Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 481 views

    Araneta v. Gatmaitan, 101 Phil. 328

    Uploaded by

    Bibi Jumpol
    The Supreme Court ruled that Executive Orders 22, 66, and 80 which prohibited the use of trawl fishing in San Miguel Bay were valid exercises of presidential power. [1] The Fisheries Law and amendments granted the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources the authority to promulgate regulations restricting fishing devices and establish fishery reservations to protect fish and resources. [2] This delegation of power by Congress to the executive branch was not an undue delegation because the law completely addressed protecting fish and eggs and left the details of regulations to the Secretary. [3] Therefore, the executive orders were validly issued based on the authority delegated by Congress to protect fisheries.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Araneta v. Gatmaitan, 101 Phil. 328

    Uploaded by

    Bibi Jumpol
    481 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Executive Orders 22, 66, and 80 which prohibited the use of trawl fishing in San Miguel Bay were valid exercises of presidential power. [1] The Fisheries Law and amendments granted the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources the authority to promulgate regulations restricting fishing devices and establish fishery reservations to protect fish and resources. [2] This delegation of power by Congress to the executive branch was not an undue delegation because the law completely addressed protecting fish and eggs and left the details of regulations to the Secretary. [3] Therefore, the executive orders were validly issued based on the authority delegated by Congress to protect fisheries.

    Original Title

    24. Araneta v. Gatmaitan, 101 Phil. 328

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Executive Orders 22, 66, and 80 which prohibited the use of trawl fishing in San Miguel Bay were valid exercises of presidential power. [1] The Fisheries Law and amendments granted the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources the authority to promulgate regulations restricting fishing devices and establish fishery reservations to protect fish and resources. [2] This delegation of power by Congress to the executive branch was not an undue delegation because the law completely addressed protecting fish and eggs and left the details of regulations to the Secretary. [3] Therefore, the executive orders were validly issued based on the authority delegated by Congress to protect fisheries.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    481 views3 pages

    Araneta v. Gatmaitan, 101 Phil. 328

    Uploaded by

    Bibi Jumpol
    The Supreme Court ruled that Executive Orders 22, 66, and 80 which prohibited the use of trawl fishing in San Miguel Bay were valid exercises of presidential power. [1] The Fisheries Law and amendments granted the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources the authority to promulgate regulations restricting fishing devices and establish fishery reservations to protect fish and resources. [2] This delegation of power by Congress to the executive branch was not an undue delegation because the law completely addressed protecting fish and eggs and left the details of regulations to the Secretary. [3] Therefore, the executive orders were validly issued based on the authority delegated by Congress to protect fisheries.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Title SALVADOR A. ARANETA, ETC., ET AL. vs. THE HON. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ETC.

    ,
    ET AL., G.R. Nos. L-8895 and L-9191, April 30, 1957
    Ponente FELIX, J.
    Doctrine Powers of Administrative Bodies
    Facts  San Miguel Bay, located between the provinces of Camarines Norte and
    Camarines Sur, a part of theNational waters of the Philippines... is considered as
    the most important fishing area in the Pacific side ofthe Bicol region.
     Sometime in 1950, trawl operators from Malabon, Navotas and other places
    migrated to this region most of them settling at Sabang Calabanga, Camarines
    Sur, for the purpose of using this particular method offishing in said bay.
     Trawl is a fishing net made in the form of a bag with the mouth kept open by a
    device the whole affair being towed, dragged, trailed or trawled on the bottom of
    the sea to capture demersal, ground or bottom species.
     On account of the belief of sustenance fishermen that the operation of this kind of
    gear caused the depletion of the marine resources of that area, there arose a
    general clamor among the majority of the inhabitants of coastal towns to prohibit
    the operation of trawls in San Miguel Bay.
     League of Municipal Mayors prayed the President to protect them and the fish
    resources of San Miguel Bay by banning the operation of trawls therein.
     In response to these pleas, the President issued on April 5, 1954, Executive
    Order No. 22 prohibiting the use of trawls in San Miguel Bay, but said
    executive order was amended by Executive Order No. 66, apparently in
    answer to a resolution of the Provincial Board of Camarines Sur
    recommending the allowance of trawl fishing during the typhoon season
    only. However, Executive Order No. 80 was issued reviving Executive
    Order No. 23.
     A group of Otter trawl operators took the matter to the court by filing a complaint
    for injunction and/or declaratory relief with preliminary injunction with the Court
    of First Instance of Manila to declare the same null and void, and for such other
    relief as may be just and equitable in the premises.
    Contentions Petitioner Respondent
    The Secretary of Agriculture and
    Natural Resources and the Director
    of Fisheries, represented by the
    Legal Adviser of said Department
    and a Special Attorney of the
    Office of the Solicitor General,
    answered the complaint alleging,
    among other things, that of the 18
    plaintiff, only 11 were issued
    license to operate fishing boats for
    the year 1954; that the executive
    orders in question were issued
    accordance with law;
    Lower Courts Granted; Executive Order Nos. 22, 66 and 80 are declared invalid

