8/12/2019 Admin DIgest 12-05-2013

1/13

REVIEW CENTER ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES,Petitioner,vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARYEDUARDO ERMITA and COMMISSIONON HIGHER EDUCATION represented by its Chairman ROMULO L. NERI,Respondents.

CPA REVIEW SCHOOL OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (CPAR),PROFESSIONAL REVIEW AND TRAININGCENTER, INC. (PRTC), ReSAREVIEW SCHOOL, INC. (ReSA), CRC-ACE REVIEW SCHOOL, INC. (CRC-ACE)Petitioners-Intervenors.PIMSAT COLLEGES,Respondent-Intervenor.Carpio, 2009Facts:- There was a report that handwritten copies of two sets of 2006 NursingBoard examination were circulated duringthe examination period among

examinees reviewing at the R.A. Gapuz Review Center and Inress ReviewCenter.The examinees were provided with a list of 500 questions andanswers in two of the examinations five subjects, particularly Tests III(Psychiatric Nursing) and V (Medical-Surgical Nursing). The PRC lateradmitted the leakageand traced it to two Board of Nursing members. Examresults came out but Court of Appeals restrained the PRCfrom proceedingwith the oath-taking of the successful examinees.- PresidentGMA ordered for a re-examination and issued EO 566which authorized the CHED to supervise theestablishment and operation of allreview centers and similar entities in the Philippines. CHED ChairmanPunoapproved CHED Memorandum Order No. 49 series of2006 (Implementing Rules and Regulations).- Review Center Association ofthe Philippines (petitioner), an organization of independent review centers,asked theCHED to "amend, if not withdraw" the IRR arguing, among otherthings, that giving permits to operate a reviewcenter to Higher EducationInstitutions (HEIs) or consortia of HEIs and professional organizations willeffectivelyabolish independent review centers. CHED Chairman Punohowever believed that suspending the implementation of the IRR would beinconsistent with the mandate of EO 566.- A dialogue between the petitionerand CHED took place.Revised IRR was approved

. Petitioner filed before theCHED a Petition to Clarify/Amend RIRR praying toexclude independent review center from the coverage of theCHED; to clarifythe meaning of the requirement for existing review centers to tie-up with HEIs;to revise the rulesto make it conform with RA 7722 limiting the CHEDscoverage to public and private institutions of higher.- In 2007, then CHEDChairman Neri responded to the petitioner that: to exclude theoperat ion of independentreview centers from the coverage of CHED wouldclearly contradict the intention of the said Executive Order No.566; As to therequest to clarify what is meant by tie-up/be integrated with an HEI,tie-up/be integrated simplymeans, to be in partner with an HEI.-Petitioner filed a petition for Prohibition and Mandamus before this

Court praying for the annulment oftheRIRR, the declarat ion of EO 566 as inval id and unconst

8/12/2019 Admin DIgest 12-05-2013

2/13

i tu t ionalexercise of legislative power, a n dt h e p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t C H E D f r o m i m p l e m e n t i n g t h eR I R R .

M o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e f i l e d b y o t h e r organizations/institutionswere granted by the Court.- On 21 May 2008,CHED issued CHED Memorandum Order No. 21, Series of 2008(CMO 21, s. 2008)extending the deadline for six months from 27 May2008 for all existing independent review centers to tie-upor beintegrated with HEIs in accordance with the RIRR.On 25 November 2008 Resolution, SC resolved torequire the parties toobserve the status quo prevailing before the issuance of EO 566, the RIRR,and CMO 21, s.2008.Issues:1. Whether EO 566 is an unconstitutional exercise by the Executive of

legislative power as it expands theCHEDs jurisdiction [Yes, it expandsCHEDs jurisdiction, hence unconsititutional]; and2. Whether the RIRR is aninvalid exercise of the Executives rule-making power. [Yes, it is invalid.]Held/Ratio:1. The scopes of EO 566 and the RIRR clearly expand the CHEDs coverageunder RA 7722.TheCHEDs coverage under RA 7722 is limited to public and privateinstitutions of higher education and degree-granting programs in all public and private post-secondaryeducational institutions.EO 566 directed theCHED to formulate a framework for the regulation ofreview centers and similar entities.The definition of a review centerunder EO 566 shows that it refers to one which offers "a program orcourse of study that is intended to refresh and enhance the knowledge orcompetencies and skills of reviewees obtained in theformal school setting inpreparation for the licensure examinations" given by the PRC. It does not offera degree-granting program that would put it under the jurisdiction of theCHED. A review course is only intended to "refreshand enhance theknowledge or competencies and skills of reviewees." Thus,programs given by review centerscould not be considered "programs xx x of higher learning" that would put them under the jurisdiction of the

