LIV

KIRK

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Scope of Administrative Law
1. Internal administration considers the legal
aspects of public administration as a going
concern
2. External administration refers to the legal
relations between administrative authorities
and private interests
This
is
the
chief
concern
of
administrative law, which is the
protection of private rights, the
subject of which is the nature and the
mode of exercise of administrative
power and the system of reliefs
against administrative action.
B. Kinds of Administrative Law
1. Statutes setting up administrative authorities
2. Body of doctrines and decisions
3. Rules, regulations, or orders
4. Determinations, decisions, and orders of
administrative authorities
The 1987 Administrative Code did not entirely
repeal or modify the Revised Administrative Code
and special legislations. What 1987 Code repealed
or modified are only those laws, decrees, orders,
rules and regulations, or portions thereof which are
inconsistent with this Code.
The two administrative codes are general laws and
as between the codes and special legislations on

TRACY

CIELA

specific subject matters, the latter prevail as an

exception to the former. General legislation must
give way to special legislation on the same subject,
and generally so interpreted as to embrace only
cases in which the special provisions are not
applicable.
C. Administrative Framework
Government of the Republic of the Philippines
corporate governmental entity through which the
functions of government are exercised throughout
the Philippines, including, save as the contrary
appears from the context, the various arms through
which political authority is made effective in the
Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous
regions, or the LGUs.
Agency any of the various units of Government
including a
Department
Bureau
Office
Instrumentality
GOCC
LGU
Instrumentality any agency of the National
Government,
not integrated within the department
framework,
vested with special functions or jurisdiction
by law,
endowed with some if not all corporate
powers, administering special funds, and
1

LIV
KIRK

enjoying operational
through a charter

autonomy,

usually

It includes
regulatory agencies
institutes
GOCC
The terms agency and instrumentality are
synonymous in the sense that either of them is a
means by which the government acts, or by which
a certain governmental act or function is
performed.
Agencies or instrumentalities are either
Corporated, or
o Vested by law with a juridical
personality
distinct
from
the
personality of the reublic
Incorporated
o Those not vested with a juridical
ersonality distinct from the Republic,
endowed by law with some if not all
corporate powers
Both have legal personality. When the statutory
term of a non-incorporated agency expires, the
powers, duties and functions as well as assets and
liabilities of that agency revert back to, and are
reassumed by, the Republic of the Philippines, in
the absence ofspecial provisions of law specifying
some other disposition thereof.
Chartered institution refers to any agency
organized or operating under a specific charter,

TRACY

CIELA

and vested by law with functions relating to specific

constitutional policies or objectives
Administration refers to the aggregate of those
persons in whose hand the reins of government are
for the time being
D. Reasons for creation of administrative
agencies
1. To unclog court dockets
2. To meet the growing complexities of modern
societies. As problems of modern society
multiply, which can hardly be met by the
legislature, administrative agencies are
established to promptly cope up with such
problems
3. To help in the regulation of ramified activities
of a developing country
4. To entrust to specialized agencies in
specified field with their special knowledge,
experience, and capability the task of
dealing with problems thereof as they have
the experience, expertise and power to
dispatch to provide solutions thereto
II. POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
A. In general
As a rule, the doctrine of separation of powers
prohibits the delegation of legislative power, the
vesting of judicial officers with non-judicial
functions, as well as the investing of non-judicial
officers with judicial powers.

LIV

TRACY

CIELA

KIRK

However, the doctrine of separation of powers is

not an iron-clad restriction against delegation of
powers. With
The growing complexity of modern life
The
multiplication
of
subjects
of
governmental regulations, and
The increased difficulty of administering the
laws, the rigidity of the theory of separation
of governmental powers has, to a large
extent, been relaxed by
permitting the delegation of greater powers
by the legislature and
the vesting of a larger amount of discretion
in administrative and executive agencies and
officials
in the execution of the laws,
in the promulgation of certain rules and
regulations,
and in the adjudication of claims and
disputes calculated to promote public
interest.
Notes
You have to weigh power and rights.
In the following cases, you will see that the
exercise of the police power by the
legislature is being delegated to the
executive branch.
To test the power of the agency and how that
power is being exercised, you must base it
on two standards
1. substantive due process
o Purpose of the law
o Means of the law
2. procedural due process

To test whether there is a valid delegation of

power
1. WON the administrative agency has the
power as authorized by law
There is the presumption of regularity
2. WON there is a standard

Administrative agencies administer and

execute the law and perform internal
administration of agencies.
Functions of administrative agencies
1. administration
2. regulation
3. policy-making
o Guidelines
o Rules and regulations
With sanctions and rights are
affected
4. Investigation
o Policy investigation
o Investigation in aid of legislation
The purposes of investigation are
1. to make new standards
2. to hold persons accountable
5. Adjudication
6. Others as defined by the charter
Calalang v. Williams
Social justice is neither communism nor despotism,
nor atomism, nor anarchy but the humanization of
laws and the equalization of social and economic
forces by the state so that justice in its rational and
3

LIV
KIRK

TRACY

CIELA

objectively secular conception may at least be

approximated.

issue a writ of execution for the enforcement of its

decision.

Notes
Construe the power liberally and look at the
intention of the law.

The CS, in the exercise of its quasi-judicial function,

has the power to order execution of its decision
which has become final.

Social justice is giving more in law for those who

have less in life. It means that there is more
government intervention.

Phil. Association of Service Exporters v.

Torres

You must analyze social justice vis--vis property

rights and non-impairment of contracts
B. Express and Implied Powers
Public officials possess powers not rights.
Administrative agencies have only such powers as
are expressly granted to them by law and those
that are necessarily implied in the exercised
thereof. There is no presumption that they are
empowered to act. An administrative agency
cannot grant itself jurisdiction to decide a particular
matter by issuing the appropriate rules and
regulations in the exercise of its quasi-legislative
power, where the enabling statute does not so
confer.
Liberal construction is adopted to enable
administrative agencies to discharge their assigned
duties in accordance with the legislative purpose or
intent. The grant of quasi-judicial power to try
actions carries with all necessary and incidental
powers to employ all writs, processes and other
means essential to make its jurisdiction effective.
Accordingly, unless the enabling law provides
otherwise, a quasi-judicial body has the power to

DO 16 and POEA Memorandum Circulars

temporarily suspended the recruitment by private
employment agencies of Filipino domestic helpers
going to HK as a result of published stories
regarding the abuses suffered by Filipino
housemaids in HK.
Ratio:
A careful reading of the challenged administrative
issuances discloses that the same fall within the
administrative and policing powers expressly or by
necessary
implication
conferred
upon
the
respondents. The power to restrict and regulate
conferred by Art. 37,LC involves a grant of police
power. To restrict means to confine, limit, or stop
whereas the power to regulate means the power to
protect, foster, promote, preserve, and control with
due regard for the interests, first and foremost, of
the public, then of the utility and of its patrons.
o Art. 36, LC The SOLE shall have the power
to restrict and reulate the recruitment and
placement activities x x x and is hereby
authorized to issue orders and promulgate
rules and regulations to carry out the
objectives and implement the provisions of
this title.
o Functions by PoEA
4

LIV
KIRK

2. To establish and maintain a registration

and/or licensing system to regulate private
sector participation in the recruitment and
placement of workers, locally and overseas.

Said administrative issuances are justified under

the general welfare clause of the Constitution,
since the recruitment and deployment business is
affected with public interest.
JMM Promotion v. CA
D.O. 3 establishing various procedures and
requirements for screening performing artists under
a new system of training, testing, certification and
deployment of the former. Performing artists
successfully hurdling the test, training and
certification requirement were to be an Artists
Record Book, a necessary prerequisite to
processing of an contract of employment by the
POEA.
Ratio:
Police power concerns government enactments
which precisely interfere with personal liberty or
property in order to promote the general welfare or
the common good. Thus, the Dos enjoy a presumed
validity, and the burden rest upon petitioners to
demonstrate that the ARB requirement does not
enhance the public welfare or was exercised
arbitrarily or unreasonably.
The ARB requirement is aimed at segregating real
artists
or performers
from
those
passing
themselves off as such, eager to accept any
available job and therefore exposing themselves to
possible exploitation.

TRACY

CIELA

No right is absolute, and the proper regulation of a

profession, calling business or trade has always
been upheld as a legitimate subject of a valid
exercise of the police power by the state
particularly when their conduct affects either the
execution of legitimate governmental functions, the
preservation of the State, the public health and
welfare and public morals.
Existing law is read into every contract, and always,
a reservation of the police power for as long as the
agreement deals with a subject impressed with the
public welfare.
Notes
In this case, no source of general power was cited
by the SC to justify the grant of regulatory power.
GTEB v. CA
The power to adjudicate on the question of an
entitys entitlement to export allocations was
expressly granted to the GTEB, or at the very least,
was necessarily implied from the power to cancel or
suspend quota allocations, is beyond cavil.
C. Ministerial and Discretionary Powers
Ministerial duty - one which is so clear and
specific as to leave no room for the exercise of
discretion in its performance.
The fact that the duties of an official are
ministerial does not necessarily follow that
he may not, in the administration f his office,
determine questions of law.
Mandamus lay lie to compel performance
5

LIV
KIRK

Discretionary duty - one in which the officer or

tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a
prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of
legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of
his own judgment, upon the propriety of the act
done.
Petition for certiorari may lie where there is
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction on the part of the official or
administrative agency.
An officer to whom a discretion is entrusted
cannot
delegate
it to another,
the
presumption being that he was chosen
because he was deemed fit and competent
to exercise that judgment or discretion and
unless the power to substitute another in his
place has been given to him, he cannot
delegate his duties to another.
Mateo v. CA
Petitioners filed a petition for relief from judgment
which has become final and executor, alleging
excusable negligence in their failure to appeal the
decision. The lower court denied the petition. The
petitioners elevated the case to the CA on a
petition for mandamus alleging that the granting of
notice of appeal was a ministerial duty.
Ratio:
Ministerial duty is one which is so clear and
specific as to leave no room for the exercise of
discretion in its performance.

TRACY

CIELA

The approval of the notice of appeal is a

ministerial duty and enforceable by
mandamus.

Discretionary duty is one in which the officer or

tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a
prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of
legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of
his own judgment, upon the propriety of the act
done.
If the law imposes a duty and gives him the
right to decide how and when the duty shall
be performed, such is discretionary.
A petition for mandamus does not lie to
compel the doing of a discretionary act.
Mandamus is not a remedy available to grant
a petition for relief from judgment. A
petition for relief from judgment can only be
resorted on grounds of fraud, accident,
mistake or excusable negligence.
Notes
A ministerial duty may be mandatory or permissive.
Discretionary and ministerial duties are determined
by the nature of the act and the law.
A ministerial duty pertains to a mechanical act.
D. Mandatory
powers

and

permissive duties

and

The question as to whether a duty or power vested

in an official or administrative agency is mandatory
or permissive depends upon the kind of the statute
which granted such power.
6

LIV

TRACY

CIELA

KIRK

Mandatory statute a statute which commands

either positively that something be done, or
performed in a particular way, or negatively that
something be not done, leaving the person
concerned no choice on the matter except to obey
A provision relating to the essence of the
thing to be done, that is, to matters of
substance, is mandatory.
Acts executed against the provisions of
mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void,
except when the law itself authorizes their
validity.
Where a statute is mandatory, the court or
quasi-judicial tribunal has no power to
distinguish between material and immaterial
breach thereof or omission to comply with
what it requires.
Directory statute a statute which is permissive
or discretionary in nature and merely outlines the
act to be done in such a way that no injury can
result from ignoring it or that its purpose can be
accomplished in a manner other than that
prescribed and substantially the same result
obtained.
A statute is regarded as directory where no
substantial rights depend on it.
The constructions of mandatory words as
directory should not be lightly adopted and
never where it would in fact make a new law
instead of that passed by the legislature.
Tests
1. What is the legislative intent?
2. Will substantial rights be affected by it? Will
injury result from ignoring it?

Tanada v. Cuenco
Art. 6, Sec. 11, 1935 Consti: Each Electoral tribunal
shall be composed of nine members x x x and the
remaining 6 shall be members of the Senate or
HOR x x x three upon nomination of the party
having the largest number of votes and three of the
party having the second largest number of votes
therein.
Ratio:
The procedural requirement is mandatory while the
number of members of Senate Electoral Tribunal is
permissive. The main objective of the framers of
the Cosntitution is to determine legislative contests
devoid of partisan considerations which prompted
the people acting through their delegates to the
convention, to provide for this body known as the
electoral commission. With this end in view, a
composite body in which both the majority and
minority parties are equally represented to off-set
partisan influence in its deliberations was created.
Its framers intended to prevent the majority party
from controlling the SET and that the structure
thereof is founded upon the equilibrium between
the majority and the minority parties therein.
Example
Confirmation of dismissal for it to be
effective mandatory
WON the judge will confirm discretionary
WON the judge will act on such case permissive
E. Errors in exercise of powers
7

LIV

TRACY

CIELA

KIRK

Gen. Rule - The government can do no wrong. It

authorizes only legal acts by its officers. Its officers
and agents do wrong or commit unauthorized acts.
Mistakes of government personnel in performance
of their duties should not affect public interest.
Hence, the government is never estopped by such
mistake or error. Errors of public officers should
never deprive the people of the right to rectify
them and recover what might be lost or bartered
way in any action, deal or transaction concerned. It
does not bar future action in accordance with law. A
person acquires no vested right in such mistake.
Exception When in reliance thereon in good faith
and a person compliance with what the law
requires as construed by the administrative officer,
his right which accrued therefrom may not be
disturbed.
Presumption of regularity
Acts done in the performance of official duties are
protected b the presumption of good faith, and
even mistakes committed by such public officers
are not actionable as long as it is not shown that
they were motivated by malice or gross negligence
amounting to bad faith.
USA v. Reyes
Montoya, an employee at the US Naval Exchange,
JUSMAG headquarters, was searched in front of
onlookers by an ID checker upon instruction from
Bradford, an American store manager. Bradford and
US filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the
action is in effect a suit against the US, a foreign
sovereign, without its consent.

Ratio:
The State authorizes only legal acts by its officers.
Unauthorized acts of government officials or
officers are not acts of the state, and an action
against the official or officers by one whose rights
have been invaded or violated by such acts, for the
protection of his rights is not a suit against the
state within the rule of immunity of the state from
suit. The rationale for this ruling is that the doctrine
of state immunity cannot be used as an instrument
for perpetuating injustice.
The doctrine of immunity from suit may not be
invoked, and will not apply where the public official
is being sued in his private and personal capacity
as an ordinary citizen. A public official may be liable
in his personal private capacity for whatever
damages he may have causes by his act done with
malice and in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his
authority of jurisdiction.
The rule is that if the judgment against such public
officials will require the state itself to affirm an
affirmative act to satisfy the same, such as the
appropriation of the amount needed to pay the
damages awarded against them, the suit must be
regarded as against the state itself although it has
not been formally impleaded.
III. POWER OF CONTROL, SUPERVISION AND
INVESTIGATION
A. President as chief executive and
administrative officer

LIV
KIRK

The President and other executive or administrative

agencies or bodies are granted powers and
functions by the Constitution or by statutes to
enforce the laws and to carry out the governmental
functions, as well as policies and objectives
provided in statutes creating them. Among such
powers are those of control, supervision, and
investigation.
Executive power of the President
Administrative powers of the President can be
implied from his executive power.
Sec. 20, Book III, 1987 Administrative Code.
Residual Powers. - Unless Congress provides
otherwise, the President shall exercise such other
powers and functions vested in the President which
are provided for under the laws and which are not
specifically enumerated above, or which are not
delegated by the President in accordance with law.
Marcos v. Manglapus
The President decided to bar the return of Marcoses
to the country as this was deemed to threaten
national security.
Ratio:
The right involved is not the right to travel but the
right to return to ones country.
The enumerated powers in the Constitution
are not the breath and scope of executive
power. Whatever power inherent in the
government that is neither legislative nor
judicial has to be executive (residual power).
What shapes the power of the president is

TRACY

CIELA

the person, sitting as president, dealing with

the exigencies.
It would not be accurate to state that
executive power is the power to enforce the
laws, for the President is head of State as
well as head of the government. The
Constitution
itself
provides
that
the
execution of the laws is only one of the
powers of the president, it also grants the
President other powers, e.g., his power over
the countrys foreign relations.
Although the 1987 Constitution imposes
limitations on the exercise of specific powers
of the President, it maintains intact what is
traditionally considered within the scope of
executive power. Corollarily, the powers of
the President cannot be said to be limited
only to the specific powers enumerated in
the Constitution. In other words, executive
power is more than the sum of specific
powers enumerated.
Notes
Roles of the Constitution
1. To insure that the boundaries are not
overstepped
2. To insure that the rights of individuals are not
violated
This, in short, is a balancing of interest.
The court here did not examine the sufficiency of
facts that will justify the barring to return to the
Philippines. It examined whether or not those facts
would justify such decision of the President.
9

LIV

TRACY

CIELA

KIRK

Right to travel from the Philippines to another

country
Liberty of abode within the country, right to
change your residence from one place to another
Presidents power of control
1987 Consti, Art. 7, Sec. 17. The President shall
have control of all the executive departments,
bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws
be faithfully executed.
power of control - the power to alter or modify or
nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had
done in the performance of his duties and to
substitute the judgment of the former with that of
the latter.
It means that the President is the Executive
of the Government and no other.
It implies the right to interfere in the
exercise of such discretion as may be vested
by law in the officers of the executive
departments, bureaus, or offices of the
national government, as well as to act in lieu
of such officers.
The President can do what any of his cabinet
secretary can lawfully do as conferred by
law.
It includes the power to detail an executive
officer in the Office of the President, or to
any executive officer in the Office of the
President, or to any executive office, without
any prior approval from any executive
officer, so long as there is no reduction in
rank or salary and is not considered as a
disciplinary action.