    ; The power to close any definite area of the Philippine waters, from the fact that
    Congress has seen fit to define under what conditions it may be done by the
    enactment of the sections cited, in the mind of Congress must be of transcendental
    significance. It is primarily within the fields of legislation not of execution: for it goes
    far and says who can and who can not fish in definite territorial waters.

    The court can not accept that Congress had intended to abdicate its inherent right to
    legislate on this matter of national importance.
    Appellate Court N/A
    Issue 1. Whether Executive Orders Nos. 22, 66 and 80 were valid, for the issuance
    thereof was not in the exercise of legislative powers unduly
    delegated to the President?
    2. Whether the exercise of such authority by the President constitute an
    undue delegation of the powers of Congress?
    SC Ruling 1. Yes. Act No. 4003, known as the Fisheries Law, the latter two sections as
    amended by section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 471, the law declares
    unlawful and fixes the penalty for the taking (except for scientific or
    educational purposes or for propagation), destroying or killing of any fish fry
    or fish eggs, and the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce (now the
    Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources) is authorized to
    promulgate regulations restricting the use of any fish net or fishing
    device (which includes the net used by trawl fishermen) for the protection of
    fry or fish eggs, as well as to set aside and establish fishery reservations or
    fish refuges and sanctuaries to be administered in the manner prescribed by
    him, from which no person could lawfully take, destroy or kill in any of the
    places aforementioned, or in any manner disturb or drive away or take
    therefrom any small or immature fish, fry or fish eggs.
    One of the executive departments is that of Agriculture and Natural Resources
    which by law is placed under the direction and control of the Secretary, who
    exercises its functions subject to the general supervision and control of the
    President of the Philippines (Sec. 75, R. A. C.). Moreover, "executive orders,
    regulations, decrees and proclamations relative to matters under the
    supervision or jurisdiction of a Department, the promulgation whereof is
    expressly assigned by law to the President of the Philippines, shall as a
    general rule, be issued upon proposition and recommendation of the
    respective Department" (Sec. 79-A, R.A.C.), and there can be no doubt that
    the promulgation of the questioned Executive Orders was upon the proposition
    and recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
    and that is why said Secretary, who was and is called upon to enforce said
    executive Orders, was made a party defendant in one of the cases at bar.
    2. YES. From the provisions of Act No. 4003 of the Legislature, as amended by
    Commonwealth Act No. 471, which have been aforequoted, We find that
    Congress
    (a) declared it unlawful "to take or catch fry or fish eggs in the territorial
    waters of the Philippines;
    (b) towards this end, it authorized the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
    Resources to provide by the regulations such restrictions as may be deemed
    necessary to be imposed on the use of any fishing net or fishing device for the
    protection of fish fry or fish eggs (Sec. 13);
    (c) it authorized the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to set
    aside and establish fishery reservations or fish refuges and sanctuaries to be
    administered in the manner to be prescribed by him and declared it unlawful
    for any person to take, destroy or kill in any of said places, or, in any manner
    disturb or drive away or take therefrom, any fish fry or fish eggs (See. 75);
    and
    (d) it penalizes the execution of such acts declared unlawful and in violation
    of this Act (No. 4003) or of any rules and regulations promulgated thereunder,
    making the offender subject to a fine of not more than P200, or imprisonment
    for not more than 6 months, or both, in the discretion of the court (Sec. 83).
    From the foregoing it may be seen that in so far as the protection of fish fry or
    fish egg is concerned, the Fisheries Act is complete in itself, leaving to the
    Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources the promulgation of rules and
    regulations to carry into effect the legislative intent

    In the light of these facts it is clear to Our mind that for the protection of fry or fish
    eggs and small and immature fishes, Congress intended with the promulgation of
    Act No. 4003, to prohibit the use of any fish net or fishing device like trawl nets
    that could endanger and deplete our supply of sea food, and to that end
    authorized the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to provide by
    regulations such restrictions as he deemed necessary in order to preserve the
    aquatic resources of the land.

    You might also like