CHED."Higher education," is defined as "education beyond the secondary level or"education provided by acollege or university."Further, the "similar entities" inEO 566 cover centers providing "review or tutorial services" in areas notcovered bylicensure examinations given by the PRC, which include, althoughnot limited to, college entrance examinations,Civil Services examinations, andtutorial services. These review and tutorial services hardly qualify asprograms of higher learning.2. ) The exercise of the Presidents residualpowers under Section 20, Title I of Book III of EO (invoked by theOSGto justify GMAs action) requires legislation

; as the p rov is ion c lear ly s ta tes tha t theex er ci se of th ePresidents other powers and functions has to be

8/12/2019 Admin DIgest 12-05-2013

3/13

"provided for under the law." There is no law grant ing thePresidentthe power to amend the functions of the CHED. The President has noinherent or delegated legislative power to amend the functions of the CHEDunder RA 7722.The line that delineates Legislative and Executive power is notindistinct.

Legislative power is "the author ity ,under the Constitution, to makelaws, and to alter and repeal them."The Constitution, as the will of the peoplein their original, sovereign andunlimited capacity, has vested this power in the Congress of the Philippines.Any power, deemed to be legislative by usage and tradition, is necessarilypossessed by Congress, unless the Constitutionhas lodged it elsewhere.ThePresident has control over the executive department, bureaus andoff ices. Meaning, he has the author ity toassume directly the functions ofthe executive department, bureau and office, or interfere with the discretion ofitsofficials. Corollary to the power of control, he is granted administra t ive power

. Administrative power isconcerned with the work of applying policies andenforcing orders as determined by proper governmental organs. Itenables thePresident to fix a uniform standard of administrative efficiency and check theofficial conduct of hisagents. To this end, he can issue administrative orders,rules and regulations.An administrative order is an ordinanceissued by the President which relatesto specific aspects in the administrative operation of government.It must be inharmony with the law and should be for the solepurpose of implementing the law and carrying out thelegislativepolicy.Since EO 566 is an invalid exercise of legislative power ,the RIRR is also an invalid exercise of the CHEDsquasi-legislative power.Administrative agencies exercise their quasi-legislative or rule-making powerthrough the promulgation of rules and regulations. The CHED may onlyexercise its rule-making power within the confines of its jurisdiction under RA7722. But The RIRR covers review centers and similar entities.Other issues:Re: issue judicial hierarchy, the alleged violation of the Constitution by theExecutive Departmentwhen it issued EO 566 justifies the exercise by theCourt of its primary jurisdiction over the case. The Court is not precluded from

brushing aside technicalities and taking cognizance of an action due to itsimportance to the public.Re: police power, no delegation of policepower exists under RA 7722 authorizing the President to regulatetheoperations of non-degree granting review centers.Re: RA 8981 as theappropriate law, the PRC has the power to adopt measures topreserve the in tegrity andinviolability of licensure examinations. However,this power should properly be interpreted to refer to the conduct of theexaminations. The power to preserve the integrity and inviolability of licensureexaminations should be readtogether with these functions. Thesepowers of the PRC have nothing to do at all with the regulation ofreviewcenters.

8/12/2019 Admin DIgest 12-05-2013

4/13

A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495(1935), wasa decision by the Supreme Court of the United Statesthat invalidatedregulations of the poultryindustry according to the nondelegation doctrineand

as an invalid use of Congress's power under the commerce clause.This wasa unanimous decision that rendered the National Industrial Recovery Act, amain component of PresidentRoosevelt's New Deal, unconstitutional.

The regulations at issue were promulgated under the authority of the NationalIndustrial Recovery Act(NIRA) of 1933. These included priceand wage fixing,as well as requirements regarding the sale of whole chickens, including

unhealthy ones. The government claimed the Schechters sold sick poultry,which has led to the case becoming known as "the sick chicken case". Alsoencompassed in the decision were NIRA provisions regarding maximum workhours and a right of unions to organize. The ruling was one of a series which

overturned elements of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's NewDeallegislation between January 1935 and January 1936, until the Court'sintolerance of economic regulations shifted with West Coast Hotel Co. v.

Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937). The National Industrial Recovery Act allowedlocal codes for trade to be written by private trade and industrial groups. ThePresident could choose to give some codes the force of law. The SupremeCourt's opposition to an active federal interference in the local economycaused Roosevelt to attempt to pack the Courtwith judges that were in favorof the New Deal.

There were originally sixty charges against Schechter Poultry, which were

reduced to eighteen charges plus charges of conspiracy by the time the casewas heard by the U. S. Supreme Court.

Among the eighteen charges against Schechter Poultry were "the sale toa butcherof an unfit chicken" and the sale of two uninspected chickens.

Chief JusticeHugheswrote for a unanimous Court in invalidating theindustrial "codes of fair competition" which the NIRAenabled the Presidenttoissue. The Court held that the codes violated the constitutionalseparation ofpowersas an impermissible delegation of legislativepower to theexecutivebranch. The Court also held that the NIRA provisions were in excessof congressionalpower under the Commerce Clause.

The Court distinguished between direct effects on interstate commerce, whichCongress could lawfully regulate, and indirect, which were purely matters ofstate law. Though the raising and sale of poultrywas an interstate industry,the Court found that the "stream of interstate commerce" had stopped in this

caseSchechter's slaughterhouses chickens were sold exclusively tointrastate buyers. Any interstate effect of Schechter was indirect, andtherefore beyond federal reach.

Though many considered the NIRA a "dead statute" at this point in the NewDeal scheme, the Court used its invalidation as an opportunity to affirm

constitutional limits on congressional power, for fear that it could otherwisereach virtually anything that could be said to "affect" interstate commerce and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poultryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clausehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clausehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Industrial_Recovery_Acthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Dealhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Industrial_Recovery_Acthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Industrial_Recovery_Acthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Delano_Roosevelthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Dealhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Dealhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Hotel_Co._v._Parrishhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Hotel_Co._v._Parrishhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Reorganization_Bill_of_1937http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butcherhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Evans_Hugheshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Industrial_Recovery_Acthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_branchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_branchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_branchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congresshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clausehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poultryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poultryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clausehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Industrial_Recovery_Acthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Dealhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Industrial_Recovery_Acthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Industrial_Recovery_Acthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Delano_Roosevelthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Dealhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Dealhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Hotel_Co._v._Parrishhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Hotel_Co._v._Parrishhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Reorganization_Bill_of_1937http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butcherhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Evans_Hugheshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Industrial_Recovery_Acthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_branchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_branchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_branchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congresshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clausehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poultryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citation

8/12/2019 Admin DIgest 12-05-2013

5/13

8/12/2019 Admin DIgest 12-05-2013

6/13

and restrictions.

Juan ALEGRE v Insular COLLECTOR of CUSTOMS | Johns | 1929

FACTS:

Act No. 2380 entitled "An Act providing for the inspection, grading, and

baling of abaca, maguey, sisal, and other fibers" as enacted b! the hilippine#egislat$re

%he &'()* and +N%*N% of the la as to provide in detail for the

inspection grading and baling of abacaand other fibers, and for a $nifor

scale for grading, and to iss$e official certificates as to the -ind and $alit! of

the hep, so that an intending p$rchaser fro an e/aination of the

certificates ight be ass$red and -no the grade and $alit! of the hep

offered for sale

+t as later aended to provide for the creation ofPhiliines Fi!er

Insection Service, hich shall have charge of the classification, baling, andinspection of hilippine fibers

Alegre, ho is engaged in the prod$ction of abaca and its e/portation to

foreign ar-ets, applied to the ollector of $stos for a perit to e/port 100

bales of abaca to *ngland. oever, his application as denied and he as

advised that he o$ld not be peritted to e/port the abaca itho$t a

certificate of the iber )tandardiation 4oard.

