ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ALEGRE VS. COLLECTOR OR CUSTOMS, G.R. NO. L-30783, 1929
ALEGRE VS. COLLECTOR OR CUSTOMS,
G.R.
NO. L-30783, 1929
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
FACTS
Petitioner
is engaged in the production of abaca and its
exportation to foreign markets. He applied to the respondent for a permit to
export one hundred bales of abaca to England, but
was denied. He was advised by the respondent that he would not be permitted to
export the abaca in question
without a certificate from the Fiber Standardization Board. So he filed a petition for a
writ of mandamus, alleging that the provisions of the Administrative Code for
the grading, inspection and certification of fibers, in particular, sections
1772 and 1244 of that Code, are unconstitutional and void.
ISSUE
Whether
the authority vested in the Fiber Standardization Board is a delegation of
legislative power.
RULING
No.
The court
ruled that the Legislature has enacted a law which provides for the
inspection, grading and baling of hemp before they can be exported to other
countries and the creation of a board for that purpose, vesting it with the
power and authority to do the actual work. Such authority is not a delegation of legislative power and is
nothing more than a delegation of administrative power in the Fiber Board to
carry out the purpose and intent of the law. In the very nature of things, the
Legislature could not inspect, grade and bale the hemp, and from necessity, the
power to do that would have to be vested in a board or commission.
The petitioner’s contention would leave the law, which provides
for the inspection, grading and baling of hemp, without any means of its
enforcement. If the law cannot be enforced by such a board or commission, how
and by whom could it be enforced? The criticism that there is partiality or
even fraud in the administration of the law is not an argument against its
constitutionality.