Limitations to power of control

The power of control does not include the ff
1. The abolition or creation of an executive
office
2. The suspension or removal of career
executive officials or employees without due
process of law
3. The
setting
aside
modification,
or
supplanting of decisions of quasi-judicial
agencies, including that of the Office of the
President, on contested cases that have
become final pursuant to the law or to rules
and regulations promulgated to implement
the law
Ang-Angco v. Castillo
The Executive Secretary found Ang-Angco guilty of
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service and considered him resigned. Petitioner
argues that since he is an officer who belongs to
the classified civil service and is not a presidential
appointee, but one appointed by the Sec. of
Finance under the Revised Administrative Code, he
cannot be removed from the service by the
President. He argues that the CSC has the original
and exclusive jurisdiction to decide administrative
cases against officers and employees in the
classified service subject to appeal before the Civil
Service Board of Appeals.
Ratio:
The case of the petitioner comes under the original
and exclusive jurisdiction of the Commissioner of
10

LIV
KIRK

TRACY

CIELA

Civil Service, and thus, he has been deprived of

due process.

of law, except those officials who serve at his

pleasure, such as cabinet secretaries.

The President does not have blanket authority to

remove any officer or employee of the government
but his power must still be subject to the law
passed by the legislative body particularly with
regard the procedure.

Pending
investigation
of
an
administrative
complaint against a presidential appointee who is a
career officer, the President or a cabinet secretary
may, however, detail said officer to any other
executive office so long as the detail does not
amount to an imposition of disciplinary action.
(Agpalo says does, but I think, it is does not)

The power of control of the President may extend

to the power to investigate, suspend or remove
officers and employees who belongs to the
executive department if they are presidential
appointees or do not belong to the classified
service, for such can be justified under the principle
that the power to remove is inherent in the power
to appoint, but not with regard to those officers or
employees who belong to the classified service for
as to them that inherent power cannot be exercised
(CESO career executive service officer).
The power of control is couched in general terms
for it does not set in specific manner its extent and
scope. The power of control does not go to the
extent of including the power to remove an officer
or employee in the executive department. The
power merely applies to the exercise of control
over the acts of the subordinate and not over the
actor or agent himself of the act. It only means that
the President may set aside the judgment or action
taken by a subordinate in the performance of his
duties.
Agpalo
The President may not, by his control power,
suspend or remove the official without due process

Carpio v. Exec. Sec.

R.A. 6975 was passed wherein NAPOLCOM and
DILG are under the Office of the President.
NAPOLCOM is attached to DILG for purposes of
administrative supervision. The PNP is under
NAPOLCOM. The issue is whether RA 6975
constitutes an encroachment upon, interference
with, and an abdication by the President of
executive control and commander-in-chief powers.
Ratio:
The reorganization is merely an administrative
realignment that would bolster a system of
coordination and cooperation among the citizenry,
local
executives
and
the
integrated
law
enforcement agencies and public safety agencies.
The national police force does not fall under the
commander-in-chief powers of the President. As
civilian agency of the government, it is subject to
the exercise by the President of the power of
executive control. Thus, there is no abdication of
commander-in-chief powers. The President, as a
commander-in-chief, is not a member of the Armed
Forces.
11

LIV

TRACY

CIELA

KIRK

The President has control of all executive

departments, bureaus, and offices. He is the Chief
Executive the head of the government and the
chief administrative officer. Presidential power of
control over the executive branch of government
extends over all executive officers from Cabinet
Secretary to the lowliest clerk.

Although the disapproval of the earlier agreement

between the City of Mandaue and Malaya was
signed by the Exec. Sec, by authority of the
President, and not by the Presidents own hand,
the Exec. Sec.s action is presumed to be valid and
to have been regularly performed in behalf of the
President.

The Presidents power of control means his power

to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a
subordinate officer had done in the performance of
his duties and to substitute the judgment of the
former with that of the latter. It is directly exercised
by him over the members of the Cabinet who, in
turn and by his authority, control the bureaus and
other offices under their respective jurisdictions in
the executive department.

As head of the Executive Office, the Executive

Secretary is an alter ego of the President. One of
his myriad functions is to
exercise primary authority to sign papers by
authority of the President,
attest
executive
orders
and
other
presidential issuances unless attestation is
specifically delegated to other officials by
him or by the President
assist the President in the administration of
special projects
perform such other functions as the
President may direct

By authority of the President

The Exec. Sec. or his Deputy or Assistant Executive
Secretary or any cabinet secretary, who acts and
signs by authority of the President, acts not for
himself but for the President. Thus, they are
presumed valid and performed in behalf of the
President and should be accorded due respect.
Such acts are not subject to review by the courts in
view of the principle of separation of powers which
accords co-equal status to the three great branches
of the government, absent any showing that the
President, in doing so, acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.

Notes
The next after the secretary is the assistant
secretary, not the undersecretary.
1987 Administrative Code
Sec. 26. The Executive Secretary, the Deputy
Executive Secretaries, and the Assistant Executive
Secretaries. - The Executive Office shall be headed
by the Executive Secretary who shall be assisted by
one (1) or more Deputy Executive Secretaries and
one (1) or more Assistant Executive Secretaries.

Malayan Integrated Industries v. CA

12

LIV
KIRK

Sec. 27. Functions of the Executive Secretary. - The

Executive Secretary shall, subject to the control
and supervision of the President, carry out the
functions assigned by law to the Executive Office
and shall perform such other duties as may be
delegated to him. He shall:
1. Directly assist the President in the
management of the affairs pertaining to the
Government of the Republic of the
Philippines;
2. Implement presidential directives, orders and
decisions;
3. Decide, for and in behalf of the President,
matters not requiring personal presidential
attention;
4. Exercise supervision and control over the
various units in the Office of the President
Proper including their internal administrative
requirements;
5. Exercise supervision, in behalf of the
President, over the various agencies under
the Office of the President;
6. Appoint officials and employees of the Office
of the President whose appointments are not
vested in the President;
7. Provide overall coordination in the operation
of the Executive Office;
8. Determine and assign matters to the
appropriate units in the Office of the
President;
9. Have
administrative
responsibility
for
matters in the Office of the President coming
from the various departments and agencies
of government;
10.Exercise primary authority to sign papers "By
authority of the President", attest executive

TRACY

CIELA

orders and other presidential issuances

unless attestation is specifically delegated to
other officials by him or by the President;
11.Determine, with the President's approval, the
appropriate assignment of offices and
agencies not placed by law under any
specific executive department;
12.Provide consultative, research, fact-finding
and advisory service to the President;
13.Assist the President in the performance of
functions pertaining to legislation;
14.Assist the President in the administration of
special projects;
15.Take charge of matters pertaining to protocol
in State and ceremonial functions;
16.Provide secretarial and clerical services for
the President, the Cabinet, the Council of
State, and other advisory bodies to the
President
17.Promulgate such rules and regulations
necessary to carry out the objectives,
policies and functions of the Office of the
President Proper;
18.Perform such other functions as the
President may direct.
Doctrine of qualified political agency
All executive and administrative organizations are
adjuncts of the executive department, the heads of
the various executive departments are assistants
and agents of the Chief Executive; and
Except in cases
where the Chief Executive is required by the
Constitution or law to act in person or
13

LIV
KIRK

the exigencies of the situation demand that

he act personally,

the multifarious executive and administrative

functions of the Chief Executive are performed by
and through the executive department secretaries
as his alter egos, and
the acts of the secretaries of such departments,
performed and promulgated in the regular course
of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated
by the Chief Executive, preemptively the acts of the
Chief Executive.
Lacson Magallanes v. Puno
The Executive Secretary, acting by authority of the
President, may reverse the decision of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Settled is the rule that the Exec. Sec. is the alterego of the President.
Macailing v. Andrada
The Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources
rejected the Motion for Reconsideration of the
respondents as his decision had long become final
and executor. The decision of the SANR was
reversed by the Exec. Sec. The plaintiffs went to
the CFI who ruled in their favor.
Ratio:
Appeal to the President is time-barred. In
administrative law, an administrative regulation
adopted pursuant to law, is law. Administratively
speaking, 30 days after receipt by the interested
parties, the decision of the SANR becomes final,

TRACY

CIELA

except in cases of mistakes, inadvertence, surprise,

default or excusable neglect. Closed proceedings
should remain closed. Vested rights should not be
unsettled.
Public interest requires that proceedings already
terminated should not be altered at every step.
Public policy and sound practice demand that, at
the risk of occasional errors, judgments of courts
should become fial at some definite date fixed by
law.
The plaintiffs recourse to the CFI is proper. Where
the law stands mute, the accepted view is that the
extraordinary remedies in the Rules of Court are
still available.
On the issue of WON the CFI-Cotabato has
jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari considering
that the Asst. Exec. Sec. holds office in Manila, the
SC held that the CFI may take cognizance of cases
involving judicial review of administrative decisions
where the sole issue is whether the decision of
respondent public officials was legally or correct or
not. However, it has no jurisdiction where the writs
of injunction are issued or sought in order to control
the acts of non-resident officials.
Power of supervision
1987 Consti, Art. 7, Sec. 17 implies that the
President may not have the power of control over
agencies which are not categorized as executive
departments, bureaus, and offices, unless the law
creating them provides that he shall have such
power.
14

LIV
KIRK

Supervision overseeing or the power or

authority of an officer to see that the subordinate
officers perform their duties
when contrasted with control, it is the power
of oversight over an inferior boy and it does
not include any restraining authority over
such body
Taule v. Santos
In the election of the Federation of Association of
Barangay Councils, DLG Circular issued by the Sec.
of Local Government was allegedly violated. The
Sec. issued a resolution nullifying the election and
ordering a new one. The issue is whether the
violation of the circular would vest the jurisdiction
of the election protest upon the secretary.
Ratio:
The violation of said circular does not automatically
give him the authority to declare the election null
and void. The Sec. of Local Government, as an alter
ego of the President, can only exercise power
vested by the Constitution to the latter. The
Presidents power, being limited the Constitution to
general supervision over local governments, the
Secretary can only exercise the same extent of
power. The exercise of general supervision is to
ensure that local affairs are administered according
to law.
Supervision overseeing or the power or
authority of an officer to see that the subordinate
officers perform their duties
If the latter fails or neglects to fulfill them,
the former may take such action or step as

TRACY

CIELA

prescribed by law to make them perform

their duties.
Agpalo
The department secretarys supervision and control
over all bureaus and offices under his jurisdiction is
limited to the bureaus and officers under him, but
does not extend to agencies attached to the
department.
Attachment refers to the lateral relationship
between the department or its equivalent and the
attached agency or corporation for purposes of
policy and program coordination
Power of supervision and review
Phil. Gamefowl Commission v. IAC
It is the municipal mayor with the authorization of
the Sangguniang Bayan that has the primary power
to issue licenses for the operation of ordinary
cockpits. Even the regulation of cockpits is vested
in the the municipal officials, subject only to the
guidelines laid down by the Phil. Gamefowl
Commission.
Phi. Gamefowl Commissions license is limited only
to international derbies and does not extend to
ordinary cockpits. Over the latter kind of cockpits, it
has the power not of control but only of review and
supervision.
The power of review is within the power of
supervision. The power of review is exercised to
determine whether it is necessary to correct the
15

LIV

TRACY

CIELA

KIRK

acts of the subordinate. If such correction is

necessary, it must be done by the authority
exercising control over the subordinate or through
the instrumentality of the courts of justice, unless
the subordinate motu proprio corrects himself after
his error is called to his attention by the official
exercising the power of supervision and review over
him.
If at all, the power to review includes the power to
disapprove. But it does not carry the authority to
substitute ones own preferences for that chosen by
the subordinate in the exercise of its sound
discretion.
Assuming Sevilla was really disqualified, the choice
of his replacement still remained with the municipal
authorities, subject only to the review of the PGC.

The Constitution established offices which perform

administrative functions
1. President
2. Constitutional Commissions
o COMELEC
o Civil Service Commission
o Commission on Audit
3. Office of the Ombudsman
4. National
Economic
and
Development
Authority
5. Commission on Human Rights
6. National Police Commission
Except such offices as are created by the
Constitution, the creation of public offices is
primarily a legislative function.

B. Power to reorganize

The power to reorganize includes power to create

or abolish offices

Public office refers to the right, authority and

duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for a
given period either fixed by law or enduring at the
pleasure of the appointing power, an individual is
invested with some portion of the sovereign
functions of the government, to be exercised by
that individual for the benefit of the public

Reorganization the process of restricting the

bureaucracys organizational and functional set-up,
to make it more viable in terms of the economy,
efficiency, effectiveness and make it more
responsive to the needs of its public clientele as
authorized by law

A public office refers to either of two concepts

1. Functional unit of government
o Such as department or bureau
2. Position held or occupied
A public office is a public trust or responsibility, and
embraces the idea of term, duration, emoluments,
powers and duties.

The legislature usually exercises the power to

create or abolish by delegating it to the President
or to another executive officer or body. The
legislative power to reorganize and therefore to
abolish offices applies to all offices, including
lower courts, except only those created by the
Constitution itself.
Larin v. Exec. Sec
16

LIV
KIRK

While the Presidents power to reorganize cannot

be denied, it does not mean that the reorganization
itself was properly made in accordance with law.
Reorganization is only regarded as valid when it is
pursued in good faith.
The ff are badges of bad faith in the removal of
employees as a result of reorganization
1. Where there is a significant increase in the
no. of position in the new staffing pattern of
the department or agency concerned
2. Where an office is abolished and another
performing substantially the same functions
is created
The non-reappointment of Larin after the
reorganization violates RA 6656 because under the
law, a preference is given to officers holding
permanent appointments to take over the new
positions.
Miller v. Mardo
The legislature may confer on administrative
boards or bodies quasi-judicial powers involving the
exercise of judgment and discretion, as incident to
the performance of an administrative function. But
in so doing, the legislature must state its intention
in express terms that would leave no doubt, as
even such quasi-judicial prerogatives must be
limited, if they are to be valid, only to those
incidental to or in connection with the performance
of administrative duties, which do not amount to
conferment of jurisdiction over a matter exclusively
vested in the courts.

TRACY

CIELA

Reorganization
Commission
submitted
Reorganization Plan to the President who, in turn,
transmitted the same to Congress. Congress
adjourned its sessions without passing a resolution
disapproving or adopting the said reorganization
plan. It is now contended that, independent of the
matter of delegation of legislative authority, said
plan, nevertheless, became a law by non-action on
the part of Congress. Such contemplated procedure
is contrary to the settled and well-understood
parliamentary law which requires that the two
houses are to hold separate sessions for their
deliberations, and the determination of the one
upon a proposed law is to be submitted to the
separate determination of the other. It would be a
reversal of the democratic processes required by
the Constitution, for under it, the President would
propose the legislative action by submitting the
plan, rather than approve or disapprove the action
taken by Congress. The delegation of the rulemaking power has never been intended as another
mode of passing or enacting any law on measure
by the legislature.
Eugenio v. CSC
As the Career Executive Service Board was created
by law, it can only be abolished by the legislature
(and not by a mere resolution of the CSC). Creation
and abolition of public offices are primarily a
legislative function.
CSCs power to reorganize is limited to offices
under its control as enumerated under Sec. 16. As
conceptualized by the Reorganization Committee,
CESB shall be autonomous and not negated by the
attachment to CSC.
17

LIV

TRACY

CIELA

KIRK

C. Power of investigation
Power of investigation / inquisitive power
allows the administrative body to inspect the
records and premises, and investigate the
activities, of persons or entities coming under its
jurisdiction, or require disclosure of information by
means of accounts, records, reports, testimony of
witnesses, production of documents, or otherwise.
In the exercise of his investigatory power, the
President may do so thru an executive officer, or
create a body or committee to conduct the
investigation, empower said officer, body or
committee to issue subpoena and subpoena duces
tecum for the purpose, and to make appropriate
recommendations, on the basis of which he will
make his appropriate action.
The person under investigation is not entitled to be
informed of the findings and recommendations of
said investigating body or committee. He is only
entitled
to be informed of the charges against him
to a hearing of said charges
to a opportunity to meet the evidence
against him
to present his own evidence, and
to be furnished with copy of the
administrative decision, so that he may, if he
so desires, appeal therefrom to the Civil
Service Commission within 15 days from
notice.
Investigatory power as main function

An investigatory body with the sole power of

investigation does not exercise judicial functions
and its power is limited to investigation the facts
and making findings in respect thereto.
Test whether it exercises judicial or merely
investigatory functions - adjudication signifies the
exercise of power and authority to adjudicate upon
the rights and obligations of the parties before it
With only investigatory powers
CHR
NBI
1987 Consti, Art. 13, Sec. 18. The Commission
on Human Rights shall have the following powers
and functions:
1. Investigate, on its own or on complaint by
any party, all forms of human rights
violations involving civil and political rights;
2. Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of
procedure, and cite for contempt for
violations thereof in accordance with the
Rules of Court;
3. Provide appropriate legal measures for the
protection of human rights of all persons
within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos
residing abroad, and provide for preventive
measures and legal aid services to the
under-privileged whose human rights have
been violated or need protection;
4. Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons,
or detention facilities;
5. Establish a continuing program of research,
education, and information to enhance
respect for the primacy of human rights;
18

LIV
KIRK

6. Recommend to Congress effective measures

to promote human rights and to provide for
compensation to victims of violations of
human rights, or their families;
7. Monitor
the
Philippine
Government's
compliance
with
international
treaty
obligations on human rights;
8. Grant immunity from prosecution to any
person
whose
testimony
or
whose
possession of documents or other evidence
is necessary or convenient to determine the
truth in any investigation conducted by it or
under its authority;
9. Request the assistance of any department,
bureau, office, or agency in the performance
of its functions;
10.Appoint its officers and employees in
accordance with law; and
11.Perform such other duties and functions as
may be provided by law.