Alegre filed a petition for a rit of anda$s, alleging that the said

certification of fibers and, in partic$lar, sections 15521and 12662of the Adin

ode, are $nconstit$tional and void

ISSUES: 7oN the a$thorit! vested in the iber )tandardiaton 4oard is a delegation

of legislative poer

"ECISIO#: #O$ It is a %ele&ation of a%'inistrative o(er

%he a/i that poer conferred $pon #egislat$re to a-e las cannot be

delegated to an! other a$thorit! does not precl$de the #egislat$re frodelegating an! poer not legislative hich it a! itself rightf$ll! e/ercise.

%his eans that the #egislat$re $st declare the polic! of the la and fi/ the

legal principles, hich are to control in given cases b$t an adinistrative

officer or bod! a! be invested ith the poer to appl! principles. %his is

done not onl! to avoid conf$sion in the las, b$t also not to 'iss sufficienc)

!oth in rovision an% e*ecution in an effort to %etail an% to articulari+e

+N (%*' 7('), tho$gh legislative poer cannot be delegated to boards

1iber )tandardiation 4oard shall deterine the official standards for the vario$s coercial grades of hilippine fibers:

2A collector of c$stos shall not perit abacafor hich standard grades have been established to be laden aboard a vessel

clearing for a foreign port

8/12/2019 Admin DIgest 12-05-2013

7/13

and coissions, the #egislat$re a! delegate to the adinistrative

f$nctions in carr!ing o$t the p$rposes of a stat$te and vario$s governental

poer for the ore efficient adinistration of the las

ongress legislated on the s$b;ect as far as as reasonabl! practicable.

oever, the necessities of the case anila an.

After d$e hearing, the ollector rendered a decision that those previo$sl!

seied be delivered to iporter an= after pa!ent of c$stos d$t!, sales

ta/ and other charges, e/cept the seing achines hich are forfeited to the

governent.

)!@s co$nsel sent a letter to the ollector as-ing for the e/ec$tion of the

decision as it has becoe final and co$ld no longer be revieed b! the

oissioner after the lapse of 1? da!s given to )!, ho did not appeal the

decision to the said oissioner.

%he ollector replied that )!@s letter had been forarded to the oissioner

re$esting for inforation hether the erchandise seied a! be delivered

to the oner $pon shoing that the decision had becoe final and e/ec$tor!

b$t no repl! had been received fro the oissioner.

&nder the theor! that the oissioner as head of the 4$rea$ of $stos and

b! virt$e of sec. 11?2 of the 'evised Adinistrative ode he has s$pervision

and control over the ollector, the oissioner pro$lgated a

>eorand$ (rder

o ollectors erel! s$bit reports of sei$res b$t do not transit

records of the proceedings and decisions.o As in protest cases, decisions of ollectors in sei$re cases, hether

8/12/2019 Admin DIgest 12-05-2013

8/13

appealed or not, are s$b;ect to the revie of the oissioner.

ending action b! oissioner, final disposition of good ill not be

ade e/cept $pon previo$s a$thorit! fro his office.

)! >an filed a petition to declare n$ll and void the >eorand$ (rder and to

order the ollector to deliver the shipents of te/tile seied. )! clais that

hen a decision of the ollector in a sei$re case is not appealed b! theiporter to the oissioner ithin 1? da!s, as provided in the )ec. 1380

'A, the decision becoes final as to the iporter and the governent.

%hereafter, nothing reains to be done b$t the release of the goods seied.

% granted the petition and ordered the oissioner and the ollector to

e/ec$te the decision on the gro$nd that it has becoe final.

ISSUES, -EL" . ARGUME#TS

7(N the oissioner of $stos has the poer to revise the $nappealed decisions

of the ollector in sei$re cases. #O$

%he oissioner believes that the decision of the ollector in a sei$re case does

not becoe final against the governent as long as it has not been revieed and acted

$pon b! hi. %he sei$re case, tho$gh $nappealed b! )!, is still $nfinished b$siness

as far as the governent is concerned beca$se the oissioner has not acted $pon

it.

