Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Admin-Law by Cruz
Admin-Law by Cruz
Admin-Law by Cruz
By
Carlo L. Cruz
Chapter 1
General Considerations
Nature
Administrative Law that branch of modern law under which the
executive department of the government, acting in a quasi-legislative or
quasi-judicial capacity, interferes with the conduct of the individual for
the purpose of promoting the well-being of the community.
Administrative law is a recent development , being a consequence of the
ever increasing complexities of society and the proliferation of problems
of government that cannot readily or effectively be addressed by the
public agencies or solved by other disciplines of public law.
It was felt that thelegislative and judicial departments no longer had
either the time or the needed expertise to attend to these new problems.
Thus, the obvious solution was delegation of power.
Two major powers of the administrative agency:
1. Quasi-legislative authority or rule making power
2. Quasi-judicial power or adjudicatory function
Administration
Administration is understood in two senses:
1. institution administration as the aggregate of individuals in whose
hands the reins of government are for the time being.
2. function administration as the actual running of the government by
the executive authorities through the enforcement of laws and
implementation of policies.
Government (as distinguished from administration) is the agency or
instrumentality through which the will of the State is formulated,
expressed and realized.
Administration Distinguished from Law
Law is impersonal command provided with sanctions to be applied in
case of violation, while Administration is preventive rather punitive and
is accepted to be more personal than law.
Law maintains a watchful eye on those who would violate its order.
While administration on the other hand seeks to spare individuals from
punishments of the law by persuading him to observe its commands.
Chapter 2
Administrative Agencies
Definition
Administrative agency a body endowed with quasi-legislative and
quasi-judicial powers for the purpose of enabling it to carry out the laws
entrusted to it for enforcement or execution.
Administrative agency may be regarded as an arm of the legislature
insofar as it is authorize to promulgate rules. It may also be loosely
considered a court because it performs functions of a particular judicial
character, as when it decides factual and sometimes even legal questions
as an incident of its general power of regulation.
Creation and Abolition
The administrative body may be created by the Constitution or by a
Statute.
If created by the Constitution itself, the administrative body can be
altered or abolished only by Constitution. But where the body was
created only by statute, the legislature that breathed life into it can
amend or even repeal its charter, thereby resulting in its abolition which
is justified if made in good faith.
Chapter 3
Powers of Administrative Agencies
Chapter 4
The Quasi-Legislative Power
Chapter 5
The Quasi-Judicial Power
A. Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction may be simply defined as the competence of an office or
body to act on a given matter or decide a certain question.
Without jurisdiction, the determination made by the administrative
bodies are absolutely null and without any legal effect whatsoever.
It is the legislature that has the power to confer jurisdiction upon the
administrative body and so limit or expand its authority.
It can be said that each administrative body has its own peculiar
jurisdiction as conferred upon it by the specific provisions of its charter.
The law may allow some administrative bodies to award certain kinds of
damages while denying the same power, for no apparent reason, to other
administrative bodies.
For example, the SEC and NLRC are allowed to award damages virtually
to the same extent as a court of justice. Yet similar authority has not
been conferred by its charter to NTC.
It is a well-settled principle that unless expressly empowered,
administrative agencies are bereft of quasi-judicial power.
1. Rules of Procedure
Where an administrative body is expressly granted the power of
adjudication, it is deemed also vested with the implied power to precribe
the rules to be observed in the conduct of its proceedings.
But to be valid, the rules must not violate fundamental rights or
encroach upon constitutional prerogatives.
2. The Subpoena Power
The power to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum is not inherent
in administrative bodies.
It is settled that administrative bodies may summon witnesses and
require the production of evidence only when duly allowed by law, and
always only in connection with the matter they are authorized to
investigate. Unless otherwise provided by law, the agency may, in case of
disobedience, invoke the aid or Regional Trial Court within whose
jurisdiction the contested case falls. The Court may punish customacy
or refusal as contempt.
Nevertheless, there are instances when notice and hearing can validly be
omitted. Among the justifications for such omissions are the urgency of
immediate action (which does not preclude the enjoyment of the right at
a later time without prejudice to the person affected) and the fact that
the right had previously been offered but not claimed.
1. Administrative Due Process
While administrative determinations of contested case are by their nature
judicial, there is no requirement for strict adherence to technical rules as
are observed in truly judicial proceedings.
It is a general rule that they are unrestricted by the technical or formal
rules of procedure which govern trials before a court. This rule is
applied to questions of evidence, pleading and other matters.
Nevertheless, it is essential that due process must be observed, for the
requirements of fair play are not applicable to judicial proceedings only.
