14 Dagan v. Phil. Racing Commission Digest

Dagan v. Phil.
Racing Commission (Philracom)

G.R. No. 175220
February 12, 2009
Tinga
FACTS:
Aug. 11, 2004- 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 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.(2nd directive)
Petitioners refused to comply with the directives. 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.
Racehorse owners complained before the Office of the President (OP) which in turn issued a
directive instructing Philracom to investigate the matter.
Petitioners filed for a TRO with the RTC- granted. RTC however dismissed their petition for
injunction because: 1. The issue is already moot since almost all racehorse owners complied
with the directives; and 2. It is a valid exercise of police power.
Upon appeal, CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto.
SC level:
Petitioner's arguments: 1. They maintain that the assailed guidelines do not comply with due
process requirements; 2. No investigation or at least a summary proceeding was conducted affording
petitioners an opportunity to be heard. 3. assailed guidelines are ultra vires in that the sanctions
imposed for refusing to submit to medical examination are summary eviction from the stables or
arbitrary banning of participation in the races, notwithstanding the penalties prescribed in the
contract of lease.
Philracom's arguments:Philracom also justified its right under the law to regulate horse
raciing MJCI adds that Philracom need not delegate its rule-making power to the
former since MJCIs right to formulate its internal rules is subsumed under the
franchise granted to it by Congress.
That is why petitioners raise for the first time the issue that Philracom had
unconstitutionally delegated its rule-making power to PRCI and MJCI in issuing the
directive for them to come up with club rules. They said that power granted to PRCI and
MJCI under their respective franchises is limited to: (1) the construction, operation and
maintenance of racetracks; (2) the establishment of branches for booking purposes; and (3)
the conduct of horse races.
ISSUE: WON there is a valid delegation of legislative power to Philracom

RULING: YES
The validity of an administrative issuance, such as the assailed guidelines, hinges on compliance with
the following requisites:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature;

It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure;
It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature;
It must be reasonable.[
All the prescribed requisites are met as regards the questioned issuances. Philracoms 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.
FIRST REQUISITE:
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.[29] 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. 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
standardthe limits of which are sufficiently determinate and determinableto which the delegate
must conform in the performance of his functions.
P.D. No. 420 hurdles the tests of completeness and standards sufficiency.
Complete: 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. Philracom was granted
exclusive jurisdiction and control over every aspect of the conduct of horse racin g,
including the framing and scheduling of races, the construction and safety of race tracks, and the
security of racing.
Sufficient Standards: Section 9 provides for Specific Powers: To register race horses, horse
owners or associations or federations thereof, and to regulate the construction of race tracks
and to grant permit for the holding of races; To issue, suspend or revoke permits and
licenses;order the suspension of any racing event in case of violation of any law,
ordinance or rules and regulations;
g.
To prohibit the use of improper devices, drugs, stimulants or other means to
enhance or diminish the speed of horse or materially harm their condition;
No delegation of rule-making power to MJCI and PRCI
The Philracom directive is merely instructive in character. Compliance with the Philracoms directive is
part of the mandate of PRCI and MJCI under Sections 1[33] of R.A. No. 7953[34] and Sections
1[35] and 2[36] of 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
SECOND REQUISITE:
While it is conceded that the guidelines were issued a month after Philracoms directive,
this circumstance does not render the directive nor the guidelines void. Philracom has every
right to issue directives to MJCI and PRCI with respect to the conduct of horse racing, with or without
implementing guidelines.
Lack of publication:As a rule, the issuance of rules and regulations in the exercise of an
administrative agency of its quasi-legislative power does not require notice and hearing.
[40] InAbella, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission,[41] this Court had the occasion to rule that prior
notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of rules or regulations issued in the
exercise of quasi-legislative powers since there is no determination of past events or facts
that have to be established or ascertained.[
Third requisite:
The administrative body may not make rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the
provisions of the Constitution or a statute, particularly the statute it is administering or which created
it, or which are in derogation of, or defeat, the purpose of a statute.The assailed guidelines prescribe
the procedure for monitoring and eradicating EIA. These guidelines are in accord with Philracoms
mandate under the law to regulate the conduct of horse racing in the country.
Fourth requisite:
The assailed guidelines do not appear to be unreasonable or discriminatory. In fact, all horses
stabled at the MJCI and PRCIs premises underwent the same procedure. The guidelines
implemented were undoubtedly reasonable as they bear a reasonable relation to the purpose sought
to be accomplished, i.e., the complete riddance of horses infected with EIA.
Horse-owners were also informed beforehand. The lease contract executed between petitioner and
MJC contains a proviso reserving the right of the lessor, MJCI in this case, the right to determine
whether a particular horse is a qualified horse. In addition, Philracoms rules and regulations on horse
racing provide that horses must be free from any contagious disease or illness in order to be eligible
as race entries.

14 Dagan v. Phil. Racing Commission Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

14 Dagan v. Phil. Racing Commission Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

14 Dagan v. Phil. Racing Commission Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dagan v. Phil.

Racing Commission (Philracom)

ISSUE: WON there is a valid delegation of legislative power to Philracom

Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature;

You might also like