RATIO#ALE

7hen erchandises are iported thro$gh an! of ports in the co$ntr!, these

goods are assessed for the pa!ent of d$ties and fees. %he iporter pa!s the

ao$nt assessed if he is satisfied ith the assessent. ail$re to protest

renders the action of the ollector concl$sive on the iporter. 4oth $nder protest and sei$re cases the iporter a! appeal the decision of

the ollector to the oissioner ithin 1? da!s eorand$ (rder as iss$ed, it as not the practice of the 4$rea$

to have ollector@s decisions be revieed b! the oissioner. %he eo

coented that ollectors onl! s$bit reports and their final disposition of

sei$re cases b$t not the records of proceedings. +f the right to revie hade/isted fro the beginning, ollectors o$ld not have ignored s$ch practice

8/12/2019 Admin DIgest 12-05-2013

9/13

necessitating a eo order to reind the of s$ch.

)ec. 1380 of the 'A provides that in a sei$re case, the ollector transits

all the records to the oissioner onl! after the iporter signifies his desire

to appeal. %his section does not sa! that itho$t the notice of appeal, the

ollector still needs to transit the records of the case.

)ec. 1388 'A provides that in a sei$re case the oner a! pa! the fineiposed and the properties seied shall be s$rrendered and all liabilit!

concerning the sei$re shall be discharged. +t can be concl$ded that it is ithin

the poer of the iporter or oner to end the case at the office of the

ollector.

7here pa!ent is ade and the oner ishes to test the validit! of the

proceedings, he a! a-e a foral protest at tie of pa!ent to appeal the

decision to the oissioner. %he elevation of the case to the oissioner

is ithin the oner@s poer and discretion.

+t is arg$ed that if the oissioner has no poer to revise or revie

$nappealed sei$re cases then if the ollector coits an error pre;$dicial tothe governent, the latter can@t protect itself. %he la pres$es that in sei$re

cases ollector of $stos act honestl! and correctl! and as Bovernent

officials, ala!s ith an e!e to the protection of the interests of the

Bovernent eplo!ing the.

o +n s$ch e/ecptional cases, the governent is protected as in all sei$re

cases )ec. 1353 'A re$ires the ollector to iediatel! infor the

A$ditor Beneral.

+f the Bovernent dees it necessar! to provide for revie and revision b!

the oissioner or even b! the epartent ead of the decisions of the

ollector of $stos in $nappealed sei$re cases, the #egislat$re a! be

re$ested to insert a section in the 'A siilar to )ection 13933, hichapplies to $nprotested cases of assessent d$ties.

Conclusion:

%he decision of the ollector of $stos in a sei$re case if not protested and

appealed b! the iporter to the oissioner of $stos on tie, becoes final not

onl! as to hi b$t against the Bovernent as ell, and neither the oissioner nor

the epartent ead has the poer to revie, revise or odif! s$ch $nappealed

decision.

%he eorand$ order is void and of no effect for not being d$l! approved b! the

ept ead and d$l! p$blished and also for being inconsistent ith la.

PEOPLE VS. MACERENAdministrative regulationsadopted under legislative authority by a particular departmentmust be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and shouldbe for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general

provisions. By such regulations, the law itself cannot beextended. An administrative agency cannot amend an act ofCongress.

FACTS: The respondents were charged with violating Fisheries Administrative Order No. 84-1 which penalizes electro fishingin fresh water fisheries. This was promlgated !" the #ecretar" of Agricltre and Natral $esorces and the %ommissioner ofFisheries nder the old Fisheries &aw and the law creating the Fisheries %ommission. The mnicipal cort 'ashed the complaint

and held that the law does not clearl" prohi!it electro fishing( hence the e)ective and *dicial departments cannot consider the

+#% noted a defect in this section as it fi)es no period within which atomatic review or reli'idation

mst !e effected pon order of the %ommissioner.

8/12/2019 Admin DIgest 12-05-2013

10/13

same. On appeal( the %F, affirmed the dismissal. ence( this appeal to the #%.

ISSUE: Whether the administrative order penalizing electro fishing is valid?