Cardinal rights or principles to be observed in administrative
proceedings:
a. the first of these rights is the right to a hearing;
b. the tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
c. the tribunal must have something to support its decision;
d. evidence must be substantial evidence relevant evidence that
a reasonable
mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion
e. the decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the
hearing, or at
least contained in the record and disclosed to the
parties;
f. the court must act on its or their own independent
consideration of the law and facts of controversy, and not simply accept
the views of a subordinate in arriving
at a decision;
g. the court should render its decision in such a manner that the
parties to the
proceeding can know the various issues involved, and
the reasons for the
decisions rendered
It is basic to due process that the tribunal considering the
administrative question be impartial, to ensure a fair decision.
The law does not require another notice and hearing for a review of the
decision of the board.
In M.F. Violago Oiler Tank Trucks vs. NLRC, there was no denial of due
process where the petitioners received notice of the scheduled
investigation the day before said date of the hearing or investigation but
failed to present evidence. On the other hand, there was clearly such a
denial where it appears that a decision rendered against a person who
was not a party to or even notified of the proceedings taken before a labor
arbiter.
D. Enforcement of Decision
In the absence of any statute providing for the enforcement of an
administrative determination, the same cannot be enforced except
possibly by appeal to the force of public opinion.
Usually, however, the administrative body is allowed certain sanctions
that it may impose directly for the enforcement of its own decisions, i.e.
revocation of or refusal to renew licenses, destruction of unlawful
articles, summary closure of stores, refusal to grant clearances, issuance
of cease and desist orders, detention and deportation of aliens, and
imposition of fines.
E. Res Judicata
The general rule is that an administrative decision is not considered res
judicata so as to preclude its subsequent reconsideration or revocation.
Decisions of the previous incumbents of the administrative body may be
modified or reversed by their successors in the exercise of their own
powers of adjudication.
Where the administrative decision has been affirmed by a court decision,
the doctrine of res judicata is applicable. The effect of res judicata
attaches to the judgment of the reviewing court rather than to the
administrative judgment.
This rule has however been modified in this jurisdiction.
It is now well-settled in our jurisprudence that the decisions and orders
of administrative agencies, rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial
authority, have upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final
judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata.
This principle is, however, not applicable to all administrative
proceedings, such proceedings that are non-litigious and summary in
nature without regard to legal technicalities obtaining in courts of law.
Chapter 6
Judicial Review
General Rules
An administrative decision may be appealed to the courts of justice only
if the Constitution or the law permits it or if the question to be reviewed
is a question of law.
However, jurisprudence is replete with cases where the Supreme Court
has applied the exceptions rather than the rule.
In the case of the constitutional commission, i.e., the Commission on
Elections, the Commission on Audit, and the Civil Service Commission, it
is provided that any decision order or ruling of each Commission may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within
30 days from receipt of a copy thereof.
On the basis of Sec. 16 of the Interim Rules and Guideline implementing
Sec. 9 (3) of BP Blg. 129, the Court of Appeals may review final
decisions, orders, awards or resolutions or regional trial courts and of all
quasi-judicial bodies, except the Commission on Elections, the
Commission on Audit, the Sandiganbayan, and decisions issued under
the Labor Code of the Philippines and by the Central Board of
Assessment Appeals.
Other appeals are prescribed by special laws, such as RA No. 1125,
providing for appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals of any decision rendered
by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs,
or any provincial or city board of assessment appeals.
Methods of review
The methods of judicial review are prescribed by the Constitution,
statutes or the Rules of the Court. These methods may be specific or
general.
It is provided in RA No. 5434 that an appeal from a final award, order or
decisions of the Patent Office shall be taken by filing with said body and
with the Court of Appeals a notice of appeal within 15 days from notice of
such award, order or ruling, copies being served on all interested parties.
The Administrative Code generally provides that an appeal from an
agency decision shall be perfected by filing with the agency within 15
days from receipt of a copy thereof a notice of appeal, and with the
reviewing court a petition for review of the order. Copies of the petition
shall be served upon the agency and all parties of record.
The petition shall contain a concise statement of the issues involved and
the grounds relied upon for the review, and shall be accompanied with a
true copy of the order appealed from, together with copies of such
material portions of the records as are referred to therein and other
supporting papers.
The Supreme Court instructed certain universally accepted axioms
governing judicial review through the extraordinary actions of certiorari
or prohibition of determinations of administrative officers or agencies:
First, before said actions may be entertained, it must be shown that all
the administrative remedies prescribed by law or ordinance have been
exhausted; and,
Second, that the administrative decision may properly be annulled or set
aside only upon a clear showing that the administrative official or
tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with a grave
abuse of discretion.
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction or Prior Resort
There are two doctrines that must be considered in connection with the
judicial review of administrative decisions:(1) doctrine of primary
jurisdiction or prior resort; and (2) the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction simply calls for the
determination of administrative questions, which ordinarily
questions of fact, by administrative agencies rather courts of
justice.
B. Questions of Law
Administrative bodies may be allowed to resolve questions of law in the
exercise of their quasi-judicial function as an incident of their primary
power of regulation.