Araneta v Gatmaitan
Facts:
The President issued E.O 22 -
prohibiting the use of trawls in San
Miguel Bay, and the E.O 66 and 80 as
amendments to EO 22, as a response
for the general clamor among the
majority of people living in the coastal
towns of San Miguel Bay that the said
resources of the area are in danger of
major depletion because of the effects
of trawl fishing. A group of Otter trawl
operators filed a complaint for
injunction to restrain the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources from
enforcing the said E.O. and to declare
E.O 22 as null and void.
Issue:
W/N E.O 22, 60 and 80 were valid, for
the issuance thereof was not in the
exercise of legislative powers unduly
delegated to the Pres.
Held:
VALID! Congress provided under the
Fisheries Act that a.) it is unlawful to
take or catch fry or fish eggs in the
waters of the Phil and b.) it authorizes
Sec. of Agriculture and Nat. Resources
to provide regulations/ restrictions as
may be deemed necessary. The Act
was complete in itself and leaves it to
the Sec. to carry into effect its
legislative intent. The Pres. did nothing
but show an anxious regard for the
welfare of the inhabitants and dispose
of issues of gen. concern w/c were in
consonance and strict conformity with
law.
Distinction bet:
Delegation of Power to Legislate - office and that it is couched in the past
involves discretion of what law shall be
Execution of Law authority or
discretion as to its execution has to be
exercised under and in pursuance of
law.
GREGO vs. COMELEC Case Digest
GREGO vs. COMELEC
274 SCRA 481, 1997
Facts: On October 31, 1981, before the
effectivity of the Local Government
Code of 1991, private respondent
Humberto Basco was removed from his
position as Deputy Sheriff by no less
than the Supreme Court upon a finding
of serious misconduct in an
administrative complaint.
Subsequently, Basco ran as a
candidate for councilor in the Second
District of the City of Manila in the
January 18, 1988 local elections. He
won and assumed office. He was
successfully re-elected in 1992 and
1995.
It was his latest re-election which is the
subject of the present petition on the
ground that he is disqualified under
Section 40(b) of the LGC of 1991.
Under said section, those removed
from office as a result of an
administrative case are disqualified to
run for any elective local position.
Issue: Does Section 40(b) of the Local
Government Code of 1991 apply
retroactively to those removed from
office before it took effect on January
1, 1992?
Held: The Supreme Court held that its
refusal to give retroactive application
to the provision of Section 40(b) is
already a settled issue and there exist
no compelling reason for the Court to
depart therefrom. That the provision of
the Code in question does not qualify
the date of a candidates removal from
tense should not deter the Court from
applying the law prospectively. A
statute, despite the generality in its
language, must not be so construed as
to overreach acts, events or matters
which transpired before its passage.