Investigatory powers of the Ombudsman

The Office of the Ombudsman has been granted
vast powers which may be classified as follows
Investigatory power
o Broad enough to include the
investigation of any crime committed
by a public official
Prosecutor power
Public assistance functions
Authority to inquire and obtain information
Function to adopt, institute, and implement
preventive measures

TRACY

CIELA

The Constitution and the Ombudsman Act did not

intend to confer upon the Ombudsman veto or
revisory power over an exercise of judgment or
discretion by an agency or office upon whom the
judgment or discretion is lawfully vested.
1987 Consti, Art. 11, Sec. 13. The Office of the
Ombudsman shall have the following powers,
functions, and duties:
1. Investigate on its own, or on complaint by
any person, any act or omission of any public
official, employee, office or agency, when
such act or omission appears to be illegal,
unjust, improper, or inefficient.
2. Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance,
any public official or employee of the
Government, or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, as well as of any
government-owned or controlled corporation
with original charter, to perform and
expedite any act or duty required by law, or
to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or
impropriety in the performance of duties.
3. Direct the officer concerned to take
appropriate action against a public official or
employee at fault, and recommend his
removal,
suspension,
demotion,
fine,
censure,
or
prosecution,
and
ensure
compliance therewith.
4. Direct the officer concerned, in any
appropriate case, and subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law, to
furnish it with copies of documents relating
to contracts or transactions entered into by
his office involving the disbursement or use
of public funds or properties, and report any
19

LIV
KIRK

5.

6.
7.

8.

irregularity to the Commission on Audit for

appropriate action.
Request any government agency for
assistance and information necessary in the
discharge of its responsibilities, and to
examine, if necessary, pertinent records and
documents.
Publicize matters covered by its investigation
when circumstances so warrant and with due
prudence.
Determine the causes of inefficiency, red
tape, mismanagement, fraud, and corruption
in
the
Government
and
make
recommendations for their elimination and
the observance of high standards of ethics
and efficiency.
Promulgate its rules of procedure and
exercise such other powers or perform such
functions or duties as may be provided by
law.

R.A. 6770, Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and

Duties. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have
the following powers, functions and duties:
(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or
on complaint by any person, any act or
omission of any public officer or employee,
office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or
inefficient.t has primary jurisdiction over
cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and,
in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it
may take over, at any stage, from any
investigatory agency of Government, the
investigation of such cases;

TRACY

CIELA

(2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own

instance, any officer or employee of the
Government, or of any subdivision, agency
or instrumentality thereof, as well as any
government-owned
or
controlled
corporations with original charter, to perform
and expedite any act or duty required by
law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any
abuse or impropriety in the performance of
duties;
(3) Direct the officer concerned to take
appropriate action against a public officer or
employee at fault or who neglect to perform
an act or discharge a duty required by law,
and recommend his removal, suspension,
demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and
ensure compliance therewith; or enforce its
disciplinary authority as provided in Section
21 of this Act: provided, that the refusal by
any officer without just cause to comply with
an order of the Ombudsman to remove,
suspend, demote, fine, censure, or prosecute
an officer or employee who is at fault or who
neglects to perform an act or discharge a
duty required by law shall be a ground for
disciplinary action against said officer;
(4) Direct the officer concerned, in any
appropriate case, and subject to such
limitations as it may provide in its rules of
procedure, to furnish it with copies of
documents
relating
to
contracts
or
transactions entered into by his office
involving the disbursement or use of public
funds or properties, and report any
20

LIV
KIRK

TRACY

CIELA

irregularity to the Commission on Audit for

appropriate action;

procedure and with the same penalties

provided therein;

(5) Request any government agency for

assistance and information necessary in the
discharge of its responsibilities, and to
examine, if necessary, pertinent records and
documents;

(10) Delegate to the Deputies, or its

investigators
or
representatives
such
authority or duty as shall ensure the
effective exercise or performance of the
powers, functions, and duties herein or
hereinafter provided;

(6) Publicize matters covered by its

investigation of the matters mentioned in
paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4) hereof, when
circumstances so warrant and with due
prudence: provided, that the Ombudsman
under its rules and regulations may
determine what cases may not be made
public: provided, further, that any publicity
issued by the Ombudsman shall be balanced,
fair and true;
(7) Determine the causes of inefficiency, red
tape, mismanagement, fraud, and corruption
in
the
Government,
and
make
recommendations for their elimination and
the observance of high standards of ethics
and efficiency;
(8) Administer oaths, issue subpoena and
subpoena duces tecum, and take testimony
in any investigation or inquiry, including the
power to examine and have access to bank
accounts and records;
(9) Punish for contempt in accordance with
the Rules of Court and under the same

(11) Investigate and initiate the proper

action for the recovery of ill-gotten and/or
unexplained wealth amassed after February
25, 1986 and the prosecution of the parties
involved therein.
The Ombudsman shall give priority to complaints
filed against high ranking government officials
and/or those occupying supervisory positions,
complaints involving grave offenses as well as
complaints involving large sums of money and/or
properties.
Evangelista v. Jarencio
The issue in this case is whether the agency, acting
thru its officials, has the authority to issue
subpoenas
in
its
conduct
of
fact-finding
investigations not in connection with quasi-judicial
or adjudication functions.
The agency enjoys the authority to issue
subpoenas
in
its
conduct
of
fact-finding
investigations. Investigations are useful for al
administrative functions, not only for rule-making
and adjudication, but also for prosecuting and
21

LIV
KIRK

determining general policy. An administrative

agency may be authorized to make investigations,
not only in proceedings with legislative or judicial
nature, but also in proceedings whose sole purpose
is to obtain information and may require
attendance of witnesses in proceedings of a purely
investigatory nature.
EO4 empowered the agency to summon witnesses,
administer oaths and take testimonies relevant to
the investigation. This power is not limited in quasijudicial or adjudicatory functions. To hold that the
subpoena power is confined to such would imperil
or inactivate the agency in its investigatory
functions.
The contention that a non-judicial subpoena can
only issue in a specific case pending before a court
for hearing or trial and that the trial must be in
connection with the exercise of the courts
adjudicatory
function
in
untenable.
An
administrative subpoena differs from a judicial
subpoena. Administrative agencies may enforce
subpoenas issued in the course of investigations,
whether or not adjudication is involved, and
whether or not probable cause is shown. It is not
necessary that a specific charge or complaint be
pending. It is enough that investigation be for a
lawfully authorized purpose. The agency can
investigate merely on suspicion that the law is
being violated or that it wants assurance that it is
not.
Requirements for subpoena
If inquiry is
1. Within the authority of agency
2. The demand is not too indefinite

TRACY

CIELA

3. The information is reasonably relevant

The privilege against self-incrimination is not
violated.
Manalastas is not facing any
administrative charge and is merely cited as a
witness. The only purpose of the investigation is to
discover facts. Anyway, Manalastas may contest
any attempt in the investigation which tends to
disregard his privilege against self-incrimination.
Carino v. CHR
The CHR has no power to adjudicate the case like a
court of justice or even as a quasi-judicial body. All
that CHR can do is to investigate. The power to
investigate cannot be likened to a power to
adjudicate.
Power to investigate the function of receiving
evidence and ascertaining therefrom facts
Power to adjudicate power to render judgment
which entails an application of the law to those
factual conclusions to the end that the controversy
may be decided or determined authoritatively,
finally and definitively, subject to such appeals or
modes of review as may be provided by law
IV. Quasi-legislative Power
A. In General
Legislative power is the power to make, alter or
repeal laws. Legislative power is plenary for all
purposes of civil government, subject only to such
limitations as are found in the constitution.
22

LIV
KIRK

TRACY

CIELA

The doctrine of separation of power prohibits the

delegation of purely legislative power. This doctrine
is based on the ethical principle that such a
delegated power constitutes not only a right but a
duty to be performed by the delegate by the
instrumentality of his own judgment acting
immediately upon the matter of legislation and not
through the intervening mind of another.

by necessary implication conferred upon it. In a

prosecution for a violation of an administrative
order, it must clearly appear that the order is one
which falls within the scope of the authority
conferred upon the administrative body, and the
order will be scrutinized with special care.

People v. Maceren

Quasi-legislative or rule-making power is the power

to make rules and regulations which results in
delegated legislation that is within the confines of
the granting statute and the doctrine of nondelegability and separability of powers.

As electro fishing is not banned under the Fisheries

law, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources is powerless to penalize it.
The lawmaking body cannot delegate to an
administrative official the power to declare what
acts should constitute a criminal offense. It can
authorize the issuance of regulations and the
imposition of the penalty provided for in the law
itself.
Administrative regulations must be in harmony with
law. It must not amend an act of legislature. The
rule-making power must be confined to details for
regulating the mode or proceeding to carry into
effect the law as it has been enacted. The power
cannot be extended to amending or expanding the
statutory requirements or to embrace matters not
covered by the statute.
While the administrative agency has the right to
make rules and regulations to carry into effect a
law already enacted, that power should not be
confused with the power to enact a criminal
statute. An administrative agency can only have
the administrative or policing powers expressly or

Smart Communications v. NTC

The rules and regulations that administrative

agencies promulgate, which are the product of a
delegated legislative power to create new and
additional legal provisions that have the effect of
law, should be within the scope of the statutory
authority granted by the legislature to the
administrative agency. It is required that the
regulation be germane to the objects and purposes
of the law, and be not in contradiction to, but in
conformity with, the standards prescribed by law.
They must conform to and be consistent with the
provisions of the enabling statute in order for such
rule or regulation to be valid. Constitutional and
statutory provisions control with respect to what
rules and regulations may be promulgated by an
administrative body, as well as with respect to what
fields are subject to regulation by it. It may not
make rules and regulations which are inconsistent
with the provisions of the Constitution or a statute,
particularly the statute it is administering or which
created it, or which are in derogation of, or defeat,
the purpose of a statute. In case of conflict
23

LIV
KIRK

between a statute and an administrative order, the

former must prevail.
Central Bank v. Cloribel
Rule-making is legislation on the administrative
level, i.e., legislation within the confines of the
granting statute, as required by the constitution
and its doctrine of non-delegability and separability
of powers. It is a function of laying down general
regulations as distinguished from orders that apply
to named persons or to specific situations, the
latter being adjudicatory in nature.
Previous notice and hearing are constitutionally
required for the protection of life or vested property
rights, as well as liberty, when its limitation or loss
takes place in consequence of a judicial or quasijudicial proceeding, generally dependent upon a
past act or event which has to be established or
ascertained. It is not essential to the validity of
general rules or regulations promulgated to govern
future conduct of a class of persons or enterprises,
unless the law provides otherwise, and there is no
statutory requirement to this effect, insofar as the
fixing of maximum rates of interest payable by
banks is concerned.
B. Delegation of Legislative Power
Delegation of legislative power refers to the grant
of authority by the legislature to administrative
agencies to issue rules and regulations concerning
how the law entrusted to them for implementation
may be enforced.

TRACY

CIELA

This delegated authority to issue rules and

regulations to carry out the provisions of the
stature is called subordinate legislation. With this
power, administrative agencies may implement the
broad policies laid down in a statute by filling in
the details which the OCngress may not have the
opportunity or competence to provide. This is
effected by their promulgation of what are known
as supplementary regulations, which have the force
and effect of law.
Reasons for delegation:
1. increasing complexity of the task of
government
2. inability of legislative bodies to copy directly
with myriad problems demanding its
attention
The delegation of legislative power has become an
inevitability in the light of the increasing complexity
of the task of government. Thus, courts bend as far
back as possible to sustain the constitutionality of
laws which are assailed as unduly delegating
legislative powers.
What may not be delegated:
The doctrine of separation of powers prohibits the
delegation that which is purely legislative in nature.
This consists of the power to make the law or to
determine what the law shall be,the power to alter
or repeal it, and the power to determine the
purpose or policy to be achieved by the law.
The ascertainment of what the law shall be is a
prerogative of the legislature. This prerogative
cannot be abdicated by the legislature to the
24

LIV
KIRK

delegate, without rendering the statute delegating

it unconstitutional.
What may be delegated
The legislature may delegate the discretion as to
how the law shall be enforced, to issue rules to fill
in details, to ascertain facts on which the law will
operate, to exercise police power, and to fix rates.
To be valid, however, the delegation has to pass the
completeness and sufficiency of standard tests.
A. Completeness Test
a. The law must be complete in all its
terms and conditions when it leaves
the legislative such that when it
reaches the delegate, the only thing
he will have to do us enforce it
b. A statute is complete when the
subject, manner, and the extent of its
operation are stated therein.
c. The test of completeness is whether
the provision is sufficiently definite
and certain to enable one to know his
rights and obligations; whether it
describes what must be done, who
must do it, and the scope of his
authority.
d. The operation of a statute complete in
itself may be made dependent upon
the existence of some contingency
fixed therein or some ascertainable
facts
B. Sufficient Standard Test
a. The legislature must declare the policy
or purpose of the law and must fix the

b.
c.

d.

e.

f.
g.

TRACY

CIELA

legal principles which are to control in

given cases by setting up standards or
guides to indicate the extent or
prescribe the limits of the discretion
which may be exercised under the
statute by the administrative agency
Standard may be express or implied
Standard may be found within the
framework of the statute under which
the act is to be performed, or may
inhere in its subject matter or purpose
i. i.e. a clearly defined field of
action may implicitly contain
the criteria which must govern
the action
standard may be found in other
pertinent legislation, executive order
or in the field of law governing the
operation of the agency
the standard must be reasonably
adequate, sufficient and definite for
the guidance of the administrative
agency in the exercise of the power
conferred upon it
standard must be sufficient to enable
those affected to know their rights and
obligations.
Statute is not deemed complete
unless it lays down a standard or
pattern
sufficiently
fixed
or
determinate, or at least, determinable
without requiring another legislation,
to
guide
administrative
body
concerned. Otherwise, no means to
ascertain WON body acted within its
scope of authority.
25

LIV
KIRK

h. Court upheld such standards as

sufficient
i. Simplicity and dignity, public
interest,
public
welfare,
adequate
and
efficient
instruction
ii. Public convenience and welfare
(Calalang v. Williams)

TRACY

CIELA

approve "codes of fair competition" submitted to

him by trade or industrial associations or
corporations
which
"impose
no inequitable
restrictions on admission to membership therein
and are truly representative," provided that such
codes are not designed "to promote monopolies or
to eliminate or oppress small enterprises and will
not operate to discriminate against them, and will
tend to effectuate the policy" of said Act.

Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan

In the questioned section (section 9c), the
President
is
authorized
to
prohibit
the
transportation in interstate and foreign commerce
of petroleum in excess of the amount permitted to
be produced or withdrawn from storage by ay state
law or valid delegation.
Sec. 9 does not qualify the Presidents authority by
reference to the basis or extent of the States
limitation of production. It does not state whether,
or in what circumstances or under what conditions,
the president is to prohibit the transportation of the
amount of petroleum products produced in excess
of the states permission. It establishes no criterion
to govern the Presidents course. It does not require
any finding by the President as a condition of his
action. The Congress thus declares no policy as to
the transportation of the excess production. It gives
to the President an unlimited authority to
determine the policy and to lay down the
prohibition or not to lay it down, as he may see fit.
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp.
Questioned sec. 3 of the National Industrial
Recovery Act: authorized the President of the US to

Issue: WON Congress, in authorizing Codes of fair

competition has itself set the standards of legal
obligation, thus performing its essential legislative
function, or, by the failure to enact such standards,
has attempted to transfer that function to others
Ratio:
Sec. 3 of the Recovery Act is without precedent. It
supplies no standards for any trade, industry or
activity. It does not undertake to prescribe rules of
conduct to be applied to particular states of fact
determined
by
appropriate
administrative
procedure. Instead of prescribing rules of conduct,
it authorizes the making of codes to prescribe
them. For that legislative undertaking, Sec. 3 sets
up no standards, aside from the statement of the
general aims of rehabilitation, correction and
expansion described in Sec. 1. In view of the scope
of that broad declaration, and of the nature of the
few restrictions that are imposed, the discretion of
the President in approving or prescribing codes,
and thus enacting laws for the government of trade
and industry throughout the country, is virtually
unfettered. We think that the code making
authority thus conferred is an unconstitutional
delegation of legislative power.
26

LIV
KIRK

Notes: Sir noted the issue of there not being any

adequate definition of the subject of the Code. The
restrictions were too few, policies were too broad,
leaves the proponents of the Code to roam at will
and gives the President unfettered discretion.
Mistretta v. US
The Sentencing Reform Act created the US
Sentencing Commission and granted it the power
to promulgate binding sentencing guidelines for all
categories of federal offenses.
Issue:
WON
Congress
delegated
excessive
legislative power to the Commission (NO)
So long as Congress shall lay down an intelligible
principle to which the person or the body
authorized to exercise the delegated authority is
directed to conform, such legislative action is not a
forbidden delegation of legislative power.
In our increasingly complex society, replete with
ever-changing and more technical problems,
Congress cannot do its job absent an ability to
delegate power under broad general directives. The
constitution has never been regarded as denying
Congress the necessary resources of flexibility and
practicality, which will enable it to perform its
function.
It is constitutionally sufficient if Congress clearly
delineates the:
(1) general policy
(2) the public agency which is to adopt it
(3) boundaries of the delegated authority

TRACY

CIELA

Congresss delegation of authority is sufficiently

specific and detailed. It charged the commission
with specific goals, prescribed a specific tool-the
guidelines system, enumerated factors to consider
and not to consider, outlined the policies which
prompted the establishment of the Commission,
explained what the Commissioned should do and
how it should do it, and set out specific directives
to govern particular situations.
Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA
Completeness test it must be complete in all its
terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature
such that when it reaches the delegate, all he has
to do is enforce it
Sufficient standard test there must be adequate
guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the
boundaries of the delegates authority and to
prevent the delegation from running riot.
In this case, the standard was found in the E.O.
creating the POEA itself: fair and equitable
employment practices.
Tatad v. Sec. of the Department of Energy
There are two accepted tests to determine whether
or not there is a valid delegation of legislative
power, viz: the completeness test and the
sufficient standard test.
Under the first test, the law must be complete in all
its terms and conditions when it leaves the
legislative such that when it reaches the delegate
the only thing he will have to do is to enforce
27

LIV
KIRK

it. Under the sufficient standard test, there must be

adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to
map out the boundaries of the delegates authority
and prevent the delegation from running riot. Both
tests are intended to prevent a total transference of
legislative authority to the delegate, who is not
allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and
exercise a power essentially legislative.
The delegation of legislative power has become an
inevitability in light of the increasing complexity of
the task of government. Thus, courts bend as far
back as possible to sustain the constitutionality of
laws which are assailed as unduly delegating
legislative powers. J. Cruz states that even if the
law does not expressly pinpoint the standard, the
courts will bend over backward to locate the same
elsewhere in order to spare the statute, if it can,
from constitutional infirmity.
Given the groove of the Courts rulings, the
attempt of petitioners to strike down Section 15 on
the ground of undue delegation of legislative power
cannot prosper. Section 15 can hurdle both the
completeness test and the sufficient standard
test. It will be noted that Congress expressly
provided in R.A. No. 8180 that full deregulation will
start at the end of March 1997, regardless of the
occurrence of any event. Full deregulation at the
end of March 1997 is mandatory and the Executive
has no discretion to postpone it for any purported
reason. Thus, the law is complete on the question
of the final date of full deregulation. The discretion
given to the President is to advance the date of full
deregulation before the end of March 1997.
Section 15 lays down the standard to guide the
judgment of the President; he is to time it as far as

TRACY

CIELA

practicable when the prices of crude oil and

petroleum products in the world market are
declining and when the exchange rate of the peso
in relation to the US dollar is stable.
But petitioners further posit the thesis that the
Executive misapplied R.A. No. 8180 when it
considered the depletion of the OPSF fund as a
factor in fully deregulating the downstream oil
industry in February 1997. Section 15 of R.A. No.
8180reveal that only two factors were to be
considered by the Department of Energy and the
Office of the President, viz.: (1) the time when the
prices of crude oil and petroleum products in the
world market are declining, and (2) the time when
the exchange rate of the peso in relation to the US
dollar is stable. Section 15 did not mention the
depletion of the OPSF fund as a factor to be given
weight by the Executive before ordering full
deregulation. We hold that the Executive
department failed to follow faithfully the standards
set by R.A. No. 8180 when it considered the
extraneous factor of depletion of the OPSF fund.
The misappreciation of this extra factor cannot be
justified on the ground that the Executive
department considered anyway the stability of the
prices of crude oil in the world market and the
stability of the exchange rate of the peso to the
dollar. By considering another factor to hasten full
deregulation, the Executive department rewrote the
standards set forth in R.A. 8180. The Executive is
bereft of any right to alter either by subtraction or
addition the standards set in R.A. No. 8180 for it
has no power to make laws. To cede to the
Executive the power to make law is to invite
tyranny, indeed, to transgress the principle of
separation of powers. The exercise of delegated
28

LIV
KIRK

power is given a strict scrutiny by courts for the

delegate is a mere agent whose action cannot
infringe the terms of agency. In the cases at bar,
the Executive co-mingled the factor of depletion of
the OPSF fund with the factors of decline of the
price of crude oil in the world market and the
stability of the peso to the US dollar. On the basis
of the text of E.O. No. 392, it is impossible to
determine the weight given by the Executive
department to the depletion of the OPSF fund. It
could well be the principal consideration for the
early deregulation. It could have been accorded
an equal significance. Or its importance could be
nil. In light of this uncertainty, We rule that the
early deregulation under E.O. No. 392 constitutes a
misapplication of R.A. No. 8180.
People v. Vera
Reminder of questioned provision in probation act:
this act shall apply only in those provinces in
which the respective provincial boards have
provided for the salary of a probation officer at
rates not lower than those now provided for
provincial fiscals.
The Philippine Legislature may not escape its duties
and responsibilities by delegating that power to any
body or authority. Any attempt to abdicate the
power is unconstitutional and void, on the principle
that potestas delegata no delegare potest.
TEST OF UNDUE DELEGATION; DETAILS OF
EXECUTION. In testing whether a statute
constitutes an undue delegation of legislative
power or not, it is usual to inquire whether the
statute was complete in all its terms and provisions

TRACY

CIELA

when it left the hands of the legislature so that

nothing was left to the judgment of any other
appointee or delegate of the legislature. In United
States vs. Ang Tang Ho ( [1922], 43 Phil., 1), the
Supreme Court adhered to the foregoing rule. The
general rule, however, is limited by another rule
that to a certain extent matters of detail may be
left to be filled in by rules and regulations to be
adopted or promulgated by executive officers and
administrative boards. As a rule, an act of the
legislature is incomplete and hence invalid if it does
not lay down any rule or definite standard by which
the administrative board may be guided in the
exercise of the discretionary powers delegated to it.
PROBATION ACT MAKES VIRTUAL SURRENDER OF
LEGISLATIVE POWER TO PROVINCIAL BOARDS.
The Probation Act does not, by the force of any of
its provisions, fix and impose upon the provincial
boards any standard or guide in the exercise of
their discretionary power. What is granted is a
"roving commission" which enables the provincial
boards to exercise arbitrary discretion. By section
11 of the Act, the legislature does seemingly on its
own authority extend the benefits of the Probation
Act to the provinces but in reality leaves the entire
matter for the various provincial boards to
determine. If a provincial board does not wish to
have the Act applied in its province, all that it has
to do is to decline to appropriate the needed
amount for the salary of a probation officer. This is
a virtual surrender of legislative power to the
provincial boards.
The legislature may delegate a power not
legislative which it may itself rightfully exercise.
29

LIV
KIRK

The power to ascertain facts is such a power which

may be delegated. There is nothing essentially
legislative in ascertaining the existence of facts or
conditions as the basis of the taking into effect of a
law. That is a mental process common to all
branches of the government.
"The principle which permits the legislature to
provide that the administrative agent may
determine when the circumstances are such as
require the application of a law is defended upon
the ground that at the time this authority is
granted, the rule of public policy, which is the
essence of the legislative act, is determined by the
legislature. In other words, the legislature, as it is
its duty to do, determines that, under given
circumstances, certain executive or administrative
action is to be taken, and that, under other
circumstances, different or no action at all is to be
taken. What is thus left to the administrative official
is not the legislative determination of what public
policy demands, but simply the ascertainment of
what the facts of the case require to be done
according to the terms of the law by which he is
governed."
The legislature has not made the operation of the
Probation Act contingent upon specified facts or
conditions to be ascertained by the provincial
board. It leaves the entire operation or nonoperation of the law upon the provincial boards.
The discretion vested is arbitrary be cause it is
absolute and unlimited. A provincial board need not
investigate conditions or find any fact, or await the
happening of any specified contingency. It is bound
by no rule limited by no principle of expediency
announced by the legislature. It may take into

TRACY

CIELA

consideration certain facts or conditions; and,

again, it may not. It may have any purpose or no
purpose at all. It need not give any reason or have
any reason whatsoever for refusing or failing to
appropriate any funds for the salary of a probation
officer. This is a matter which rests entirely at its
pleasure.
Araneta v. Gatmaitan
For the protection of fry or fish eggs and small
fishes, Congress intended with the promulgation of
Act no. 4003 to prohibit the use of any fish net or
trawling device that could endanger and deplete
supply of sea food, and to that end authorized the
Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources to
provide by regulations such restrictions as he
deemed necessary in order to preserve aquatic
resources. In so far as the protection of fish fry is
concerned, the Fisheries Act is complete in itself
leaving only to the Secretary the promulgation of
rules and regulations to carry into effect the
legislative
intent.
Consequently,
when
the
President, in response to the clamor of the people,
issued EO 80 absolutely prohibiting fishing by
meals of trawls, he did nothing more but show an
anxious regard for the welfare of the inhabitants of
the said coastal province and dispose issues of
general concern which were in consonance and
strict conformity of law. The exercise of such
authority did not, therefore, constitute an undue
delegation of the powers of Congress.
Under the Fisheries Act, the Secretary had the
power to issue rules and regulations. However, as
the Secretary exercises its functions subject to the
general supervision and control of the President,
30

LIV
KIRK

the president can exercise the same power and

authority thru executive orders, regulations,
decrees
and
proclamations
upon
the
recommendation of the Secretary.
Notes from sir:
Standard: as long as it was deemed necessary in
order to preserve aquatic resources
Policy: to preserve marine resources
Ynot v. IAC
Questioned E.O.: Executive Order No. 626 is hereby
amended such that henceforth, no carabao
regardless of age, sex, physical condition or
purpose and no carabeef shall be transported from
one province to another. The carabao or carabeef
transported in violation of this Executive Order as
amended shall be subject to confiscation and
forfeiture by the government, to be distributed to
charitable institutions and other similar institutions
as the Chairman of the National Meat Inspection
Commission may ay see fit, in the case of carabeef,
and to deserving farmers through dispersal as the
Director of Animal Industry may see fit, in the case
of carabaos.
We also mark, on top of all this, the questionable
manner of the disposition of the confiscated
property as prescribed in the questioned executive
order. It is there authorized that the seized property
shall "be distributed to charitable institutions and
other similar institutions as the Chairman of the
National Meat Inspection Commission may see fit,
in the case of carabeef, and to deserving farmers
through dispersal as the Director of Animal Industry
may see fit, in the case of carabaos." (Emphasis

TRACY

CIELA

supplied.) The phrase "may see fit" is an extremely

generous and dangerous condition, if condition it is.
It is laden with perilous opportunities for partiality
and abuse, and even corruption. One searches in
vain for the usual standard and the reasonable
guidelines, or better still, the limitations that the
said officers must observe when they make their
distribution. There is none. Their options are
apparently boundless. Who shall be the fortunate
beneficiaries of their generosity and by what
criteria shall they be chosen? Only the officers
named can supply the answer, they and they alone
may choose the grantee as they see fit, and in their
own exclusive discretion. Definitely, there is here a
"roving commission," a wide and sweeping
authority that is not "canalized within banks that
keep it from overflowing," in short, a clearly
profligate and therefore invalid delegation of
legislative powers.
Santiago v. COMELEC
The rule is that what has been delegated cannot be
delegated. Potestas delegata non delegari potest.
Exceptions:
(1) delegation of tariff powers to the president
Sec. 28(2), Art 6 of the Constitution
(2) delegation of emeregency powers to the
president under Sec. 23 (2) of Art 6,
Constitution
(3) delegation to people at large
(4) delegation to local governments
(5) delegation to administrative bodies
In every case of permissible delegation, there must
be a showing that the delegation itself is valid.
Empowering the COMELEC, an administrative body
31

LIV
KIRK

exercising quasi-judicial functions, to promulgate

rules and regulations is a form of delegation of
legislative authority under no. 5 above. However, in
every case of permissible delegation, there must be
a showing that the delegation itself is valid. It is
valid only if the law (a) is complete in itself, setting
forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out,
or implemented by the delegate; and (b) fixes a
standard the limits of which are sufficiently
determinate and determinable to which the
delegate must conform in the performance of his
functions. 61 A sufficient standard is one which
defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out
its boundaries and specifies the public agency to
apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which
the legislative command is to be effected.
Insofar as initiative to propose amendments to the
Constitution is concerned, R.A. No. 6735 miserably
failed to satisfy both requirements in subordinate
legislation. The delegation of the power to the
COMELEC is then invalid. It logically follows that the
COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and
regulations to implement the exercise of the right
of the people to directly propose amendments to
the Constitution through the system of initiative. It
does not have that power under R.A. No. 6735.
Pelaez v. Auditor General
Facts: The president, acting pursuant to Sec. 68 of
the Revised Admin Code issued executive orders
creating 33 municipalities. The last sentence of sec.
68 says: the president .. may change the seat of
the government within any subdivision to such
place therein as the public welfare may require.
Ratio:

TRACY

CIELA

Whereas the power to fix such common boundary,

in order to avoid or settle conflicts of jurisdiction
between adjoining municipalities, may partake of
an administrative nature involving, as it does,
the adoption of means and ways to carry into
effect the law creating said municipalities the
authority to create municipal corporations is
essentially legislative in nature.
Sec. 68, insofar as it grants the President the power
to create municipalities, does not meet the
requirements for a valid delegation of power to fix
the details in the enforcement of law. It does not
enunciate any policy to be carried out or
implemented by the President.
If the validity of the delegation of powers made in
Section 68 were upheld, there would no longer be
any legal impediment to a statutory grant of
authority to the President to do anything which, in
his opinion, may be required by public welfare or
public interest. Such grant of authority would be a
virtual abdication of the powers of Congress in
favor of the Executive.
It is true that in Calalang vs. Williams (70 Phil. 726)
and People vs. Rosenthal (68 Phil. 328), this Court
had upheld "public welfare" and "public interest,"
respectively, as sufficient standards for a valid
delegation of the authority to execute the law. But,
the doctrine laid down in these cases must be
construed in relation to the specific facts and
issues involved therein, outside of which they do
not constitute precedents and have no binding
effect.
The law construed in the Calalang case conferred
32

LIV
KIRK

upon the Director of Public Works, with the approval

of
the
Secretary
of
Public
Works
and
Communications, the power to issue rules and
regulations to promote safe transit upon national
roads and streets. Upon the other hand, the
Rosenthal case referred to the authority of the
Insular Treasurer, under Act No. 2581, to issue and
cancel certificates or permits for the sale of
speculative securities. Both cases involved
grants to administrative officers of powers
related to the exercise of their administrative
functions, calling for the determination of
questions of fact. Such is not the nature of
the powers dealt with in section 68. As above
indicated, the creation of municipalities, is not an
administrative function, but one which is essentially
and eminently legislative in character. The question
of whether or not "public interest" demands the
exercise of such power is not one of fact. it is
"purely a legislative question
or a political
question.
Others:
Congress may delegate to another branch power to
fill in details or the execution of law, ascertainment
of facts, provided the law is (a) complete in itself,
and (b) fixes a standard
1. The law must set forth the policy to be
executed. Otherwise, the delegate would in
effect be formulating policy, which is the
very essence of law.
2. The law must also set limits to the discretion
of the delegate (limit may be determinate or
determinable); without such standard setting
a limit, once cannot determine if the

TRACY

CIELA

delegate is still acting within the scope of his

authority.
Agpalo Notes: There is no uniform application of
standard. Whether a standard is sufficient or not
depends upon the nature of the statute involved,
the issues raised, and the facts obtaining. To a
large extent, the sufficiency of standard is
determined by the power exercised and the nature
of the right restricted thereby.
As a rule, general standards are sufficient for a
valid delegation of police power, but are
inadequate as basis for a valid delegation of power
to implement other statutes.
Solicitor General v. MMDA
The MMA issued Ordinance 11 authorizing itself to
detach license plates or impound vehicles illegally
parked and in obstruction of traffic in metro manila.
It issued the ordinance pursuant to PD 1605 which
neither allows removal of license plates and
confiscation of licenses in metro manila.
In the case, there was a valid delegation of
legislative power. Convenience and welfare of the
public, particularly the motorists and the
passengers, is an acceptable sufficient standard to
delimit the delegates authority.
There was, however, an invalid exercise of
delegated power. As delegates of Congress, LGUs,
acting as agents of the national legislature, cannot
contravene but must obey at all times the will of
their principal (national law or statute).
33

LIV
KIRK

The ordinance does not conform to PD 1605 which

does not allow removal of license plates. The
enactment, which is merely local in origin, cannot
prevail against the decree, which has the force and
effect of a statute. The measure adds a
requirement to the PD and imposes sanctions the
decree prohibits. It violates and effectively partially
repeals the law.
Local political subdivisions are delegated with the
power to legislate so long as their enactments are
not in contravention to laws issued by Congress.
Agpalo Notes:
2 issues on validity of delegation
1. WON the requisites of valid delegation are
present, namely:
a. Completeness of statute making the
delegation
b. Presence of sufficient standard
*If any requisite is absent, the delegation
is unconstitutional.
*The first issue refers to the delegating
statute itself.
2. WON the rule or regulation:
a. conforms with what the statute
provides and
b. is reasonable
*If the rule expands or restricts the statute or
is unjust or unreasonable, the same is
invalid.
*this refers to the exercise of the power
delegated.

