prescribed procedure; Tinga, J.: c. It must be within the scope of the authority given 12 February 2009 by the legislature; d. It must be reasonable. Facts: On 11 August 2004, the Philippine Racing Commission (a) Philracom’s authority is drawn from PD420. Philracom was (Philracom) directed the Manila Jockey Club, Inc. (MJCI) and created in order to promote and direct the accelerated Philippine Racing Club, Inc. (PRCI) to come up with rules to development and continued growth of horse racing not address Equine Infectious Anemia (EIA) problem and to rid its only in pursuance of the sports development program but facilities of horses infected with EIA. The directive was issued also in order to insure the full exploitation of the sport as a pursuant to Admin. Order No. 5 by the Dept. of Agriculture source of revenue and employment. It was granted declaring it unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to ship, exclusive jurisdiction and control over every aspect of the drive, or transport horses from any locality or place except conduct of horse racing, including the framing and when accompanied by a certificate issued by the authority of scheduling of races, the construction and safety of race the Director of the Bureau of Animal Industry. tracks, and the security of racing. Philracom ha exercised its rule-making power in a proper and reasonable manner. In compliance with the directive, MJCI and PRCI ordered the More specifically, its discretion to rid the facilities of MJCI owners of racehorses stabled in their establishments to summit and PRCI of horses afflicted with EIA is aimed at their horses for blood testing and administration of the Coggins preserving the security and integrity of horse races. Test to determine whether they were afflicted with the EIA (b) Even though the implementing guidelines were issued a virus. month after the issuance of Philracom’s directive, this does not render them void. The directive’s validity and Petitioners and racehorse owners refused to comply with the effectivity are not dependent on any supplemental directive alleging that they were not consulted, that no rules or guidelines. Furthermore, the issuance of rules and regulations were issued relative to the taking of blood samples regulations in the exercise of an administrative agency of and that there were no documented cases of EIA to justify the its quasi-legislative power does not require notice and undertaking. Despite resistance from petitioners, the blood hearing. testing proceeded. Those who refused were banned from (c) As a rule, an administrative body may not make rules that races, were not allowed to renew their licenses or were evicted are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or a from the stables. Petitioners lodged a complaint with the Office statute, particularly the statute administering or which of the President which in turn directed the Philracom to created it, or which are in derogation of, or defeat, the investigate the matter. However, Philracom failed to act on the purpose of a statute. The assailed guidelines are in accord matter so petitioners sought recourse from the TC which with Philracom’s mandate under the law to regulate the issued a TRO. conduct of horse racing in the country. (d) The guidelines were not unreasonable or discriminatory. By this time, most of the racehorse owners had subjected their All horses stabled at the MCJI and PRCI premises horses to the blood tests except for Dagan whose horses were underwent the same procedure, horse owners were evicted from the stables and transferred to an isolation area. notified before the tests were conducted and those who Also, three of his horses were found positive of EIA. failed to comply were repeatedly warned of the consequences and sanctions. The guidelines implemented TC: Since most (except for Dagan) had complied with the bore a reasonable relation to the purpose sought to be contested guidelines, the acts sought to be enjoined had been accomplished, i.e., the complete riddance of horses rendered moot and academic. Moreover, the subject guidelines infected with EIA. were held valid as en exercise of police power the horseracing industry being imbued with public interest. It also held that 2. NO. participation in the business of horseracing is but a privilege There is no delegation of power to speak of between Philracom not a right and that petitioners must abide with the rules and and the clubs. The Philracom directive was merely instructive conditions issued and imposed by the contracts of lease they in character to ordering said clubs to come up with rules to entered into with MCJI. address the problem and to rid their facilities of infected horses. MJCI and PRCI’s duty arose from the franchise CA: Upheld the authority of Philracom to formulate guidelines granted to them by Congress allowing the clubs “to do and since it is vested with exclusive jurisdiction over and control of carry out all such acts, deeds and things as may be necessary the horseracing industry. to give effect” to the objectives of the Philracom.
Issues: Petition dismissed.
Whether or not Philracom had the authority to issue the subject guidelines. - Crystal Dunuan - Whether or not Philracom unconstitutionally delegated its rule- making power to PRCI and MCJI in directing said clubs to formulate their own rules.
Held and Ratio:
1. YES. Philracom did not exceed in issuing the subject directive for it has complied with the following guidelines: a. Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature;
John Stephen Larkin v. Patrick Savage, John Doe, John Rittenhouse, Charles Campisi, Anthony Cartusciello, and P.O. Lodyzinski, 318 F.3d 138, 2d Cir. (2003)