Laws, as well as the issuances promulgated to implement them, enjoy the presumption of validity. However, administrative regulations that alter or amend the statute or enlarge or impair its scope are void, and the courts not only may, but it is their obligation to strike down such regulations.
ITEM 4 of DAR Administrative Order No. 05, Series of 2006 does not indicate that a multiple or series of transfers/sales of land would result in the loss of retention rights. Neither do they provide that the multiple or series of transfers or sales amount to the waiver of retention right of the landowner. Thus, ITEM 4 of said DAR Administrative Order is patently null and void. The presumption of validity cannot be accorded to it for being ultra vires. Administrative regulations must be in harmony with the provisions of the law as they cannot extend or amend a legislative enactment. Administrative issuances must not override, but must remain consistent with the law they seek to apply and implement.
Admittedly, administrative regulations issued by the Department Head in conformity with the law have the force of law. However, since Department Heads exercise the rule making power by delegation of the lawmaking body, it is requisite that they should not transcend the bounds demarcated by the statute for the exercise of that power. Otherwise, they would be improperly exercising legislative power in his own right and not as a surrogate of the lawmaking body.
While the Court is mindful of the DAR's commitment to the implementation of Agrarian Reform, it must be conceded that departmental zeal may not be permitted to outrun the authority conferred by statute. There must be no over reaching. Otherwise the rule of law becomes a myth.
(GR No. 176549, January 20, 2016).
No comments:
Post a Comment