TRACY

CIELA

To be valid, rules and regulations must be

reasonable and fairly adopted to secure the end in
view. If shown to bear no reasonable relation to the
purposes for which they are authorized to be
issued, then they must be held to be invalid. The
rules issued by an administrative agency to carry
out the law must be germane to its proper object.
Sirs notes: not an ordinance, because it is not the
LGU who issued it; a mere administrative order by
an admin agency, MMDA
MMDA v. Garin
Issue: WON MMDA was vested with police power to
confiscate drivers licenses (NO)
RATIO: There is no syllable in R. A. No. 7924 that
grants the MMDA police power, let alone legislative
power to "enact ordinances, approve resolutions
and appropriate funds for the general welfare.
1. Legislative power having been lodged
primarily in the National Legislature, it
cannot be exercised by any group or body of
individuals not possessing legislative power.
a. However, legislature may delegate
this power to the president and
administrative boards.
b. Once delegated, the agents can
exercise only such legislative powers
as are conferred on them.
c. Since RA 7924 does not grant the
MMDA with police power or legislative
34

LIV
KIRK

power,
all
its
functions
administrative in nature.

are

Beltran v. Secretary of Health

The National Blood Services Act or RA 7719 was
enacted to provide an adequate supply of safe
blood by promoting voluntary blood donations and
by regulating blood banks in the country.
Pursuant to such law, AO 9 was issued providing for
the phase out of commercial blood banks within 2
years, extendible for another 2. (The decision to
extend shall be based on the result of a careful
study and review of blood supply and public safety
by the Secretary.
ISSUE #1: WON the phase-out of free standing
blood banks (FSBB) constitutes undue delegation of
legislative power.
HELD: No.
RATIO: In testing whether a statute constitutes an
undue delegation of legislative power, it is usual to
inquire whether the statute was complete in all its
terms and provisions when it left the hands of the
Legislature so that nothing was left to the judgment
of the administrative body or delegate, except as to
matters of detail that may be left to be filled in by
rules and regulation.
1. RA 7719 is complete in itself.
a. The law has sufficiently provided a
definite standard for the guidance of
the Secretary of Health: promotion of

TRACY

CIELA

public health by providing a safe and

adequate supply of blood through
voluntary blood donation.
b. Legislature
has
made
a
clear
declaration of its objective: to
safeguard the health of the people.
c. It has a clear mandate upon the
Secretary:
the
phase
out
of
commercial blood banks in the
country.
2. The power delegated to the Secretary is the
power to ascertain the existence of facts and
conditions upon which he may carry out or
implement the law as promulgated by
Congress.
a. Section 23 of AO 9: The phase-out
period for commercial blood banks
shall be extended for another two
years based on the result of a careful
study and review of the blood supply
and demand and public safety.
b. The true distinction between the
power to make laws and discretion as
to its execution: a discretion as to
what it shall be and conferring an
authority or discretion as to its
execution.
Others:
The doctrine of separation of powers does not
absolutely prohibit the delegation of power. The
Constitution itself makes the delegation of
legislative power to the President, the Supreme
Court, and the LGUs.
(1) Delegation to the President
35

LIV
KIRK

a. Sec. 23 (2) of Constitution: In times of

war and other national emergency,
Congress may, by law, authorize the
President for a limited period and
subject to such restrictions as it may
prescribe,
to
exercise
powers
necessary and proper to carry out a
declared national policy. Unless sooner
withdrawn by Congress, such powers
shall
cease
upon
the
next
adjournment thereof.
b. Sec. 28 (2): The Congress may, by
law, authorize the President to fix
within specified limits, and subject to
such limitations and restrictions as it
may impose, tariff rates, import and
export quotas, tonnage and wharfage
dues, and other duties or imposts
within the framework of the national
development
program
of
the
Philippines.
c. Admin Code: delegates ordinance
powers to the President in the form of
presidential issuances which includes:
(these issuances have the force and
effect of law)
i. Executive orders acts of
President providing for rules of
a
general
or
permanent
character in implementation or
execution of constitutional or
statutory powers
ii. Administrative orders relate to
particular
aspects
of
governmental
operations
in
pursuance of his duties as
administrative head

TRACY

CIELA

iii. Proclamations

acts
of
president fixing a date or
declaring a statute or condition
of public moment or interest,
upon the existence of which the
operation of a specific law or
regulation is made to depend.
iv. Memorandum orders acts of
president
on
matters
of
administrative detail or of
subordinate
or
temporary
interest which only concern a
particular officer or office of the
government
v. Memorandum circulars acts of
the
president
on
matters
relating
to
internal
administration
which
the
President desires to bring to the
attention of all or some of the
departments, agencies, bureaus
or offices of the Government for
information or compliance
vi. General orders acts and
commands of the Pres. In his
capacity as commander in chief
of the AFP
(2) Delegation to the SC
a. To promulgate rules concerning the
protection
and
enforcement
of
constitutional
rights,
pleadings,
practice and procedure in all courts,
the admission to the practice of law,
the
Integrated
Bar
and
legal
assistance to the underprivileged
36

LIV
KIRK

b. Simply, to promulgate or repeal rules

of procedure

(3) Delegation to the LGUs

a. Power to create its own sources of
revenues and to levy taxes, fees and
charges subject to such guidelines and
limitations as the Congress may
provide, consistent with the basic
policy of local autonomy
b. Local legislative power shall be
exercised
by
the
sangguniang
panlalawigan
for
province,
sangguniang panglungsod for the city,
sangguniang
bayan
for
the
municipality, and the sangguninag
barangay for the barangay.

TRACY

CIELA

The law delegating the power must provide the

standard and fix the limits within which the
discretion may be exercised.
Lovina v. Moreno
In the case, the Secretary of Public Works, found
the constructions blocking Sapang Bulati as a
public nuisance and ordered its removal pursuant
to its authority under RA 2056. The constitutionality
of the RA is assailed for giving the Secretary
sweeping authority to pass upon issues of whether
a river or stream is public and navigable, whether a
dam encroaches upon such waters and is
constitutive as a public nuisance, and whether the
law applies to a state of facts, thereby constituting
an unlawful delegation of judicial power to the
Secretary.

C. Ascertainment of Facts
The legislature may delegate to an administrative
agency the power to determine some fact or state
of things upon which the law makes or intends to
make its own action depend; or the law may
provide that it shall become operative only upon
the contingency of some certain fact or event, the
ascertainment of which is left to an administrative
agency. This is not a delegation of what the law
shall be but how the law will be enforced, which is
permissible.
The power to ascertain facts may be delegated for
there
is
nothing
essentially
legislative
in
ascertaining the existence of facts or conditions as
the basis of taking into effect of a law.

It is true that the exercise of the Secretary's power

under
the
Act
necessarily
involves
the
determination of some questions of fact, such as
the existence of the stream and its previous
navigable character; but these functions, whether
judicial or quasi-judicial, are merely incidental to
the exercise of the power granted by law to clear
navigable streams of unauthorized obstructions or
encroachments, and authorities are clear that they
are, validly conferable upon executive officials
provided the party affected is given opportunity to
be heard.
The mere fact that an officer is required by law to
inquire the existence of certain facts and to apply
the law thereto in order to determine what his
official conduct shall be and the fact that these acts
may affect private, rights do not constitute an
37

LIV

TRACY

CIELA

KIRK

exercise of judicial powers. Accordingly, a statute

may give to non-judicial officers the power to
declare the existence of facts which call into
operation its provisions, and similarly may grant to
commissioners and other subordinate officer,
power to ascertain and determine appropriate facts
as a basis for procedure in the enforcement of
particular laws.
D. Rate-Fixing
The legislature usually delegates its rate-fixing
power to administrative agencies for the latter to
fix rates which public utility companies may charge
the public. The administrative agencies perform
this function either by:
(1) issuing rules and regulations in the exercise
of quasi-legislative power
a. the fixing of rates is quasi-legislative
when the rules or rates are meant to
apply to all enterprises of a given kind
throughout the Philippines, in which
case notice and hearing is not
required
(2) issuing orders affecting a specified person in
the exercise of quasi-judicial power
a. it is quasi-judicial when the rules or
rates apply exclusively to a named
person or entity and are predicated
upon a finding of facts, on the basis of
which the rules or rates are based, in
which case the valid exercise of which
demands previous notice and hearing,
WON the order fixing the rates is
permanent of provisional or temporary
(otherwise invalid, as violative of due
process)

The statute delegating the power must be

complete and fix a sufficient standard. In the
delegation of rate-fixing power, the only standard,
which the legislature is required to prescribe, is that
the rate must be reasonable and just. When the
admin agency establishes a rate, it must be both
non-confiscatory and must have been established
in the manner prescribed by the legislature;
otherwise, unconstitutional.
In the exercise of its rate-fixing power, the agency
is limited by the requirements of public safety,
public
interest,
reasonable
feasibility
and
reasonable rates, which conjointly satisfy the
requirements of valid delegation of power.
As a general rule, notice and hearing not essential
to validity of administrative action in the exercise of
executive, administrative or legislative functions
but where a public administrative body acts in a
judicial or quasi-judicial matter, and its acts are
particular and immediate rather than general and
prospective, the person whose rights or property
may be affected by the action is entitled to notice
and hearing.
Vigan Electric Light Co. PSC
In this case, the Public Service Commission ordered
Vigan to lower its rates after a complaint was filed
regarding Vigans excessive rates. The PSC made
the order on the basis of an audit report by the
Commission. It did not conduct notice and hearing.
Congress has not delegated, and cannot delegate
legislative
powers
to
the
Public
Service
38

LIV

TRACY

CIELA

KIRK

Commission. Moreover, although the rule-making

power and even the power to fix rates - when such
rules and/or rates are meant to apply to all
enterprises of a given kind throughout the
Philippines - may partake of a legislative character,
such is not the nature of the order complained of.
Indeed, the same applies exclusively to petitioner
herein. What is more, it is predicated upon the
finding of fact - based upon a report submitted by
the General Auditing Office - that petitioner is
making a profit of more than 12% of its invested
capital, which isdenied by petitioner. Obviously, the
latter is entitled to cross-examine the maker of said
report, and to introduce evidence to disprove the
contents thereof and/or explain or complement the
same, as well as to refute the conclusion drawn
therefrom by the respondent. In other words, in
making said finding of fact, respondent performed
a function partaking of a quasi-judicial character
the valid exercise of which demands previous
notice and hearing. Indeed, sections 16(c) and 20
(a) of Commonwealth Act No. 146, explicitly require
notice and hearing.
Philippine Communications v. Alcuaz
Delegation may only be sustained upon the ground
that some standard for its exercise is provided and
that the legislature has prescribed the manner of
the exercise of the delegated power.
1. Without standard, delegation becomes
unconstitutional.
2. In rate-fixing power: standard must that the
rate be reasonable and just.
3. But even in the absence of express
standards, the standard may be implied.

A grant of franchise can only be altered, repealed,

or amended for the common good or public
interest; it cannot be unilaterally revoked.
1. States power to regulate the conduct and
business of public utilities is limited by the
fact that the state is not the owner of the
property of the utility.
2. Power to regulate is not the power to destroy
useful and harmless enterprises but the
power to protect and foster and preserve
with due regard to the interest of the public,
the utility, and its patrons.
KMU v. Garcia
The Legislature has delegated to the Public Service
Commission the power of fixing the rates of public
services, but it has not authorized the Public
Service Commission to delegate that power to a
common carrier or other public service. The
authority given by the LTFRB to the provincial bus
operators to set a fare range over and above the
authorized existing fare, is illegal and invalid as it is
tantamount to an undue delegation of legislative
authority. Potestas delegata non delegari
potest. What has been delegated cannot be
delegated. A further delegation of such
power would indeed constitute a negation of
the duty in violation of the trust reposed in
the delegate mandated to discharge it
directly.
39

LIV
KIRK

The public service may, of course, propose new

rates, but it cannot lawfully make said new rates
effective without the approval of the Public Service
Commission, and the Public Service Commission
itself cannot authorize a public service to enforce
new rates without the prior approval of said rates
by the commission. The commission must approve
new rates when they are submitted to it, if the
evidence shows them to be just and reasonable,
otherwise it must disapprove them.
E. Rule-Making
Interpretation

and

Administrative

The rule-making power of administrative agencies

refers to the power to issue rules and regulations
which result to delegated legislation in the
administrative level. The rules and regulations
promulgated in pursuance of the authority
conferred upon the administrative agency by law,
partake of the nature of a statute, with the force
and effect of law. The reason is that statutes are
usually couched in general terms, after expressing
the policy, purposes, objectives, remedies and
sanctions intended by the legislature. The details
and the manner of carrying out the law are
oftentimes left to the administrative agency
entrusted with its enforcement. In this sense, rules
are regulations are the product of a delegated
power to create new or additional legal provisions
that the effect of law.
3 kinds of rule-making power
(1) rule-making
by
reason
delegation of authority

of

particular

TRACY

CIELA

(2) rule-making by the construction and

interpretation
of
a
statute
being
administered
(3) determination of facts under a delegated
power as to which a statute shall go into
effect
Distinction between administrative rule and
administrative interpretation
When an administrative agency promulgates rules
and regulations, in the exercise of its rule-making
power delegated to it by the legislature, it makes
new law with the force and effect of a valid law,
while when renders an opinion or gives a statement
of policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing law. The
rules promulgated pursuant to law are binding on
the courts, even if they are not in agreement with
the policy stated therein or with its innate wisdom.
On the other hand, administrative interpretation of
the law is at best merely advisory, for it is the
courts that finally determine what the law means.
Contemporaneous construction is the construction
placed upon the statute by an administrative officer
called upon to administer such statute. The duty of
enforcing the law necessarily calls for the
interpretation of ambiguous provisions. Executive
officers are generally the first to interpret the law,
preparatory
to
its
enforcement.
These
interpretations are in the form of rules and
regulations, circulars, directives, opinions and
rulings.
3 types of executive interpretation:

40

LIV

TRACY

CIELA

KIRK

1. construction by an executive officer directly

called to implement the law (express or
implied)
2. construction by the Sec. of Justice as the
chief legal adviser of the government
3. interpretation handed down in an adversary
proceeding in the form of a ruling by an
executive officer exercising quasi-judicial
power.

When an administrative agency renders an opinion,

it merely interprets a pre-existing law and the
administrative interpretation is at best advisory for
it is the court that finally determines what the law
means.
Rules and regulations issued by executive officers
pursuant to and as authorized by law have the
force and effect of laws. Unless shown to be
erroneous, unreasonable
or arbitrary, such
interpretation is entitled to recognition and respect
from the courts, as no one is better qualified to
interpret the intent of the regulation than the
authority that issued it.
Reason for putting great weight to administrative
decisions:
1. respect due to governmental agencies charged
with administration
2. their competence, expertness, experience and
informed judgment
3. the fact that they are frequently the drafters of
the law they interpret
4. the practical application of the statute presents
the agency with the unique opportunity for
discovering deficiencies, inaccuracies and
improvements in the statute

Contemporaneous construction of a statute is

neither controlling nor binding upon the court, the
duty and power to interpret the law being primarily
a judicial function. The court may disregard the
construction, where there is no ambiguity in the
law, where the construction is clearly erroneous,
where strong reason to the contrary exists, and
where the court has previously given a different
interpretation. If erroneous, the construction must
be declared null and void.
Victorias Milling v. Social Security
Commission
There can be no doubt that there is a distinction
between an administrative rule or regulation and
an administrative interpretation of a law whose
enforcement is entrusted to an administrative body.
When an administrative agency promulgates
rules and regulations, it "makes" a new law
with the force and effect of a valid law, while
when it renders an opinion or gives a
statement of policy, it merely interprets a
pre-existing law. Rules and regulations when
promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or
authority conferred upon the administrative agency
by law, partake of the nature of a statute, and
compliance therewith may be enforced by a penal
sanction provided in the law. This is so because
statutes are usually couched in general terms, after
expressing the policy, purposes, objectives,
remedies and sanctions intended by the legislature.
41

LIV
KIRK

The details and the manner of carrying out the law

are often times left to the administrative agency
entrusted with its enforcement. In this sense, it has
been said that rules and regulations are the
product of a delegated power to create new or
additional legal provisions that have the effect of
law.
A rule is binding on the courts so long as the
procedure fixed for its promulgation is followed and
its scope is within the statutory authority granted
by the legislature, even if the courts are not in
agreement with the policy stated therein or its
innate wisdom. On the other hand, administrative
interpretation of the law is at best merely
advisory, for it is the courts that finally determine
what the law means.
Tayug Rural Bank v. Central Bank of the
Philippines
Administrative rules and regulations have the
force and effect of law. There are, however,
limitations to the rule-making power of
administrative agencies. A rule shaped out by
jurisprudence is that when Congress authorizes
promulgation
of
administrative
rules
and
regulations to implement given legislation, all that
is required is that the regulation be not in
contradiction with it, but conform to the standards
that the law prescribes.

