UNITED STATES v.

BARIAS | 24

En Banc
THE UNITED STATES v. SEGUNDO BARRIAS
G.R. No. 7567. November 12, 1912.
Tracey, J, p:

TOPIC: Non- Delegability of Legislative Power

DOCTRINE: Basis of Doctrine of Non-Delegation of Powers. - The doctrine of non-

delegation of powers is based on the maxim of "potestas delegata non
potest delegari" which means what has been delegated cannot in turn be
delegated. The doctrine rests on the ethical principle that a 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 and not through the intervening mind of another.
FACTS:
 In 1904, Congress, through a law, Act No. 1136, authorized the Collector of
Customs to regulate the business of lighterage. Lighterage is a business involving
the shipping of goods by use of lighters or cascos (small ships/boats). The said law
also provides that the Collector may promulgate such rules to implement Act No.
1136.
 Further, Act No. 1136 provides that in case a fine is to be imposed, it should not
exceed one hundred dollars. Pursuant to this, the Collector promulgated Circular No.
397.
 Meanwhile, Aniceto Barrias was caught navigating the Pasig River using a lighter
which is manually powered by bamboo poles (sagwan).
 Such is a violation of Circular No. 397 because under said Circular, only steam
powered ships should be allowed to navigate the Pasig River.
 However, in the information against Barrias, it was alleged that the imposable
penalty against him should be a fine not exceeding P500.00 at the discretion of the
court – this was pursuant to Circular No. 397 which provides: “For the violation of
any part of the foregoing regulations, the persons offending shall be liable to a fine
of not less than P5 and not more than P500, in the discretion of the court”.
 Barrias now challenged the validity of such provision of the Circular as it is entirely
different from the penal provision of Act. No. 1136 which only provided a penalty of
not exceeding $100. In this court, counsel for the appellant attacked the validity of
Circular No. 397 on the ground that if the acts of the Philippine Commission bear the
interpretation of authorizing the Collector to promulgate such a law, they are void, as
constituting an illegal delegation of legislative power.

ISSUE:
Whether the authority conferred to the Collector to promulgate said Circular
constitutes an invalid delegation of legislative power.

RULING:
Yes, the authority conferred to the Collector to promulgate Circular No. 397
constituted an invalid delegation of legislative power.
 UNITED STATES v. BARIAS | 24

A law authorizing the Collector to impose penalties for violations of his rules is
invalid, as vesting in him upon a power exclusively lodged in Congress. The Collector
cannot exercise a power exclusively lodged in Congress. Hence, Barrias should be
penalized in accordance to the penalty being imposed by Act No. 1136.

One of the settled maxims in constitutional law is that the power conferred
upon the legislature to make laws cannot be delegated by that department to any
other body or authority. Where the sovereign power of the state has located the
authority, there it must remain; and by that constitutional agency alone the laws must be
made until the Constitution itself is changed.

The power to whose judgment, wisdom, and patriotism this high prerogative has
been entrusted cannot relieve itself of the responsibility by choosing other agencies
upon which the power shall be devolved, nor can it substitute the judgment, wisdom,
and patriotism of any other body for those to which alone the people have seen fit
confide this sovereign trust. This doctrine is based on the ethical principle that such a
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.

CONCLUSION:
Having reached the conclusion that Act No. 1136 is valid, so far as sections 5
and 8 are concerned, and is sufficient to sustain this prosecution, it is unnecessary that
we should pass on the questions discussed in the briefs as to the extent and validity of
the other acts. The reference to them in the complaint is not material, as we have
frequently held that where an offense is correctly described in the complaint an
additional reference to a wrong statute is immaterial.

We are also of the opinion that none of the subsequent statutes cited operate to
repeal the aforesaid section of Act No. 1136.

So much of the judgment of the Court of First Instance as convicts the defendant
of a violation of Acts Nos. 355 and 1235 is hereby revoked, and he is hereby convicted
of a misdemeanor and punished by a fine of 25 dollars, with costs of both instances. So
ordered.

Also Read: Bernas, SJ (2009). The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines, pp. 690