid p&ecise of the &ule-)a7in po(e& but constitute an atte)pt b! an ad)inist&ativebod! to leislate 8State vs. Miles, Bash. :nd =::, ">9 Pac. :nd 9";.

In a p&osecution fo& a violation of an ad)inist&ative o&de&, it )ust clea&l! appea& that the o&de& is one(hich falls (ithin the scope of the autho&it! confe&&ed upon the ad)inist&ative bod!, and the o&de&(ill be sc&utini'ed (ith special ca&e. 8State vs. Miles supra;.

The /iles case involved a statute (hich autho&i'ed the State 0a)e Co))ission 5to adopt,p&o)ulate, a)end andGo& &epeal, and enfo&ce &easonable &ules and &eulations ove&nin andGo&p&ohibitin the ta0in$ of the va&ious classes of a)e.


9/9

maceren-fulltext

Documents

Transcript of maceren-fulltext