Where an act violates a statutory duty and is thus subject to administrative penalty, and where the law does not specify otherwise, then although intent may not necessarily be an essential condition for establishing the offender*s liability, negligence would be one such condition. An act subject to administrative penalties however, need not cause damage or danger, but need merely violate a prohibitive regulation or a legal duty to act. Such an act must be presumed negligent, and the offender shall be penalized if he/she cannot produce evidence proving a lack of negligence. The Administrative Court*s Precedent P.T. No. 30 (Ad. Ct., 1973) states, "Neither intent nor negligence is essential to conditions for establishing liability for the imposition of administrative penalties." Precedent P.T. No. 350 of the same Court in the same year states, "The establishment of acts constituting an administrative offence does not rely on intent as a condition for liability. The cause of the false declarations regarding the degrees of quality and the value of the goods therefore, is not a matter of concern." Those parts of the above precedents that fail to conform to the meaning of the above are contrary to the spirit of the constitutional purpose of protecting people*s rights, and shall subsequently cease to apply.