6. People v Maceren FACTS: The respondents were charged with violating Fisheries Administrative Order No.

84-1 which penalizes electro fishing in fresh water fisheries. This was promulgated ! the "ecretar! of Agriculture and Natural #esources and the $ommissioner of Fisheries under the old Fisheries %aw and the law creating the Fisheries $ommission. The municipal court &uashed the complaint and held that the law does not clearl! prohi it electro fishing' hence the e(ecutive and )udicial departments cannot consider the same. On appeal' the $F* affirmed the dismissal. +ence' this appeal to the "$. ISSUE: ,hether the administrative order penalizing electro fishing is validHELD: NO. The "ecretar! of Agriculture and Natural #esources and the $ommissioner of Fisheries e(ceeded their authorit! in issuing the administrative order. The old Fisheries %aw does not e(pressl! prohi it electro fishing. As electro fishing is not anned under that law' the "ecretar! of Agriculture and Natural #esources and the $ommissioner of Fisheries are powerless to penalize it. +ad the lawma.ing od! intended to punish electro fishing' a penal provision to that effect could have een easil! em odied in the old Fisheries %aw. The lawma.ing od! cannot delegate to an e(ecutive official the power to declare what acts should constitute an offense. *t can authorize the issuance of regulations and the imposition of the penalt! provided for in the law itself. ,here the legislature has delegated to e(ecutive or administrative officers and oards authorit! to promulgate rules to carr! out an e(press legislative purpose' the rules of administrative officers and oards' which have the effect of e(tending' or which conflict with the authorit! granting statute' do not represent a valid precise of the rulema.ing power.

38.

Villalu v !al"ivar

Facts/ 0illaluz was appointed as the Administrator of the 1otor 0ehicles Office in 1238. *n 1245' $ongressman #oces alleged that 0illaluz was an ineffective leader and had caused losses to the government. +e indorsed the removal of 0illaluz. The 6(ec "ec suspended 0illaluz and ordered a committee to investigate the matter. After investigation' it was recommended that she e removed. The president then issued an AO removing 0illaluz from his post. 0illaluz averred that the president has no )urisdiction to remove him. ISSUE: ,hether or not 0illaluz is under the )urisdiction of the 7resident to e removed considering that he is an appointee of the president. HELD: The 7resident of the 7hilippines has )urisdiction to investigate and remove him since he is a presidential appointee who elongs to the non-competitive or unclassified service under "ec 3 of #A 88459 eing a presidential appointee' 0illaluz elongs to the non-competitive or unclassified service of the government and as such he can onl! e investigated and removed from office after due hearing ! the 7resident of the 7hilippines under the principle that :the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint; . There is some point in the argument that the power of control of the 7resident ma! e(tend to the power to investigate' suspend or remove officers and emplo!ees who elong to the e(ecutive department if the! are presidential appointees or do not elong to the classified service for such can e )ustified under the principle that the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint ut not with regard to those officers or emplo!ees who elong to the classified service for as to them that inherent power cannot e e(ercised. This is in line with the provision of our $onstitution which sa!s that <the $ongress ma! ! law vest the appointment of the inferior officers' in the 7resident alone' in the courts' or in heads of department.