Are administrative regulations and executive orders valid if they contradict a law passed by Congress?

The article answers this directly: no

Article 7 states the condition for validity in plain terms: administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution. The word only makes this a strict condition rather than a preference. A regulation or executive order that conflicts with a law Congress passed does not meet that condition, and so it is not valid.

Laws stay binding until Congress itself changes them

The article explains why a law cannot simply be sidestepped by a lower-level act: laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary. A statute remains in force until another law repeals it. An administrative regulation or executive order is not a subsequent law in that sense, so it cannot override what Congress enacted.

The same hierarchy runs up to the Constitution

Article 7 applies the identical logic one level higher: when the courts declared a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. Just as a regulation must yield to a law, a law itself must yield to the Constitution when the two conflict. The article treats validity as running down a hierarchy, Constitution over law, law over administrative or executive act, rather than each source of authority standing on equal footing.

What this means when a regulation conflicts with a statute

If an administrative regulation or executive order contradicts a law that Congress passed, Article 7 places the law above it. The regulation does not get to stand simply because an agency or the executive issued it; its validity is conditioned on consistency with the laws and the Constitution, and where that consistency is missing, the article says the regulation is not valid in the first place.

Cases citing this provision

These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.

• Bayan Muna, as represented by Rep. Satur Ocampo, et al. vs. Alberto Romulo, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, et al, G.R. No. 159618, February 1, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Justo Q. Sinag, et al. vs. the Honorable Sangguniang Panlalawigan Ng Batangas, G.R. No. 234228, February 25, 2025 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• People of the Philippines vs. Mark Paul Ildefonso, G.R. No. 249858, February 19, 2025 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Patrick Alex M. Hagedorn, et al. vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 260458, June 4, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →

Related provisions

• Civil Code, Article 7 — How Laws Are Repealed; Supremacy of the Constitution