TRACY

CIELA

In case of discrepancy between the basic law

and a rule or regulation issued to implement
said law, the basic law prevails because said
rule or regulation cannot go beyond the
terms and provisions of the basic law. Rules
that subvert the statute cannot be sanctioned.
Except for constitutional officials who can trace
their competence to act to the fundamental law
itself, a public official must locate in the statute
relied upon a grant of power before he can exercise
it. Department zeal may not be permitted to outrun
the authority conferred by statute.
When promulgated in pursuance of the procedure
or authority conferred upon the administrative
agency by law, the rules and regulations partake of
the nature of a statute, and compliance therewith
may be enforced by a penal sanction provided in
the law. Conversely, the rule is likewise clear.
Hence an administrative agency cannot impose a
penalty not so provided in the law authorizing the
promulgation of the rules and regulations, much
less one that is applied retroactively.
Nestle v. CA
It is a principle that the construction given to
a statute by an administrative agency
charged
with
the
interpretation
and
application of that statute is entitled to great
respect and should be accorded great weight
by the courts, unless such construction is
clearly shown to be in sharp conflict with the
governing statute or the Constitution and
other
laws.
The
principle
that
the
contemporaneous construction of a statute by the
executive officers of the government, whose duty is
42

LIV
KIRK

to execute it, is entitled to great respect, and

should ordinarily control the construction of the
statute by the courts.
Executive officials are presumed to have
familiarized themselves with all the considerations
pertinent to the meaning and purpose of the law,
and to have formed an independent, conscientious
and competent expert opinion thereon.
Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association
of the Phils. v. Duque
An
administrative
agency
like
respondent
possesses quasi-legislative or rule-making power or
the power to make rules and regulations which
results in delegated legislation that is within the
confines of the granting statute and the
Constitution, and subject to the doctrine of nondelegability and separability of powers. Such
express grant of rule-making power necessarily
includes the power to amend, revise, alter, or
repeal the same. This is to allow administrative
agencies flexibility in formulating and adjusting the
details and manner by which they are to implement
the provisions of a law, in order to make it more
responsive to the times. Hence, it is a standard
provision in administrative rules that prior
issuances of administrative agencies that are
inconsistent therewith are declared repealed or
modified.
Lupangco v. CA

TRACY

CIELA

It is an axiom in administrative law that

administrative authorities should not act arbitrarily
and capriciously in the issuance of rules and
regulations. To be valid, such rules and
regulations must be reasonable and fairly
adapted to the end in view. If shown to bear
no reasonable relation to the purposes for
which they are authorized to be issued, then
they must be held to be invalid.
F. Effectivity of Rules
Sec. 18, Book 1 of the Admin Code provides: Laws
shall take effect after 15 days following the
completion of their publication in the Official
Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation,
unless it otherwise provided. Unless otherwise
provided means that a shorter or longer period may
be fixed by law from publication, when the law will
take effect.
Law includes rules and regulations issued
pursuant to a valid delegation and designed to
enforce or implement an existing law. Such rules
and regulations must be published to be effective.
The publication must be in full or it is no publication
at all since its purpose is to inform the public of its
contents.
What needs not to be published:
(1) interpretative regulations and those merely
internal in nature, that is, regulating only the
personnel of the administrative agency and
not the public
(2) letters
of
instructions
issued
by
administrative superiors concerning the rules
43

LIV
KIRK

or guidelines to be followed by the

subordinates in the performance of their
duties.
Taada v. Tuvera

ART. 2. Civil Code. Laws shall take effect after

fifteen days following the completion of their
publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is
otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect one
year after such publication.
The clause "unless it is otherwise provided"
refers to the date of effectivity and not to the
requirement of publication itself, which
cannot in any event be omitted. This clause
does not mean that the legislature may make the
law effective immediately upon approval, or on any
other date, without its previous publication. The
reason is that such omission would offend due
process insofar as it would deny the public
knowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern
it.
The term "laws" should refer to all laws and
not only to those of general application, for
strictly speaking, all laws relate to the people
in general albeit there are some that do not
apply to them directly. Publication must be in full
or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to
inform the public of the contents of the laws.
All statutes, including those of local application and
private laws, shall be published as a condition for
their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after
publication unless a different effectivity date is
fixed by the legislature. Covered by this rule are

TRACY

CIELA

presidential
decrees
and
executive
orders
promulgated by the President in the exercise of
legislative powers whenever the same are validly
delegated by the legislature or directly conferred
by the Constitution.
Administrative rules and regulations must also be
published if their purpose is to enforce or
implement existing law pursuant also to a valid
delegation. Interpretative regulations and those
merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only
the personnel of the administrative agency and not
the public, need not be published. Neither is
publication required of the so-called letters of
instructions issued by administrative superiors
concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by
their subordinates in the performance of their
duties.
V. QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER
A. In general
Definition
Quasi-judicial is defined as a term applied to the
action or discretions of public administrative
officers or bodies required to investigate facts, or
ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and
draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their
official action, and to exercise discretion of a
judicial nature.
Quasi- judicial power, generally
44

LIV
KIRK

It is difficult, if not impossible, precisely to define

what are judicial or quasi- judicial acts, and there is
considerable conflict in the decisions in regard
thereto, in connection with the law as to the right
to a writ of certiorari. It is clear, however, that it is
the nature of the act to be performed, rather than
of the office, board, or body which performs it, that
determines whether or not it is the discharge of a
judicial or quasi- judicial function.
Quasi- judicial adjudication
Adjudication means an agency process for the
formulation of a final order, which presupposes
compliancy with such requirements before such
final order is issued. The function requires:
(1) previously established rules and principles;
(2) concrete facts, whether past or
affecting determinate individuals; and

present,

(3) decision as to whether these facts are governed

by the rules and principles
Santiago v. Bautista
A judicial function is an act performed by virtue of
judicial powers; the exercise of a judicial function is
the doing of something in the nature of the action
of the court. Before tribunal board, or officer may
exercise judicial or quasi judicial acts, it is
necessary that there be a law that give rise to
some specific rights of persons or property under
which adverse claims to such rights are made, and

TRACY

CIELA

the controversy ensuing therefrom is brought, in

turn, before the tribunal, board or officer clothed
with power and authority to determine what that
law is and thereupon adjudicate the respective
rights of the contending parties.
In order that a special civil action of certiorari may
be invoked in this jurisdiction the following
circumstances must exist:
1. There must be a specific controversy
involving rights of persons or property and
said controversy is brought before a tribunal,
board
or
officer
for
hearing
and
determination of their respective rights and
obligations.
'Judicial action is an adjudication upon
the rights of parties who in general
appear or are brought before the
tribunal by notice or process, and
upon whose claims some decision or
judgment is rendered.
2. The tribunal, board or officer before whom
the controversy is brought must have the
power and authority to pronounce judgment
and render a decision on the controversy
construing and applying the laws to that end.
The phrase "judicial power" is not
capable of a precise definition which
would be applicable to all cases.
"Judicial
power"
implies
the
construction
of
laws
and
the
adjudication of legal rights. It includes
the power to hear and determine but
not everyone who may hear and
determine has judicial power. The
45

LIV
KIRK

term "judicial power" does not

necessarily include the power to hear
and determine a matter that is not in
the nature of a suit or action between
the parties.'

TRACY

CIELA

and whenever an officer is clothed

with that authority, and undertakes to
determine those questions, he acts
judicially.'
Carino v. CHR

3. The tribunal, board or officer must pertain to

that branch of the sovereign power which
belongs to the judiciary, or at least, which
does not belong to the legislative or
executive department.
It is not enough to make a function
judicial that it requires discretion,
deliberation,
thought,
and
judgment. It must be the exercise of
discretion and judgment within that
subdivision of the sovereign power
which belongs to the judiciary, or, at
least, which does not belong to the
legislative or executive department. If
the matter, in respect to which it is
exercised, belongs to either of the two
last-named
departments
of
government, it is not judicial. As to
what is judicial and what is not seems
to be better indicated by the nature of
a thing, than its definition.'
It is the nature of the act to be
performed, rather than of the office,
board, or body which performs it, that
determines whether or not it is the
discharge of a judicial or quasi-judicial
function. It may be said generally that
the exercise of judicial functions is to
determine what the law is, and what
the legal rights of parties are, with
respect to a matter in controversy;

Fact-finding is not adjudication, and cannot be

likened to the judicial function of a court or even a
quasi-judicial agency. To be considered such, the
faculty of receiving evidence and making factual
conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied
by the authority of applying the law to those factual
conclusions to the end that the controversy may be
decided or determined authoritatively, finally and
definitively, subject to such appeals or modes of
review as may be provided by law. In a legal sense,
to investigate means to follow up step by step by
patient inquiry. To adjudicate means to settle in the
exercise of judicial authority, to determine finally.
The purpose of investigation is to discover, to find
out, nowhere is intimated the notion of settling,
deciding, resolving a controversy involved in the
facts inquired into by application of the law to the
facts established by inquiry.
In the case, the CHR has made plain its intention to
hear and resolve the case on the merits It intends
to exercise jurisdiction over the general issues. It
intends to adjudicate on the same issues which the
Sec. of Education has already passed upon. This it
cannot do even if there be a claim of HR violations
in the conduct of the administrative disciplinary
proceedings. The questions of WON the mass
actions constituted strike, etc. are matters clearly
within the original jurisdiction of the Sec. of
Education. Moreover, the CHR has no power to
46

LIV
KIRK

reverse the decision of the Secretary. If the CHR

concludes that the Secretary is in error, the most it
can do is to refer the matter to the appropriate
agency for assistance, the Civil Service Commission
(CSC). It cannot arrogate unto itself the appellate
jurisdiction of the CSC. The most that may be
conceded to the CHR in the way of adjudicative
power is that it may investigate, i.e., receive
evidence and make findings of facts as regards
claimed human rights violations, and not
adjudicate.
B. JURISDICTION
Definition
Jurisdiction means the power or capacity conferred
by the Constitution or by law to a court or tribunal
to entertain, hear and determine certain
controversies, and render judgment thereon.
Jurisdiction is determined by the statute in force at
the time of the commencement of the action.
Jurisdiction is either one over the nature of the
action, over the subject matter, or over the issues
framed in the pleadings or over person of the
parties.
Extent of jurisdiction
Judicial power, which is the power to hear and
decide causes between parties who have the right
to sue in courts of law and equity, belongs to the
judiciary or the courts.

TRACY

CIELA

The rule is that an administrative body to which

quasi- judicial power has been delegated is a
tribunal of limited jurisdiction and as such it could
wield only such powers as are specifically granted
to it by its enabling statute. Its jurisdiction is
interpreted in strictissimi juris.
Estoppel to deny jurisdiction
There are instances when a party may be estopped
to question the jurisdiction of a quasi- judicial
agency. Where, for instance, an aggrieved party
appealed an adverse decision to a higher
administrative
body,
he
cannot
thereafter
challenged the jurisdiction of the appellate body to
decide the appealed case.
Party cannot take inconsistent position
A party or a litigant cannot take a position in court
different from that which he took before an
administrative body.
Antipolo Realty Corporation v. National
Housing Authority
In general, the quantum of judicial or quasi-judicial
powers which an administrative agency may
exercise is defined in the enabling act of such
agency. In other words, the extent to which an
administrative entity may exercise such powers
depends largely, if not wholly, on the provisions of
the statute creating or empowering such agency.
47

LIV
KIRK

In the exercise of such powers, the agency

concerned must commonly interpret and apply
contracts and determine the rights of private
parties under such contracts. One thrust of the
multiplication of administrative agencies is that the
interpretation
of
contracts
and
the
determination of private rights thereunder is
no longer a uniquely judicial function,
exercisable only by our regular courts.
Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan
Jurisdiction of the court must appear clearly from
the statute law.
a. It cannot be presumed or implied.
b. Jurisdiction of a court is determined by the
law at the time of commencement of the
action.
The quantum of powers possessed by an
administrative agency forming part of the executive
branch will still be limited to that "conferred
expressly or by necessary or fair implication in its
enabling
act.
Government
branches
and
administrative agencies exercise only that power
delegated to them as defined either in the
Constitution or in legislation or in both.
In the case, while the BIR had authority to require
Petitioner Azarcon to sign a receipt for the
distrained truck, the NIRC did not grant it power to
appoint Azarcon a public officer. Article 203 of the
RPC determines who are public officers: Thus to be
a public officer, one must be:

TRACY

CIELA

(1) Taking part in the performance of public

functions in the government, or
Performing in said Government or any of its
branches public duties as an employee, agent, or
subordinate official, of any rank or class; and
2) That his authority to take part in the
performance of public functions or to perform
public duties must be
a. by direct provision of the law, or
b. by popular election, or
c. by appointment by competent authority
Boiser v. CA
The Board of Communications (now NTC), 'being a
creature of the legislature and not a court, can
exercise only such jurisdiction and powers as are
expressly or by necessary implication, conferred
upon it by statute.' PLDT has made no showing of
any, not even by necessary implication, to decide
an issue involving breach of contract. Jurisdiction is
conferred only by the Constitution or the law. It
cannot be conferred by the will of the parties.
Others:
Before a petition for certiorari can be brought
against an order of a lower court, all available
remedies must be exhausted. The attention of the
lower court should first be called to its supposed
error and its correction should be sought.
The reason for this rule is that issues which
Courts of First Instance are bound to decide
48

LIV
KIRK

should not summarily be taken from them

and submitted to an appellate court without
first giving such lower courts the opportunity
to dispose of the same with due deliberation.
However, special circumstances may indeed
warrant immediate intervention of a higher
court even while the lower court is
deliberating on the action to take on a
pending matter.
Energy Regulation Board v. CA

It is the DOE that has jurisdiction over the

regulation of the marketing and the distribution of
energy resources. Formerly, this function belonged
to the ERB by virtue of the Cabinet Policy Reforms
in the Energy Sector embodied in a Cabinet
memorandum. Section 18 of RA 7638, however,
later transferred to the DOE the non-rate fixing
jurisdiction, powers and functions of the ERB. Since
the application for the NPCs direct supply or
disconnection of power essentially involve the
distribution of energy resources, and not the
determination of power rates, these applications
must be resolved by the DOE.

TRACY

CIELA

the matter, a quasi- judicial body has the implied

power to promulgate its rules of procedure.
Rules of procedure issued by quasi-judicial bodies
must not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights.
The Rules of Court are suppletory to the rules of
procedure of quasi- administrative agencies.
Rules subject to Supreme Court modification
All procedural rules, whether issued by quasijudicial agencies or embodied in statutes enacted
by Congress, are subject to alteration or
modification by the Supreme Court in the exercise
of its constitutional rule-making power.
Technical rules not applicable

C. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

The rule that an administrative agency exercising

quasi-judicial power is not bound by technical rules
of procedure and evidence should not be so
interpreted as to dispense with the fundamental
and essential right of due process, such as the
opportunity to be heard and the existence of
substantial evidence to support a decision.

