JUAN B. ALEGRE vs.

THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

FACTS

The petitioner for a number of years has been and is now engaged in the production
of abaca and its exportation to foreign markets. November 8, 1927, he applied to the
respondent for a permit to export one hundred bales of abacato England, which was denied,
and advised that he would not be permitted to export the abaca in question without a certificate
of the Fiber Standardization Board. He then filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila a
petition for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the provisions of the Administrative Code for the
grading, inspection and certification of fibers and, in particular, sections 1772 and 1244 of that
Code, are unconstitutional and void.

The Insular Deputy Collector of Customs, answered the above letter of the petitioner
informing him that he would not be permitted to export the said one hundred bales
of abaca unless the export entry covering the exportation is accompanied by a certificate of the
Fiber Standardization Board, or a notation is written on the face of the triplicate of the export
entry signed by the fiber inspector who made the inspection indicating that the abaca covered
thereby has complied with the provisions of the law relative to the shipment of such product.
Copies of the said letter and its enclosure are attached to, and made a part of, this answer
marked as Exhibits A, B, and C.

It will thus be noted that the purpose and intent of the original law was to provide in detail
for the inspection grading and baling of abaca, maguey, sisal and other fibers, and for a uniform
scale for grading, and to issue official certificates as to the kind and quality of the hemp, so that
an intending purchaser from an examination of the certificates might be assured and know the
grade and quality of the hemp offered for sale.

The original law, as enacted, was later amended and carried into, and made a part of,
the Administrative Code, section 1244 of which is as follows:

A collector of customs shall not permit abaca, maguey, or sisal or other fibrous products
for which standard grades have been established by the Director of Agriculture to be
laden aboard a vessel clearing for a foreign port, unless the shipment conforms to the
requirements of law relative to the shipment of such fibers.

ISSUE

Whether or not the law in question delegates to the Fiber Board legislative powers or
administrative functions to carry out the purpose and intent of the law for its more efficient
administration.

RULING

NO. It is a delegation of administrative power.

The maxim that power conferred upon Legislature to make laws cannot be delegated to any
other authority does not preclude the Legislature from delegating any power not legislative
which it may itself rightfully exercise. This means that the Legislature must declare the policy of
the law and fix the legal principles, which are to control in given cases; but an administrative
officer or body may be invested with the power to apply principles. This is done not only to avoid
confusion in the laws, but also not to miss sufficiency both in provision and execution in an effort
to detail and to particularize.

IN OTHER WORDS, though legislative power cannot be delegated to boards and

commissions, the Legislature may delegate to them administrative functions in carrying out the
purposes of a statute and various governmental power for the more efficient administration of
the laws.

Congress legislated on the subject as far as was reasonably practicable. However, the
necessities of the case compelled them to leave to executive officials the duty of bringing about
the result pointed out by the statute. To deny the power of Congress to delegate such a duty
would amount to declaring that the power vested in Congress to regulate foreign commerce
could not be efficaciously exerted.

IN THIS CASE, the Legislature, by enacting Act No. 2380, is saying that before any hemp is
exported from the Philippines it must be inspected, graded and baled, and it has created a
board for that purpose and vested it with the power and authority to do the actual work.

Applying the principles mentioned above, such a delegation is not a delegation of legislative
power. Rather, it is a delegation of administrative power in the Fiber Board, to carry out the
purpose and intent of the law. That is because in the very nature of things, the Legislature could
not perform such tasks.