People Vs Jolliffe, 105 Phil 677 Case Digest (Administrative Law)

Adminstrative Law
Arellano Univeristy School of Law

aiza ebina/2015
PEOPLE vs JOLLIFFE
105 Phil 677
Sufficiency of Standards
FACTS: This is an appeal taken by defendant-appellant William Ernest Jolliffe from a decision of the Court
of First Instance of Rizal, convicting him of a violation of Republic Act No. 256, 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 $100,000. It appears that on December 7, 1953, when defendant-appellant 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. There was also found a travellers' check in the sum of $100,000 in
his possession.
Referring the case at bar, section 74 of Republic Act No. 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." 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."
Central Bank Circular No. 21 requiring said license and section 34 of Republic Act No. 265, prescribing the
penalty for violations of said Circular, refer to consummated exportation, not to "attempted or frustrated
exportation."
It should be noted, furthermore, 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."
Defendant-appellant 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 section 74 of Republic Act
265, in that:
(a) It was approved by the President of the Philippines;
(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;
(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;
(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;
(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 and, therefore,
unconstitutional and void
ISSUE: Whether or not the grant of authority to issue the circular in question constitute an undue
delegation of legislative power
RULING: It is true that, under our system of government, said power may not be delegated except to
local governments. However, one thing is to delegate the power to determine what the law shall be and
another thing to delegate the authority to fix the details in the execution or enforcement of a policy set out
in the law itself. Briefly stated, the rule is that the delegated powers fall under the second category, 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."
It should be noted, furthermore, 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." 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 powers.
RATIO: 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.
"To maintain monetary stability, promote a rising level of production, employment, and real income" is a
sufficient standard.
---

People Vs Jolliffe, 105 Phil 677 Case Digest (Administrative Law)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Jolliffe, 105 Phil 677 Case Digest (Administrative Law)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adminstrative Law

Arellano Univeristy School of Law

You might also like