Rules of procedure, generally

Acquisition of jurisdiction

The Constitution empowers quasi- judicial agencies

to issue their own rules of procedure. But even in
the absence of such constitutional provision, or
even when the law creating an agency is silent on

A quasi-judicial agency can acquire jurisdiction over

the person of the petitioner by the latters
voluntary appearance as by his filing a complaint,
petition or an initiatory or appropriate pleading and
paying the filing fees, if required by the agencys
49

LIV
KIRK

rules. The quasi- judicial body can acquire

jurisdiction over the person of the respondent by
latters voluntary appearing or submitting to the
body or by service of summons upon him.
Hierarchy of evidence values
In the hierarchy of evidence values, the highest is
proof beyond reasonable, followed by clear and
convincing evidence, preponderance of evidence,
and substantial evidence, in that order.
Substantial evidence
The evidence required to support a decision in a
contested case in an administrative proceeding is
only substantial evidence. Substantial evidence
means such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.
Delegation of quasi- judicial power
The power conferred
upon an administrative
agency to issue rules and regulations necessary to
carry out its functions has been held to be an
adequate source of authority to delegate a
particular function, unless by express provision of
the law or by implication it has been withheld.
First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v. CA
The 1987 Constitution provides in Art. VI, 30 that
"No law shall be passed increasing the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in

TRACY

CIELA

this
Constitution
without
its
advice
and
concurrence." This provision is intended to give the
Supreme Court a measure of control over cases
placed under its appellate jurisdiction. For the
indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its
appellate jurisdiction can unnecessarily burden the
Court and thereby undermine its essential function
of expounding the law in its most profound national
aspects.
Now, Art. 82 of the 1987 Omnibus Investments
Code, by providing for direct appeals to the
Supreme Court from the decisions and final orders
of the BOI, increases the appellate jurisdiction of
this Court. Since it was enacted without the advice
and concurrence of this Court, this provision never
became effective, with the result that it can never
be deemed to have amended BP Blg. 129, 9.
Consequently, the authority of the Court of Appeals
to decide cases appealed to it from the BOI must be
deemed to have been conferred by B.P. Blg. 129,
9, to be exercised by it in accordance with the
procedure prescribed by Circular No. 1-91. Indeed,
there is no reason why decisions and final orders of
the BOI must be directly appealed to this Court.
The purpose of 9 of B.P. Blg. 129 is to provide
uniform appeals to the Court of Appeals from the
decisions and final orders of all quasi-judicial
agencies, with the exception only of those issued
under the Labor Code and those rendered by the
Central Board of Assessment Appeals.
American Tobacco Company, et al. v. The
Director of Patents
Power conferred upon an administrative agency, to
which the administration of a statute is entrusted,
50

LIV
KIRK

to issue such regulations and orders as may be

deemed necessary or proper in order to carry out
its purposes and provisions may be an adequate
source of authority to delegate a particular
function, unless by express provisions of the Act or
by implication it has been withheld.
An administrative officer, as a matter of practical
administrative procedure, may utilize the aid of
subordinates to investigate and report to him the
facts, on the basis of which the officer makes his
decisions. It is sufficient that the judgment and
discretion finally exercised are those of the officer
authorized by law.
Subdelegation of power has been justified by
"sound principles of organization," which demand
that "those at the top be able to concentrate their
attention upon the larger and more important
questions of policy and practice and their time be
freed, so far as possible, from the consideration of
the smaller and far less important matters of
detail."
D.
DUE
PROCESS
PROCEEDINGS

IN

QUASI-JUDICIAL

Generally
Due process consists of two concepts: substantive
and procedural. Substantive due process is
responsiveness to the supremacy of reason,
obedience to the dictates of justice.
Procedural due process consists of the two basic
rights of notice and hearing, as well as the

TRACY

CIELA

guarantee of being heard by an impartial and

competent tribunal.
Prior notice not required in the exercise of
police power.
As general rule where what is exercised is police
power duly delegated to an administrative officer,
prior notice or hearing is not necessary for the
validity of the action taken, so long as the
aggrieved party is subsequently accorded hearing
on the action taken.
One such exercise of police power is the abatement
of a public nuisance per se. Nuisances are of two
kinds: nuisance per se and nuisance per accidens.
The first is recognized under any and all
circumstances because it constitutes a direct
menace to public health or safety, and for that
reason, may be abated summarily, without legal
proceedings and without hearing. However,
nuisance per accidens, which depends upon certain
conditions or circumstances and which is a
question of fact, cannot be abated without due
hearing.
Motion for reconsideration cures procedural
due process defects; exceptions
The rule that the filing of a motion for
reconsideration of the decision or ruling against a
party cures the defect in the lack of prior notice
and hearing as to preclude the party from claiming
denial of due process assumes that the other
51

LIV
KIRK

requirements of due process have been complied

with. If any of the other requirements has not been
observed, the rule does not apply, as when the
evidence against the party is not set forth in the
record of the case.
Ang Tibay v. CIR
The Court of Industrial Relations is not narrowly
constrained by technical rules of procedure but
may act according to justice and equity and
substantial merits of the case, and may inform its
mind in such manner as it may deem just and
equitable. However, this does not mean that it can
entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and
essential requirements of due process in trials and
investigations of an administrative character. There
are primary rights which must be respected even in
proceedings of this character:
(1) The right to a hearing, which includes the right
of the party interested or affected to present his
own case and submit evidence in support thereof.
(2) The tribunal must
presented.

consider the

evidence

(3) "While the duty to deliberate does not impose

the obligation to decide right, it does imply a
necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely,
that of having something to support it."
(4) Not only must there be some evidence to
support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence
must be "substantial". It means such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind accept as adequate
to support a conclusion."

TRACY

CIELA

The statute provides that "the rules of

evidence prevailing in courts of law and
equity shall not be controlling.' The obvious
purpose of this and similar provisions is to
free
administrative
boards
from
the
compulsion of technical rules so that the
mere admission of matter which would be
deemed incompetent in judicial proceedings
would not invalidate the administrative
order. But this assurance of a desirable
flexibility in administrative procedure does
not go far as to justify orders without a basis
in evidence having rational probative force.
Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does
not constitute substantial evidence.

(5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence

presented at the hearing, or at least contained in
the record and disclosed to the parties affected.
Only by confining the administrative tribunal
to the evidence disclosed to the parties, can
the latter be protected in their right to know
and meet the case against them.
It should not, however, detract from their
duty actively to see that the law is enforced,
and for that purpose, to use the authorized
legal methods of securing evidence and
informing itself of facts material and relevant
to the controversy. Boards of inquiry may be
appointed for the purpose of investigating
and determining the facts in any given case,
but their report and decision are only
advisory.
(6) The tribunal must act on its own independent
consideration of the law and facts of the
52

LIV

TRACY

CIELA

KIRK

controversy, and not simply accept the views of a

subordinate in arriving at a decision.
(7) The tribunal should, in all controversial
questions, render its decision in such a manner that
the parties to the proceeding can know the various
issues involved, and the reasons for the decision
rendered.
Air Manila v. Balatbat
Administrative proceedings are not exempt from
the operation of due process requirements in
investigations and trials. Administrative due
process is recognized to include:
(a) the right to notice, be it actual or constructive,
of the institution of the proceedings that may affect
a person's legal rights;
(b) reasonable opportunity to appear and defend
his rights, introduce witnesses and relevant
evidence in his favor,
(c) a tribunal so constituted as to give him
reasonable assurance of honesty and impartiality,
and one of competent Jurisdiction; and
(4) a finding or decision by that tribunal supported
by substantial evidence presented at the hearing,
or at least contained in the records or disclosed to
the parties affected.
Morrissey v. Brewer

ISSUE: WON the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment requires that a State afford
an individual some opportunity to be heard prior to
revoking his parole (YES)
1. Though parole revocation does not call for the
full panoply of rights due a defendant in a criminal
proceeding, a parolee's liberty involves significant
values within the protection of the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and
termination of that liberty requires an informal
hearing to give assurance that the finding of a
parole violation is based on verified facts to support
the revocation.
2. Due process requires a reasonably prompt
informal inquiry conducted by an impartial hearing
officer near the place of the alleged parole violation
or arrest to determine if there is reasonable ground
to believe that the arrested parolee has violated a
parole condition. The parolee should receive prior
notice of the inquiry, its purpose, and the alleged
violations. The parolee may present relevant
information and (absent security considerations)
question adverse informants. The hearing officer
shall digest the evidence on probable cause and
state the reasons for holding the parolee for the
parole board's decision.
3. At the revocation hearing, which must be
conducted reasonably soon after the parolee's
arrest, minimum due process requirements
53

LIV

TRACY

CIELA

KIRK

are: (a) written notice of the claimed violations of

parole; (b) disclosure to the parolee of evidence
against him; (c) opportunity to be heard in person
and to present witnesses and documentary
evidence; (d) the right to confront and crossexamine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing
officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing
confrontation); (e) a "neutral and detached"
hearing body such as a traditional parole board,
members of which need not be judicial officers or
lawyers; and (f) a written statement by the fact
finders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for
revoking parole.
Fabella v. CA
In administrative proceedings, due process has
been recognized to include the following:
(1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the
institution of proceedings which may affect a
respondent's legal rights;
(2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with
the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and
evidence in one's favor, and to defend one's rights;
(3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction
and so constituted as to afford a person charged
administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty
as well as impartiality; and
(4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by
substantial evidence submitted for consideration
during the hearing or contained in the records or
made known to the parties affected.
E. CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS

Prior notice in issuance

preliminary order

of

ex

parte

or

As a general rule, provisional reliefs, such as

temporary restraining orders, cease or desist
orders, may be granted by quasi-judicial agencies
without prior notice or hearing. Similarly, in
disciplinary proceedings, the disciplining authority
may preventively suspend the officer or employee
charged with a grave offense without prior notice or
hearing, the preventive suspension not being a
penalty.
F. RIGHT TO COUNSEL
The right to counsel is not indispensable to due
process unless required by the Constitution or the
law. In administrative proceedings, the essence of
due process is simply the opportunity to explain
ones side. One may be heard not solely by verbal
representation but also through pleadings. An
actual hearing is not always an indispensable
aspect of due process.
G. DECISION, APPEAL AND JUDICIAL REVIEW
Decision defined.
Decision in administrative law means the whole
or any part of the final disposition, not of an
interlocutory
character,
whether
affirmative,
negative, or injunctive in form, of a quasi- judicial
agency in any matter, including licensing, ratefixing and granting of rights and privileges.
54

LIV
KIRK

Period to render decision

Section 14 Book VII of the 1987 Administrative
Code provides that the agency shall decide each
case within thirty (30) days following its
submission. A case is deemed submitted for
decision after both parties shall have concluded
presentation of their evidence or upon the filing of
their respective memoranda
While the law employs the word shall, which
imports a command or implies that it shall be
mandatory to decide the case within thirty (30)
days, a time provision for decision is construed as
directory, so that the failure of the agency
concerned to decide the case within thirty (30)
days does not deprive it of the jurisdiction to
thereafter resolve it, nor render such decision
invalid.
But the failure of the administrative or quasijudicial officer to decide the case within the
prescribed period may render him administratively
liable therefor.
Form of decision.
Section 14 Book VII of the 1987 Administrative
Code requires that Every decision rendered by the
agency in a contested case shall be in writing and
shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the
law on which it is based.

TRACY

CIELA

Compliance by quasi- judicial tribunals or agencies

with the requirements of decision-writing becomes
especially important in appealable decisions
because decisions of quasi-judicial bodies are
appealable to the Court of Appeals by means of a
petition for review, in which the appellant is
entitled to raise questions of fact, or of law, or both
questions of fact and law.
Publication of decisions
The law requires that every agency shall publish
and make available for public inspection all
decisions or final orders in the adjudication of
contested cases.
Relief and sanction
The agency has no power to grant any relief nor
can it impose any sanction in the absence of any
statutory authority on its part.
Finality of decision
The decision of the agency shall become final ad
executory fifteen days (15) days after the receipt of
a copy thereof by the party adversely affected
unless within that period an administrative appeal
or judicial review, if proper, has been perfected.
One motion for reconsideration may be filed, which
shall suspend the running of the said period.
The established principle is that once a decision
becomes final and executory, it is removed from
55

LIV
KIRK

the power or jurisdiction of the quasi- judicial body

which rendered it to further alter or amend, much
less revoke it.
Promulgation of decision
A decision of an administrative officer or agency, in
the exercise of a quasi-judicial power, becomes
binding only after it is validly promulgated.
Promulgation means the delivery of the decision to
the clerk of court for filing and publication.
Notice of decision
The parties shall be notified of the decision
personally or by registered mail addressed to their
counsel of record, if any, or to them.
If a party is represented by counsel, the notice of
the decision must be made upon counsel. It is wellsettled that notice to counsel is notice to client. On
the other hand, notice to the client does not
amount to notice to counsel.
Appeal in contested cases
Appeal is not part of due process, but a statutory
privilege which may be exercised only in the
manner and within the period prescribed by law.
And where the law does not grant a right to appeal,
such remedy cannot be invoked.
Administrative review

TRACY

CIELA

Review is a reconsideration or re- examination of a

decision or ruling of a subordinate officer by a
superior officer or higher administrative agency.
The appeal to a higher administrative body does
not preclude the latter from conducting further
hearing on issues of fact, in the absence of a law
prohibiting it.
Res judicata.
The doctrine of re judicata applies to decisions or
orders of administrative agencies that have
become final. Such decisions or orders are
conclusive upon the rights of the affected parties
as tough the same had been rendered by a court of
general jurisdiction. The principle of re judicata
may be disregarded if its application would involve
the sacrifice of justice to technicality.

D. Due process
(continued)

in

quasi-judicial

proceedings

1. Mabuhay Textile Mills v Ongpin: Procedural

due process applies in quasi-judicial proceedings.
Requirements of procedural due process
equally apply in administrative quasi-judicial
proceedings.
Although
a
speedy
administration of action implies a speedy
trial, speed is not the chief objective of a
trial.
Even in judicial proceedings, the dismissal of
an action upon a motion to dismiss
56

LIV
KIRK

constitutes a denial of due process if from a

consideration of the pleadings it appears
that there are issues of fact which cannot
be decided without a trial of the case on the
merits.
In quasi-judicial proceedings, the
counterpart rule is that where
an adjudicative fact is at issue, a trialtype hearing ought to be held.

2. Central Bank v CA: Due process may not

necessarily require prior hearing.
However, the court also held that due
process may not necessarily require a prior
hearing. The procedural rights of the bank
could not take precedence over the
substantive interests of depositors, creditors
and stockholders over the assets of the
bank.
But this should not altogether divest a bank
of its opportunity to be heard and present
evidence on arbitrariness and bad faith,
because (as it should) judicial review may
still be had by filing an appropriate pleading
with the court. The close now and hear
later scheme is grounded on practical and
legal considerations to prevent unwarranted
dissipation of the banks assets and a valid
exercise of police power to protect
depositors, creditors, stockholders, and the
public.

TRACY

CIELA

3. VINTA MARITIME CO., INC. v. NLRC: Due

process may not require hearing but only an
opportunity to be heard.
The court made further elucidation as to the
application of due process reqt in administrative
proceedings.
In labor cases, this Court has consistently
held
that
due
process
does
not
necessarily mean or require a hearing,
but simply an opportunity or a right to
be heard. The requirements of due process
are deemed to have been satisfied when
parties are given the opportunity to submit
position papers. The holding of an
adversarial trial is discretionary on the labor
arbiter and the parties cannot demand it as a
matter of right.
In administrative proceedings, technical
rules of procedure and evidence are not
strictly applied; administrative due
process cannot be fully equated with
due process in its strict judicial sense.
Due process was designed to afford an
opportunity to be heard, and an actual verbal
hearing need not always be held.

4. Matthews v Elderidge: Due process is

satisfied when one is given a meaningful
opportunity to be heard.

57

LIV
KIRK

The essence of due process is the

requirement that "a person in jeopardy of
serious loss [be given] notice of the case
against him and opportunity to meet it." All
that is necessary is that the procedures be
tailored, in light of the decision to be made,
to "the capacities and circumstances of
those who are to be heard" to insure that
they are given a meaningful opportunity to
present their case.

Three factors determining constitutional

sufficiency of administrative procedures:
1. Private interest that will be affected;
2. Risk of erroneous deprivation of
such interest and probable value of
safeguards; 3. Public interest vis--vis
government costs

E. Cease and desist orders

1. Pollution Adjudication Board v CA: Due
process need not be
Ex parte cease and desist orders are
permitted by law and regulations in
situations where the stopping of the
continuous discharge of pollutive and
untreated effluents into the rivers and other
inland waters of the Philippines cannot be
made to wait until protracted litigation over
the ultimate correctness or propriety of such
orders has run its full course, including

TRACY

CIELA

multiple and sequential appeals, which may

take several years.
The relevant pollution control statute and
implementing regulations were enacted and
promulgated in the exercise of that
pervasive, sovereign power to protect the
safety, health, and general welfare and
comfort of the public, as well as the
protection of plant and animal life, commonly
designated as the police power.
It is a constitutional commonplace that the
ordinary requirements of procedural due
process yield to the necessities of protecting
vital public interests like those here involved,
through the exercise of police power.
Where the establishment affected by an ex
parte cease and desist order contests the
correctness of the prima facie findings of the
Board, the Board must hold a public hearing
where such establishment would have an
opportunity to controvert the basis of such
ex parte order. That such an opportunity is
subsequently available is really all that is
required by the due process clause of the
Constitution in situations like that we have
here.

