[113] PEOPLE v. JOLLIFFE o Central Bank Circular No. 21, requiring the said license, and Sec.
o Central Bank Circular No. 21, requiring the said license, and Sec. 34, RA 265,
G.R. No. L-9553; May 13, 1959; Concepcion, J.
TOPIC: Judicial Determination of Sufficiency of Standards > Maintain monetary stability,
promote rising level of production and real Income
SUMMARY: On December 1953, when appellant was about to board a plane of the Pan American
World Airways, four pieces of gold bullion were found in his body. Also found in his possession
was a $100 traveler’s check. He was charged with and convicted of violation of RA 265 and
sentenced to imprisonment, to pay fine and costs, as well as decreeing the forfeiture in favor of
the Government of the gold bullion and the traveler’s check. He appealed and, among others,
challenged the validity of Circular No. 21 of the Central Bank on the ground that it is an undue
delegation of powers. That granting, without admitting, that the power to promulgate it was granted
to the Monetary Board by RA 265, and granting without admitting, that the power to so promulgate
was validly exercised, still it is invalid because it constitutes an invalid delegation of legislative
power and, therefore, unconstitutional and void. CFI convicted him of a violation of RA 265. SC
held the grant of authority of the Central Bank to issue the circular is not unconstitutional.
DOCTRINE
 If the law authorizing the delegation furnishes a reasonable standard which "sufficiently
marks the field within which the Administrator is to act so that it may be known whether
he has kept within it in compliance with the legislative will.
o In this case, “to maintain monetary stability in the Philippines & promote a
rising level of production, employment, and real income" is a sufficient
standard.”
 These standards are sufficiently concrete and definite to vest in the delegated authority
the character of administrative details in the enforcement of the law and to place the
grant of said authority beyond the category of a delegation of legislative power.
RELEVANT PROVISION(S)
FACTS
 Defendant-appellant Jolliffe is a Canadian subject, born in China, and residing
permanently in Hong Kong.
o He had made several trips to Manila, one of which was to collect the debt
owed to him by Woo. He was paid in gold.
 On December 7, 1953, when Jolliffe was about to board in one of the planes of the Pan
American World Airway, he had with him four pieces of gold bullion of the approximate
value P35,305.46.
o When he was going towards the door leading to the runway he was accosted
by a secret service agent.
 A travellers' check in the sum of $100,000 in his possession was
also found.
o While he was under arrest, he made an offer to settle the case by offering to
pay the agents who were then arresting him.
 Referring the case at bar, Sec. 74, RA 265 conferred upon the Monetary Board and the
President the power to subject to licensing all transactions in gold and foreign exchange
"in order to protect the international reserve of the Central Bank during an exchange
crisis and to give the Monetary Board and the Government time in which to take
constructive measures to combat such crisis."
o The Board is, likewise, authorized "to take such appropriate remedial
measures" to protect the international stability of the peso, "whether the
international reserve is falling, as a result of payment or remittances abroad
which, in the opinion of the Monetary Board, are contrary to the national
welfare."
prescribing the penalty for violations of said Circular, refer to consummated
exportation, not to "attempted or frustrated exportation."
 It should be noted that these powers must be construed and
exercised in relation to the objectives of the law creating the Central
Bank, which are, among others, "to maintain monetary stability
in the Philippines," and "to promote a rising level of
production, employment and real income in the Philippines."
 Pursuant to RA 265, Circular No. 21 was issued by the Central
Bank requiring any person to export gold to first obtain a
license from the Central Bank.
 CFI Rizal convicted him of a violation of RA 265, and sentencing him to imprisonment
for one (1) year, and to pay a fine of P2,000 and the costs, as well as decreeing the
forfeiture, in favor of the Government, of four (4) pieces of gold bullion valued
P35,305.46, and a travellers' check in the sum of $100.00.
 Jolliffe challenged, among others, Circular No. 21, on the ground that it is an undue
delegation of legislative power, because it did not comply with the provisions of Sec. 74,
RA 265, in that:
o (a) It was approved by the President of the Philippines;
o (b) In its promulgation, the Momentary Board exceeded the authority granted
it by the Central Bank Act, because the context of the circular does not
indicate that it was a temporary emergency measure;
o (c) It can only be issued as an emergency measure or during crisis, and as
issued, has no force and effect, because the emergency it seeks to remedy
never existed or no longer exists;
o (d) That the publication of the circular (original and amended) in the
November 1951 and October 1952 issues of the Official Gazette are not the
adequate publications required by law, because said publications on their
faces showed them to be incomplete and defective;
o (e) That granting, without admitting, that the power to promulgate it was
granted to the Monetary Board by Republic Act 265, and granting without
admitting, that the power to so promulgate was validly exercised, still it is
invalid because it constitutes an invalid delegation of legislative power
 Therefore, unconstitutional and void.
ISSUE(S)/HELD
WON the grant of authority to issue the circular in question constitute an undue delegation
of legislative power. – NO
 The grant of authority to the Monetary Board to issue Circular No. 21 does not constitute
an undue delegation of legislative power because Sec. 74 of RA 265 conferring upon
the Monetary Board and the President the power to subject to licensing all transaction
in gold and foreign exchange furnishes concrete and definite standards which
sufficiently mark the field within which the Monetary Board is to act in the enforcement
of the law.
 A distinction should be made between the delegation of the power to determine what
the law shall be and the delegation of authority to fix the details in the execution or
enforcement of a policy set out in the law itself.
o The delegated authority falls under the second category for which a
reasonable standard has been set.
 Sec. 74 of RA 265 conferred upon the Monetary Board and the President the power to
subject to licensing all transactions in gold and foreign exchange in order to protect the
international reserve of the Central bank during an exchange crisis and to give the Board
and the Government time in which to take constructive measures to combat such crisis
which “sufficiently marks the field within which the Administrator is to act so that
 it may be known whether he has kept within it in compliance with the legislative
will” [Yakus v. United States]
o The Board is likewise authorized “to take such appropriate remedial
measures as are appropriate” to protect the international stability of the peso
whenever the international reserve is falling, as a result of the payment or
remittance abroad which, in the opinion of the Board, are contrary to the
national welfare.
 Furthermore, these powers must be construed and exercised in relation to the
objectives of the law to maintain monetary stability in the Philippines and to
promote a rising level of production employment and real income in the
Philippines.
o These standards are sufficiently concrete and definite to vest in the
delegated authority the character of administrative details in the
enforcement of the law and to place the grant of said authority beyond
the category of a delegation of legislative power.
[2] WON the Central Bank Circular No. 21 requiring said license and Sec. 34, RA 265,
prescribing the penalty for violations of said Circular, refer to “consummated exportation”,
not to “attempted or frustrated exportation”. – NO
 Sec. 4 of said Circular provides:
o Any person desiring to export gold in any form, including jewelry, whether for
refining abroad or otherwise, must obtain a license from the Central Bank.
o Applicants for export licenses must present satisfactory evidence that the
import of the gold into the country of the importer will not be in violation of the
rules and regulations of such country.
 This section explicitly applies to "any person desiring to
export gold" and, hence, it contemplates the situation existing
prior to the consummation of the exportation.

DISPOSITIVE: With this modification, the decision, appealed from should be, as it is hereby
AFFIRMED, in all other respects, with costs against the defendant-appellant. SO ORDERED.