In Bordallo v. Professional Regulations Commission, the Supreme Court addressed the application of examination standards for marine deck officers following the enactment of Republic Act No. 8544, which repealed Presidential Decree No. 97. The Court ruled that examinees who met the passing criteria under the new law (R.A. No. 8544) should be considered as having passed, even if the implementing rules and regulations and syllabi were not yet in place. This decision emphasizes that once a law is repealed, it is considered as if it never existed, and any subsequent actions must adhere to the new legal framework. This ensures fairness and prevents the application of outdated standards, safeguarding the rights of examinees.

When a Repealed Law Still Haunts: The Case of Marine Deck Officer Exams

The case arose after petitioners Juan Lorenzo Bordallo, Restituto G. De Castro, and Noel G. Olarte took the examination for deck officers in April 1998. They subsequently received notices of failure from the Professional Regulations Commission (PRC). Republic Act No. 8544, or the “Philippine Merchant Marine Officers Act of 1998,” had already taken effect on March 25, 1998, repealing Presidential Decree No. 97. However, the Board of Marine Deck Officers applied the passing rating prescribed by P.D. No. 97 (75%) instead of the lower rating under R.A. No. 8544 (70%). The petitioners argued that they should be considered to have passed, as they met the criteria under the new law, which required a general weighted average of 70% with no grade lower than 60% in any given subject. The central legal question was whether the Board could apply the standards of a repealed law, even if the implementing rules and syllabi of the new law were not yet in place.

The Supreme Court’s analysis centered on the repealing clause of R.A. No. 8544, which expressly repealed P.D. No. 97. Section 38 of R.A. No. 8544 states:

SEC. 38. Repealing Clause. – Presidential Decree No. 97, as amended, and all other laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations and other administrative issuances and parts thereof which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed.

The Court emphasized that upon the effectivity of R.A. No. 8544, P.D. No. 97 was considered as if it never existed. The Court underscored a basic principle: courts and administrative agencies cannot enforce a law that has been repealed. The Court held that:

Upon the effectivity of the repealing statute, R.A. No. 8544, the repealed statute, P.D. No. 97, in regard to its operative effect, is considered as if it had never existed. Courts, or administrative agencies for that matter, have no power to perpetuate a rule of law that the legislature has repealed.

The Board justified its decision by stating that the syllabi of the subjects had not yet been prepared, adopted, and issued, and the implementing rules and regulations had not been promulgated. The Court acknowledged the Board’s predicament but pointed out that postponing the examination would have been the more appropriate solution. Applying a non-existent law was not justifiable. The absence of implementing rules and syllabi does not permit the continued application of a repealed law. Instead, it may warrant a delay in implementing the new law until the necessary administrative measures are in place.

The Court addressed the argument that Section 33(2) of R.A. No. 8544 provided a basis for the Board’s action. This provision states:

SEC. 33. Transitory Provision. –

(1) x x x

(2) The present Boards shall continue to function in the interim until such time as the new Board shall be duly constituted pursuant to this Act.

The Court clarified that this provision merely allowed the existing Boards to continue functioning until the new Board was constituted. It did not provide for the continued application of Section 9, P.D. No. 97, pending the adoption of new syllabi and rules.

Furthermore, the Court discussed the examinees’ right to assume that the respondents had performed their functions in accordance with the applicable law. The Court found that it would be unjust to prejudice the examinees due to the agency’s mistake in implementing the new law. While R.A. No. 8544 aimed to raise the standards of the marine profession, it could not be applied retroactively to penalize examinees who had met the requirements under the new law but were judged under the old, repealed law.

The Court also addressed the procedural issue of whether the petitioners should have appealed to the PRC before seeking relief from the Court of Appeals. The Court cited the exception to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies, which applies when the question is purely legal. In this case, the issue of which law should apply was a question of law, making the direct resort to the Court of Appeals permissible.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the Board of Marine Deck Officers could apply the passing standards of a repealed law (P.D. No. 97) instead of the new law (R.A. No. 8544) when determining whether examinees had passed the marine deck officer examinations.
What did the Supreme Court rule?	The Supreme Court ruled that the examinees who met the passing criteria under R.A. No. 8544 should be considered as having passed, even if the implementing rules and regulations and syllabi were not yet in place. The Court emphasized that a repealed law is considered as if it never existed.
Why did the Board of Marine Deck Officers apply the old law?	The Board justified its decision by stating that the syllabi of the subjects had not yet been prepared, adopted, and issued, and the implementing rules and regulations had not been promulgated when the examinations were conducted.
What is the significance of the repealing clause in R.A. No. 8544?	The repealing clause in R.A. No. 8544 expressly repealed P.D. No. 97, meaning that P.D. No. 97 no longer had any legal effect from the moment R.A. No. 8544 took effect.
Did the Court of Appeals agree with the Board’s decision?	No, the Court of Appeals initially denied the petition, but the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision.
What was the Court’s reasoning regarding the lack of implementing rules?	The Court stated that the absence of implementing rules and syllabi did not justify the continued application of a repealed law. The appropriate solution would have been to postpone the examination until the necessary administrative measures were in place.
What is the implication of this ruling for other professions?	This ruling underscores the principle that once a law is repealed, it is no longer valid and cannot be used as a basis for any action. Regulatory boards must adhere to the new legal framework.
Can examinees rely on the existing laws when taking examinations?	Yes, examinees have the right to assume that regulatory bodies are performing their functions in accordance with the applicable laws. They should not be penalized for the agencies’ mistakes in implementing new laws.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Bordallo v. Professional Regulations Commission serves as a crucial reminder that once a law is repealed, it is as if it never existed, and regulatory bodies must adhere to the new legal framework. This case emphasizes the importance of ensuring fairness and preventing the application of outdated standards, safeguarding the rights of examinees and upholding the integrity of professional licensure processes.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Bordallo vs. Professional Regulations Commission, G.R. No. 140920, November 19, 2001