Facts:

The case of Juan B. Alegre vs. The Insular Collector of Customs was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on August 27, 1929 (G.R. No. 30783). The issue at hand arose from the interpretation and application of Act No. 2380, which was enacted on February 28, 1914. This statute focused on the inspection, grading, and baling of essential Philippine fibers including abaca, maguey, and sisal. The law mandated the establishment of official grades for these fibers and outlined the specific procedures that grading establishments must follow to engage in fiber grading. The central contention of the petitioner, Juan B. Alegre, was against the enforcement of certain provisions of the Act, particularly concerning the role of the Fiber Standardization Board created under the law. Alegre argued that the authority vested in the board constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative power, which he claimed was contrary to the Constitution.

In the lower court, a decision had been made

...

Facts:

Enactment and Provisions of Act No. 2380

• Act No. 2380, enacted on February 28, 1914, provides for the inspection, grading, and baling of fibers such as abaca (Manila hemp), maguey (cantala), sisal, and others.
• Section 1 of the Act defines key terms including "fiber," "abaca," "maguey," "sisal," "strand," "string," "tow," "waste," "grading station," and "grading establishment."
• Section 2 directs the Director of Agriculture to establish and publish official standards for commercial grades, including the preparation, designation, and periodic renewal of these standards.
• Specific provisions mandate that any grading establishment must mirror the official standards as approved by the Director of Agriculture.
• Detailed instructions are provided regarding the physical requirements for baling fibers (dimensions, weight, uniform quality, and secure tying) in Section 5.
• Provisions in Section 6 and Section 7 emphasize the importance of proper marking, inspection, certification, and the penalties for tampering or misrepresentation.

Integration and Amendments into the Administrative Code

• The original law was later incorporated into the Administrative Code with Section 1244 enforcing that fibers must conform to the statutory requirements before being exported.
• Section 1783 restates the mandatory specifications for bales, including dimensions and quality requirements.
• Act No. 3263, approved on December 7, 1925, introduces new provisions creating administrative offices and boards to oversee fiber inspection and standardization.
• Section 1771-A establishes the "Philippines Fiber Inspection Service" for the classification, baling, and inspection of fibers.
• Section 1771-B creates the "Fiber Standardization Board" consisting of seven members, including representatives from various sectors, with the Director of Agriculture as permanent chairman.
• Amendments in Sections 1772, 1788, and 2748 further delineate the Board’s power to set official standards, require graded and certified bales for export, and impose sanctions for non-compliance.

Central Legal Contention and Context

• The purpose of the law is to ensure a uniform grading system that provides purchasers with assurance regarding the quality of fibers.
• The legal issue presented centers on whether delegating authority to the Fiber Standardization Board constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
• The petitioner (Juan B. Alegre) contended that transferring such power to the Board was improper, while the respondent (the Insular Collector of Customs) maintained that the delegation was administrative and essential to the law’s enforcement.
• The case includes detailed references to the administrative procedures and certification requirements that underscore the legislative intent to tightly regulate fiber quality for export.

Comparative Legal Authorities and Prior Cases

• The decision references Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, which discusses the permissible scope of delegating non-legislative administrative functions.
• U.S. cases such as Buttfield vs. Stranahan and St. Louis vs. Taylor are cited to illustrate that similar delegations in the context of standard-setting (e.g., for tea purity and railroad safety) did not amount to unconstitutional legislative delegation.
• These cases provide a comparative backdrop demonstrating that enabling administrative bodies to execute detailed regulatory functions is both necessary and permissible.

Position of the Parties

• The petitioner argued that vesting authority in an administrative board effectively transferred legislative power, infringing on constitutional limitations.
• The respondent argued that the delegation was strictly for administrative purposes to implement the legislative policy, ensuring that inspection, grading, and baling of fibers were carried out efficiently and uniformly.

Issue:

Whether the delegation of power to the Fiber Standardization Board by the legislature amounts to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.

• Does the authority granted to the board to determine the official standards for grading and inspecting fibers exceed administrative functions?
• Is the board’s role in setting detailed operational standards (for grading, baling, and certification) a valid exercise of administrative power rather than an improper legislative delegation?
• Can the legislative policy be effectively executed through an administrative body without compromising the separation of powers?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)