HE!: NO" The #ecretar" of Agricltre and Natral $esorces and the %ommissioner of Fisheries e)ceeded their athorit" inissing the administrative order. The old Fisheries &aw does not e)pressl" prohi!it electro fishing. As electro fishing is not

!anned nder that law( the #ecretar" of Agricltre and Natral $esorces and the %ommissioner of Fisheries are powerless to

penalize it. ad the lawmaing !od" intended to pnish electro fishing( a penal provision to that effect cold have !een easil"em!odied in the old Fisheries &aw. The lawmaing !od" cannot delegate to an e)ective official the power to declare what acts

shold constitte an offense. ,t can athorize the issance of reglations and the imposition of the penalt" provided for in the lawitself. /here the legislatre has delegated to e)ective or administrative officers and !oards athorit" to promlgate rles to

carr" ot an e)press legislative prpose( the rles of administrative officers and !oards( which have the effect of e)tending( or

which conflict with the athorit" granting statte( do not represent a valid precise of the rle-maing power

8/12/2019 Admin DIgest 12-05-2013

11/13

8/12/2019 Admin DIgest 12-05-2013

12/13

Apart from this( the %#$6A6 cannot !e considered effective as of the time of

the application to Toledo of a provision thereof( for the reason that said rles

were never p!lished.

202 SCRA 507 | October 4, 1991 | J. Paras

Facts:

Atty. Augusto Toleo !as a""o#$te by t%e$ Co&elec C%a#r&a$ Ra&o$ 'el#"e as

(a$ager o) t%e *ucat#o$ a$ +$)or&at#o$ e"art&e$t o) t%e Co&elec o$ (ay 19-, at

!%#c% t#&e Toleo !as alreay &ore t%a$ 57 years ol. Toleo/s a""o#$t&e$t "a"ers a$

%#s oat% o) o))#ce !ere e$orse by t%e Co&elec to t%e CSC o$ Ju$e 19- )or a""roal a$

attestat#o$. o!eer, $o "r#or reuest )or e3e&"t#o$ )ro& t%e "ro#s#o$s o) Section 22,

Rule III of the CSRPAP!%#c% "ro%#b#ts t%e a""o#$t&e$t o) "erso$s 57 years ol or

aboe #$to goer$&e$t ser#ce !#t%out "r#or CSC a""roal!as secure. Pet#t#o$er t%e$

re"orte )or !or.Co&elec, u"o$ #scoery o) t%e lac o) aut%or#ty reu#re u$er CSRPAP, a$ CSC (e&o

C#rcular 5 #ssue Resolution No. 2066, !%#c% eclare o# )ro& t%e beg#$$#$g

Toleo/s a""o#$t&e$t. Pet#t#o$er a""eale to CSC, !%#c% co$s#ere %#& a e )acto

o))#cer a$ %#s a""o#$t&e$t o#able, a$ &oe )or reco$s#erat#o$ but !as e$#e,

%e$ce t%e "rese$t "et#t#o$ )or cert#orar#.

Issue:

68 CSRPAP "ro#s#o$ #s al#

Held:

No. T%e Civil Service Act of ! "RA 2260#, !%#c% establ#s%e t%e CSC, co$ta#$e$o "ro#s#o$ "ro%#b#t#$g a""o#$t&e$t or re#$state&e$t #$to goer$&e$t ser#ce o) a$y

"erso$ alreay 57 years ol. Sec 5 Rule o) t%e Re#se C##l Ser#ce Rules, !%#c%

"ro%#b#ts suc%, !as "urely t%e creat#o$ o) CSC.

(arcos/s P$ %0& "Civil Service $ecree#, !%#c% establ#s%e a $e! CSC a$

su"ersee RA 220, also "ro#e t%at rules a$ regulat#o$s s%all beco&e e))ect#e o$ly

0 ays a)ter "ubl#cat#o$ #$ t%e O: or #$ a$y $e!s"a"er o) ge$eral c#rculat#o$. T%e $e!

CSC ao"te t%e CSRPAP . 8o "ro#s#o$ re "ro%#b#t#o$ o) a""o#$t&e$t o) 57 year ol

&ae #$ P -07; "ro%#b#t#o$ !as "urely create by CSC.

T%e "ro#s#o$ ca$$ot be al#, be#$g e$t#rely a CSC creat#o$, #t %as $o bas#s #$ t%e la!

!%#c% #t !as &ea$t to #&"le&e$t. +t ca$$ot be

8/12/2019 Admin DIgest 12-05-2013

13/13

reu#re by bot% RA 220 a$ P -07. T%e argu&e$t t%at #t !as a >&ere re#terat#o$ o)

e3#st#$g la!? a$ >c#rcular#@e? ca$$ot sta$ as )or&erly #scusse.

Also, Toleo/s se"arat#o$ )ro& ser#ce !as t%roug% $o )ault o) %#s o!$. Petition

'ranted.