F. Right to counsel
2. Lumiqued v Exevea:
58

LIV
KIRK

The right to counsel is not an absolute right

and may thus be invoked or rejected in a
criminal proceeding and, with more reason,
in an administrative inquiry.
While investigations conducted by an
administrative body may ay times be akin to
a criminal proceeding, the fact remains that
a party in an administrative inquiry may or
may not be assisted by counsel, irrespective
of the nature of the charges and of
respondents capacity to represent himself,
and no duty rests on such body to furnish the
person being investigated with counsel.
In
an
administrative
proceeding,
a
respondent has the option of engaging the
services of counsel or not. Sec. 31 of Article
VII of the Civil Service Act says:
No officer or employee in the civil
service
shall
be
removed
or
suspended except for cause as
provided by law and after due process.
Provided, that the respondent shall
be entitled to a formal investigation if
he so elects, in which case he shall
have the right to appear and defend
himself at said investigation in person
or by counsel
Similarly, Sec. 39, par. 2 of Rule 14 of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing book 5 of EO

TRACY

CIELA

292 says: Either party may avail himself of

the services of counsel
Thus, the right to counsel is not
imperative
in
administrative
investigations because such inquiries
are conducted merely to determine
whether there are facts that merit
disciplinary measures against erring
public officers and employees, with the
purpose of maintaining the dignity of
government service.
The right to counsel is not indispensable to
due process unless required by the
constitution or law. In administrative
proceedings, the essence of due process is
simply the opportunity to explain ones side.
One may be heard, not solely by verbal
presentation, but also and perhaps even
more creditably as it is more practical than
oral arguments, through pleadings.
An actual hearing is not always an
indispensable part of due process. As long as
a party was given the opportunity to defend
his interests in due course, he cannot be said
to have been denied of due process.
Moreover, the constitutional mandate is
deemed satisfied if a person is granted an
opportunity to seek reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of.
59

LIV
KIRK

G. Decision, appeal, and judicial review

TRACY

CIELA

correlative right to enjoy the finality of

the
resolution
of
his/her
case.
(Videogram Regulatory Board v. CA)

1. Fortich v Corona
When no one seasonably filed a motion for
reconsideration, the OP lost jurisdiction to
reopen the case, more so modify its decision.
It thus had no more authority to entertain
the second motion for reconsideration. The
orderly administration of justice requires that
the judgements of a court or quasi-judicial
body reach a point of finality set by the law,
rules, and regulations.
While it is true that a litigation is not a
game of technicalities, it is equally true
that every case must be prosecuted in
accordance
with
the
prescribed
procedure to ensure an orderly and
speedy administration of justice. There
have been some instances wherein this
Court allowed a relaxation in the application
of the rules, but this flexibility was "never
intended to forge a bastion for erring
litigants to violate the rules with impunity." A
liberal interpretation and application of the
rules of procedure can be resorted to only in
proper cases and under justifiable causes
and circumstances.
Just as a losing party has the right to
file an appeal within the prescribed
period, the winning party also has the

VI.
Distinction
between
rule-making
and
adjudication
When the decision or the act is based on an
individualized determination, such as taxing
specified individuals based on individual facts and
circumstances, the power being exercised is
adjudicative in nature. Thus the requirement of due
process or right to be heard sets in.
However, when the agencys rule or act
applies on the basis of a general policy not
anchored on individual facts, or facts of individual
cases, the power exercised is legislative in nature.
1. Londoner v City and County of Denver:
quasi-judicial exercised based on individualized or
specific facts.
The court ruled here that given the
relatively small number of persons
concerned who were exceptionally
affected,
in
each
case
upon
individual
grounds,
the
same
persons affected had a right to a
hearing.
But the court qualified the ruling previously made
in Londoner in the subsequent case of Bimettalic.
2. Bi-Metallic Investment C. v State Board of
Equalization:
quasi-legislative
exercised
based on a general policy founded not on
60

LIV
KIRK

individualized determination of facts in

individual cases.
Where a rule of conduct applies to
more than a few people, it is
impracticable
that
everyone
should have a direct voice in its
adoption. The Constitution does
not require all public acts to be
done in town meeting or an
assembly of the whole.
General statutes within the state
power are passed that affect the
person or property of individuals,
sometimes to the point of ruin,
without giving them a chance to be
heard.
Their rights are protected in the only
way that they can be in a complex
society, by their power, immediate or
remote, over those who make the rule
(election).

3. Corona v United Harbor

As a general rule, notice and hearing,
as the fundamental requirements of
due process are essential only when
an administrative body exercises its
quasi-judicial
function.
In
the
performance of its executive or

TRACY

CIELA

legislative functions, such as issuing

rules
and
regulations,
an
administrative body need not comply
with the requirements of notice and
hearing. The fact that the pilots were
not consulted does not taint the
validity of the AO (quasi-legislative).
The license (in the case) is granted in
the form of an appointment which
allows them to engage in pilotage until
they retire at 70. The PPA-AO unduly
restricts the right of harbor pilots to
enjoy their profession before their
compulsory retirement.
It is this pre-evaluation cancellation
which primarily makes the AO
unreasonable
and
constitutionally
infirm. In a real sense, it is a
deprivation of property without due
process of law.

VII. Primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of remedies

A. Primary jurisdiction: This applies when (a)
the administrative body and the regular
court have concurrent and original
jurisdiction; (b) the question to be
resolved
requires
expertise
of
administrative agency; (c) the legislative
intent on the matter is to have uniformity
61

LIV
KIRK

in ruling; (d) the administrative agency is

performing a quasi-judicial function.
1. Villaflor v CA
Underlying the rulings of the
trial and appellate courts is the
doctrine
of
primary
jurisdiction; i.e., courts cannot
and
will
not
resolve
a
controversy
involving
a
question which is within the
jurisdiction of an administrative
tribunal, especially where the
question demands the exercise
of
sound
administrative
discretion requiring the special
knowledge,
experience
and
services of the administrative
tribunal to determine technical
and intricate matters of fact.
It applies where a claim is
originally cognizable in the
courts, and comes into play
whenever enforcement of the
claim requires the resolution of
issues which, under a regulatory
scheme, have been placed
within
the
special
competence
of
an
administrative body.
In such case, the judicial
process
is
suspended
pending referral of such issues
to the administrative body for

TRACY

CIELA

its view. In cases where the

doctrine of primary jurisdiction
is clearly applicable, the court
cannot arrogate unto itself the
authority
to
resolve
a
controversy, the jurisdiction
over which is initially lodged
with an administrative body of
special competence.

2. Philippine Veterans Bank v CA:

However,
while
primary
jurisdiction
to
determine
preliminary matters is vested in
an administrative agency, such
determination is subject to
challenge in the courts. The
courts jurisdiction in such a
case is not any less original and
exclusive
as
the
judicial
proceedings
are
not
a
continuation
of
the
administrative determination.

B. Exhaustion of administrative remedies:

This applies when (a) the administrative
agency is performing a quasi-judicial
function; (b) judicial review is available;
(c) and the court acts in its appellate
jurisdiction.
62

LIV
KIRK

1. Paat v CA
If
a
remedy
within
the
administrative machinery can
still be resorted to by giving the
administrative officer concerned
every opportunity to decide on
a matter that comes within his
jurisdiction, then such remedy
should be exhausted first before
the courts juridical power can
be
invoked.
Premature
invocation
of
courts
intervention is fatal to ones
cause of action.
Before a party is allowed to
seek the intervention of the
court, it is a pre-condition that
he should have availed of all the
means
of
administrative
processes afforded him. Hence,
if
a
remedy
within
the
administrative machinery can
still be resorted to by giving the
administrative officer concerned
every opportunity to decide on
a matter that comes within his
jurisdiction, then such remedy
should be exhausted first before
courts judicial power can be
sought.
The premature invocation of
courts intervention is fatal to
ones
cause
of
action. Accordingly, absent any

TRACY

CIELA

finding
of
waiver
or estoppel, the
case
is
susceptible of dismissal for lack
of cause of action.
This doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies was
not without its practical and
legal reasons, for one thing,
availment
of
administrative
remedy entails lesser expenses
and provides for a speedier
disposition of controversies.
However, this doctrine is a
relative one and its flexibility is
called upon by the peculiarity
and uniqueness of the factual
and circumstantial settings of a
case. Hence, it is disregarded
(1) when there is a violation of
due process,
(2) when the issue involved is
purely a legal question,
(3) when
the
administrative
action is patently illegal
amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction,
(4) when there is estoppel on
the
part
of
the
administrative
agency
concerned,16 (5) when there
is irreparable injury,
(5) when the respondent is a
department secretary whose
acts as an alter ego of the
President bears the implied
63

LIV
KIRK

and assumed approval of the

latter,
(6) when to require exhaustion
of administrative remedies
would be unreasonable,
(7) when it would amount to a
nullification of a claim,
(8) when the subject matter is a
private land in land case
proceedings,
(9) when the rule does not
provide a plain, speedy and
adequate remedy,
(10) and when there are
circumstances indicating the
urgency
of
judicial
intervention.

TRACY

CIELA

days from receipt of copy of the decision, a petition

for review in the court specified by the statute or,
in the absence thereof, in any court of competent
jurisdiction in accordance with the provision on
venue of the RoC.
Requirements: Service of copies of petition
upon agency and all parties of record;
petition to contain concise statement of the:
issues, grounds for review; accompanied by
a true copy of the record appealed from;
copies of the material records referred to;
and other papers. IT shall be under OATH.
Review shall be made on the basis of record
taken as a whole.

1. Beautifont, Inc. v CA

A. In general: It involves an ascertainment of WON

the findings of the administrative agency are
consistent with law, free from fraud or imposition,
supported by (substantial) evidence, and a
determination of WON there is GAD . . .

The consequent policy and practice

underlying administrative law is that
courts of justice should respect the
findings of fact of said administrative
agencies,
unless:
(a)
there
is
absolutely no evidence in support
thereof, (b) or such evidence is clearly,
manifestly and patently unsubstantial.

Sec. 25 of Admin Cod, Judicial Review: Any party

adversely affected or aggrieved by an agency may
file, against the agency or its officers and all
indispensable and necessary parties, within fifteen

Hence, courts of justice will not

generally interfere with purely
administrative matters which are
addressed to the sound discretion

VIII. Judicial Review

64

LIV
KIRK

of government agencies unless

there is a clear showing that the
latter acted arbitrarily or with
grave abuse of discretion, or
when they have acted in a
capricious and whimsical manner
such that their action may amount
to lack of jurisdiction.

2. Fuentes v Ca
Jurisprudence provides that as a
rule, the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court in cases brought
to it from the Court of Appeals is
limited to the review and revision
of
errors
of
law
allegedly
committed by the appellate court,
as its findings of fact are deemed
conclusive. As such this Court is not
duty-bound to analyze and weigh all
over again the evidence already
considered in the proceedings below.
This rule, however, is not without
exceptions. The findings of fact of
the Court of Appeals, which are as a
general rule deemed conclusive, may
admit of review by this Court, upon
showing of the party:

TRACY

CIELA

(1) when the factual findings of the

Court of Appeals and the trial court
are contradictory;
(2) when the findings are grounded
entirely on speculation, surmises, or
conjectures;
(3) when the inference made by the
Court of Appeals from its findings of
fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or
impossible;
(4) when there is grave abuse of
discretion in the appreciation of facts;
(5) when the appellate court, in
making its findings, goes beyond the
issues of the case, and such findings
are contrary to the admissions of both
appellant and appellee;
(6) when the judgment of the Court of
Appeals
is
premised
on
a
misapprehension of facts;
(7) when the Court of Appeals fails to
notice certain relevant facts which, if
properly considered, will justify a
different conclusion;
(8) when the findings of fact are
themselves conflicting;
(9) when the findings of fact are
conclusions without citation of the
specific evidence on which they are
based; and
(10) when the findings of fact of the
Court of Appeals are premised on the
absence of evidence but such findings
are contradicted by the evidence on
record.

65

LIV
KIRK

TRACY

CIELA

The court exercises appellate jurisdiction.

B. Petition for review

C. Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus

CA has jurisdiction
Based on question of law, fact, or both
Applies to appeals from judgements or final
orders or resolutions of or authorized by any
quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its
quasi-judicial functions. This does not apply
to judgements or finals orders issued under
the Labord Code.
Appeal taken within 15 days; from notice of
award, judgement, final order, resolution; or
from date of its last publication; or of the
denial of the Motion for New Trial or
Reconsideration.
Upon proper motion and payment of docket
fees
and
before
the
expiration
of
reglementary period, the CA may grant an
additional 15 days.
No further extension may be granted except
for the most compelling reason and in no
case shall it exceed 15 days.
Award, judgement, final order, or resolution
shall not be stayed unless the CA directs
otherwise.
Court or agency is not
petitioner or respondent.

impleaded

1. Certiorari (special civil action): (a) based

on GAD etc., (b) no appeal, no plain or
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law; (b) admin-agency is exercising
quasi-judicial function; (c) by filing a verified
petition in the proper court; (d) petition to
allege facts with certainty; (e) the prayer is
to annul or modify the proceeding of tribunal,
board, officer, etc AND general prayer for
such other reliefs.
This is a remedy designed fir the
correction of errors of jurisdiction and not
errors of judgement.
2. Prohibition: (a) also based on GAD etc., (b)
no appeal, no plain or speedy and adequate
remedy; (b) agency performs quasi-judicial
function; (c) prayer is to prohibit or stop
proceeding (a preventive remedy while act is
yet to be done); (d) although act has already
been done, prohibition may lie if act is
patently illegal and unconstitutional and
creates a mischief and dangerous precedent
whereby those perpetuating the act could
avoid judicial intervention by merely speedily
and stealthily completing the illegal act (Tan
v Comelec).

as
66

LIV
KIRK

Does not apply against legislative

functions (Ruperto v Torres)
3. Mandamus: (a) public officer/agency has a
positive duty that is ministerial (also to
discretionary:
when the official/agency
refuses to exercise the duty itself); (b) right
of petitioner is clear and controlling (availed
of only by the party who has a direct legal
interest in the right sought to be enforced,
except if it involves public right as in Tanada
v Tuvera); (c) No plain, speedy, ad adequate
remedy; (d) purpose is to compel a party to
perform an act arising out of a positive duty
enjoined by law.
It does not issue to control or
review the exercise of discretion of a public
officer.

The petitions shall be filed within 60 days from

notice of judgement, order, or resolution. If there is
MFR or MNT, 60 days shall start from notice of the
denial of the motion.
Filed in SC: if it relates to acts or omission of lower
courts, corporation, board, officer, or person in the
RTC.
Filed in CA: WON in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
and only in the CA if it involves acts or omissions of
quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by
law or these rules.
Sandiganbayan: in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

TRACY

CIELA

No extension of time except for compelling reason

and no in excess of 15 days.

D. Appeal by certiorari (Rule 45)

SC has jurisdiction
Based only on questions of law
Applies to appeals from judgements or final
orders or resolutions of the CA, Sandiganbayan,
RTC, other courts
Filed within 15 days from notice of
judgements, final orders, resolutions; or denial of
the MNT or MFR
Extension of 30 days may be granted for
justifiable reasons
Judgement is stayed

IX. Right to information

1987 Constitution is Art. 111, Sec. 7 states:
The right of the people to information on matters of
public concern shall be recognized. Access to
official records, and to documents, and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, as well as to government research data
used as basis for policy development, shall be
67

LIV
KIRK

afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as

may be provided by law.
1973 Constitution, Art. IV Sec. 6 provides:
The right of the people to information on 'matters
of public concern shall be recognized. Access to
official records, and to documents and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, shall be afforded the citizen subject to
such limitations as may be provided by law.
II. Rationale
The cornerstone of this republican system of
government is delegation of power by the people to
the State. The postulate of public office as a public
trust, institutionalized in the Constitution (in Art. XI,
Sec. 1) to protect the people from abuse of
governmental power, would certainly be were
empty words if access to such information of public
concern is denied, except under limitations
prescribed by implementing legislation adopted
pursuant to the Constitution.
1. Legaspi v CSC
The petitioner has personality or
standing to sue. When the question is
one of public right and the object of
the mandamus is to procure the
enforcement of a public duty, the
people are regarded as the real party
in interest and the relator at whose
instigation
the
proceedings
are
instituted need not show that he has
any legal or special interest in the

TRACY

CIELA

result, it being sufficient to show that

he is a citizen and as such interested
in the execution of the laws.
The
Constitution
provides
the
guarantee of adopting policy of full
public disclosure subject to reasonable
conditions prescribed by law as in
regulation in the manner of examining
the public records by the government
agency in custody thereof. But the
constitutional
guarantee
to
information on matters of public
concern is not absolute. Under the
Constitution, access to official records,
papers, etc., are "subject to limitations
as may be provided by law" (Art. III,
Sec. 7, second sentence).
i. TO fall within right to access,
the information must be of
public interest concert.
ii. It must not fall under the
exemption as provided by law
(information relating to national
security).
iii. If a and b are met, then the
right to info applies.
1. The agencies/State can
only
go
as
far
as
regulating the manner of
accessing/disclosing
information to: prevent
damage or loss to public
68

LIV
KIRK

records,
undue
interference of duties of
said agencies, to protect
exercise of consti right of
other people.
2. Agency
can
only
regulate, but not prohibit
the access to these
information.
Therefore
the duty to disclose info
and afford access to
public
records
not
discretionary (but may
regulate
the
manner
only).
In determining whether or not a
particular information is of public
concern there is no rigid test which
can be applied. "Public concern" like
"public interest" is a term that eludes
exact definition. In the final analysis, it
is for the courts to determine in a case
by case basis whether the matter at
issue is of interest or importance, as it
relates to or affects the public.
2. Valmonte v Belmoonte

The right to information is an

essential premise of a meaningful

TRACY

CIELA

right to speech and expression.

But this is not to say that the
right to information is merely an
adjunct
of
and
therefore
restricted in application by the
exercise of the freedoms of
speech and of the press. The right
to information goes hand-in-hand
with the constitutional policies
of full
public
disclosure and
honesty in the public service. It is
meant to enhance the widening
role
of
the
citizenry
in
governmental decision-making as
well as in checking abuse in
government
Before mandamus may issue, it must
be clear that the information sought
1. is of "public interest" or "public
concern," and
o It is for the courts to
determine on a case by
case basis whether the
matter at issue is of
interest or importance, as
it relates to or affects the
public.
o In the Taada case the
public concern deemed
covered
by
the
constitutional right to
information was the need
for adequate notice to
the public of the various
69

LIV
KIRK

TRACY

CIELA

laws
which
are
to
regulate the actions and
conduct of citezens. In
Legaspi,
it
was
the
"legitimate concern of
citizens of ensure that
government
positions
requiring
civil
service
eligibility are occupied
only by persons who are
eligibles.
2. is not exempted by law from the
operation of the constitutional
guarantee
The right to privacy as such is
accorded recognition independently of
its identification with liberty. The
concept of limited government has
always
included
the
idea
that
governmental powers stop short of
certain intrusions into the personal life
of the citizen. UItimate and pervasive
control of the individual, in all aspects
of his life, is the hallmark of the
absolute State. In contrast, a system
of limited government safeguards a
private sector, which belongs to the
individual, firmly distinguishing it from
the public sector, which the state can
control.

70