Ople v Torres GR No. 127685, 23 July 1998 Puno, J. Facts: Pres FVR issued AO No.

308, Adoption of a Natl Computerized Identification Reference System, to streamline & speed up the implementation of basic govt services, eradicate fraud by avoiding duplication of services, & generate population data for development planning. An Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee (IACC) was created to draw up the implementing guidelines & oversee the implementation of the system. Ople argues that the AO should be invalidated because it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate. He claims that A.O. No. 308 is not a mere administrative order but a law and hence, beyond the power of the President to issue. He alleges that A.O. No. 308 establishes a system of identification that is all-encompassing in scope, affects the life and liberty of every Filipino citizen and foreign resident, and more particularly, violates their right to privacy. Issue: Whether AO 308 is an unconstitutional usurpation of the legislative powers of Congress Held: Yes. AO 308 involves a subject that is not appropriate to be covered by an administrative order. An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the Pres w/c relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of govt. It must be in harmony w/ the law & should be for the sole purpose of implementing the law & carrying out the legislative policy. AO 308 does not merely implement the Administrative Code of 1987. It establishes for the first time a National Computerized Identification Reference System. Such a System requires a delicate adjustment of various contending state policies --- the primacy of national security, the extent of privacy interest against dossier-gathering by govt, the choice of policies, etc. As said AO redefines the parameters of some basic rights of our citizenry visa-vis the State as well as the line that separates the administrative power of the Pres to make rules & the legislative power of Congress, it evidently deals w/ a subject that should be covered by law. The contention that AO 308 gives no right & imposes no duty cannot stand

since without the ID, a citizen will have difficulty exercising his rights & enjoying his privileges. Many regulations bear directly on the public. It is here that administrative legislation must be restricted in its scope & application. Regulations are not supposed to be a substitute for the general policy-making that Congress enacts in the form of a public law. Although administrative regulations are entitled to respect, the authority to prescribe rules & regulations is not an independent source of power to make laws.

Philippine Interisland Shipping Association of the Philippines v. CA GR No. 100481, 22 January 1997 Mendoza, J. Facts: Private respondent United Harbor Pilots Association of the Philippines, Inc. (UHPAP) is the umbrella organization of various groups rendering pilotage service in different ports of the Philippines. The service consists of navigating a vessel from a specific point offshore to an assigned area at the pier & vice versa. The set-up is required because each port has peculiar topography w/ which a harbor pilot is presumed to be more familiar than a ship captain. The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) is the govt agency which regulates pilotage. Pres. Marcos issued EO 1088 w/c increased substantially the rates of the existing pilotage fees previously fixed by the PPA. The PPA refused to enforce the EO since it had been drawn hastily without prior consultation. The UHPAP announced its intention to implement the EO. The PPA warned that disciplinary sanctions would be applied to those who would charge rates under EO 1088 & it instead issued Memorandum fixing pilotage fees at rates lower than those provided in the EO. UHPAP filed an action seeking the immediate implementation of EO 1088 & to enjoin the PPA from imposing disciplinary sanctions on those who would collect pilotage fees based on the EO. While the case was pending, PPA issued Administrative Order 02-88 wherein it announced that it was leaving

to the contracting parties (the shipping lines & the pilots), the fixing of mutually acceptable rates for pilotage services, thus abandoning the rates fixed by it under the previous Memorandum, as well as those provided in EO 1088. The PPA moved to dismiss the case, contending that the issuance of its order had rendered the case moot & academic & that consequently EO 1088 had ceased to be effective. UHPAP opposed the motion, questioning the validity of AO 02-88. The trial court held that the AO did not render the case moot & academic & that PPA was under obligation to comply w/ EO 1088 bec the order had the force of law w/c the PPA could not repeal. The CA affirmed the decision. Issue: Whether the PPA is bound to comply with EO 1088 Held: Yes. The orders previously issued by the PPA were in the nature of subordinate legislation, promulgated by it in the exercise of delegated power. As such, these could only be amended or revised by law, as the Pres did by EO 1088. What determines whether an act is a law or an administrative issuance is not its form but its nature. The fixing of rates is essentially a legislative power. When Marcos issued EO 1088, he was authorized under the 1973 Constitution to exercise legislative power. Although the power to fix rates for pilotage had been delegated to the PPA, it became necessary to rationalize the rates through the imposition of uniform rates. That was what the Pres did in promulgating the EO. As the Pres could delegate the ratemaking power to the PPA, so could he exercise it in specific instances w/o thereby withdrawing the power vested in the PPA bec EO 1088 is not meant simply to fix new pilotage rates. Its legislative purpose is the rationalization of pilotage service charges. Being a mere administrative agency, PPA cannot validly issue orders or regulations that would have the effect of rendering nugatory the provisions of the legislative issuance such as those of the EO in question.