Association of the Philippine Coconut Desiccators vs PCA of export performance in the coconut industry, PCA was granted

the power to regulate the establishment of new plants.

Facts:
 The regulatory power of the PCA was for the furtherance of its
PARTIES INVOLVED purpose to promote the development and growth of the coconut
industry.
 Petitioner Association of the Philippine Coconut Desiccators  PCA was granted the power to adopt a general program of
 Respondent Philippine Coconut Authority development, but the court said that it should be construed as to
be exercised in the context of regulation.
HOW THE DISPUTE STARTED:
When PCA adopted Reso 018-93, it virtually dismantled the regulatory
 Seven companies under the petitioner brought a suit against the
infrastructure.
respondent to be enjoined from issuing permits for the
establishment of new plants because the area where they were  This action by the PCA placed at risk the coconut industry.
supposed to operate were already congested.
 RTC issued the TRO.
In this regard, the court said that any change in policy must be made
by the legislative department.
While the case was pending, respondent issued Resolution 018-93
wherein they renounced their power to regulate the coconut product  It is beyond the powers of the administrative agency to dismantle
processing industry. the regulatory system established by law.

 It limited its power to mere monitoring.

 They then issued permits to those who were willing to operate
plants.

Petitioner filed an appeal to the Office of the President but being

unheeded they filed this petition.

ISSUE:

 WON PCA can renounce its regulatory powers

 No

Ruling:

No. The regulatory system is set up by law. It is beyond the power of an

administrative agency to dismantle it.

 The respondent was created by PD 232 to promote the rapid

integrated development and growth of coconut industry.
 Because of overproduction of poor quality products and the decline