Administrative law

Administrative law is a branch of public law which governs the organization and procedures of administrative
agencies of the government. It is granted with both quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers without prejudice to the
power of the court for review when there exists grave abuse of discretion. It also refers to the processes and rules applied
whenever there is an action done by any agency of the government performing administrative or executive functions which
involves individual rights.

Sources:
• Constitution
• Statutes
• Judicial decisions
• EO, AO

Purpose
1. Adjectival/ procedural- prescribes procedure an agency must follow
2. Substantive- primary rights and duties on the operation of labor practices

Government of the Republic of the Philippines refers to the 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, the provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions or other forms of local government.

National Government refers to the entire machinery of the central government, as distinguished from the different forms
of local governments.

Local Government refers to the political subdivisions established by or in accordance with the Constitution.

Agency of the Government refers to any of the various units of the Government, including a department, bureau, office,
instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled corporations, or a local government or a distinct unit therein.

National Agency refers to a unit of the National Government.

Local Agency refers to a local government or a distinct unit therein.

Department refers to an executive department created by law. For purposes of Book IV, this shall include any
instrumentality, as herein defined, having or assigned the rank of a department, regardless of its name or designation.

Bureau refers to any principal subdivision or unit of any department. For purposes of Book IV, this shall include any
principal subdivision or unit of any instrumentality given or assigned the rank of a bureau, regardless of actual name or
designation, as in the case of department-wide regional offices.

Office refers, within the framework of governmental organization, to any major functional unit of a department or bureau
including regional offices. It may also refer to any position held or occupied by individual persons, whose functions are
defined by law or regulation.

Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the department framework vested
within special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds,
and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. This term includes regulatory agencies, chartered
institutions and government-owned or controlled corporations.

Regulatory agency refers to any agency expressly vested with jurisdiction to regulate, administer or adjudicate matters
affecting substantial rights and interests of private persons, the principal powers of which are exercised by a collective body,
such as a commission, board or council.
Chartered institution refers to any agency organized or operating under a special charter, and vested by law with functions
relating to specific constitutional policies or objectives. This term includes the state universities and colleges and the
monetary authority of the State.

Government-owned or controlled corporation refers to any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, vested
with functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the Government
directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or, where applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to the extent
of at least fifty-one (51) per cent of its capital stock: Provided, That government-owned or controlled corporations may be
further categorized by the Department of the Budget, the Civil Service Commission, and the Commission on Audit for
purposes of the exercise and discharge of their respective powers, functions and responsibilities with respect to such
corporations.

ADMINLAW/ Tacder1
"Officer" as distinguished from "clerk" or "employee", refers to a person whose duties, not being of a clerical or manual
nature, involves the exercise of discretion in the performance of the functions of the government. When used with reference
to a person having authority to do a particular act or perform a particular function in the exercise of governmental power,
"officer" includes any government employee, agent or body having authority to do the act or exercise that function.

"Employee", when used with reference to a person in the public service, includes any person in the service of the government
or any of its agencies, divisions, subdivisions or instrumentalities.

Central Bank vs CA
Central Bank is not part of the National Government and it does not require Section 607 of the Administrative Code which
refers to the “expenditures of three thousand or more by the National Government which requires certification of the
Auditor General that the amount is available and is duly appropriated.
PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT- includes national government, local/ cities, municipal government, government owned and
controlled corporation and agencies
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT- refers to the central government like the executive, legislative and judiciary
Under the Revised Administrative Code, Section 607 refers to the national government which Central Bank is not part of.
Central bank is authorized to adopt, alter and use its corporate seal, rent/ lease/own acquire its own property, can sue or
be sued. It has a capital of its own and operates under a budget prepared by its own monetary board. It does not depend
on the national government for the financing of its operations.
Exception: Bureau of Public Works is a national government construction.
Bacani vs NaCoCo
NaCoCo is not a government entity and is not exempted from the payment of fees in question.
Section 2 of Revised Administrative Code defines government as that institution which refers to national government to
what our constitution has established composed of three great powers; Executive, Legislative and Judiciary which has a
twofold function.
Constitute- compulsory in nature
Ministrant- undertaken only by way of advancing general interest and are merely optional
NaCoCo is only ministrant because it promotes economic welfare of the people. It belongs to the GOCC which is given a
power separate and distinct from our government
Mecano vs COA
Mecano is entitled for reimbursement incurred from his hospitalization under Section 699 of RAC 1917.
Revised Administrative Code of 1917 and Administrative Code of 1987 should be read in pari materia and be interpreted
in the light of each other. There are several matters treated in the old code which are not found in the new code such as;
• Notaries public
• Leave law
• Public bonding law
• Military reservations
• Claims for sickness benefits
Luzon Development Bank vs LDB Employees and Atty. Garcia as voluntary arbitrator
Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over appeals of decisions rendered by voluntary arbitrators because they are
considered as instrumentalities falling within the concept of “quasi-judicial instrumentalities.”
Section 9 BP Blg 129 vests Court of Appeals exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of RTC including quasi-judicial
agencies and instrumentalities.
Being an instrumentality, the voluntary arbitrator performs a state function delegated to him under the provisions of the
labor code.
Preclaro vs Sandiganbayan
A private individual hired on a contractual basis by the government is a public officer and is an instrumentality of the
government. The privilege and authority to make favorable recommendations and act favorably in behalf of the government
are duties of a project manager for a government.
Section 6 of the Administrative code of 1987 provides for the character of non-career service.
Non-career service in particular is characterized by -

1. entrance on bases other than those of the usual test of merit and fitness utilized for the career service;
2. tenure which is limited to a period specified by law, or which is coterminous with that of the appointing authority
or subject to his pleasure, or which is limited to the duration of a particular project for which purpose employment
was made.
The Non-Career Service shall include:

1. Elective officials and their personal or confidential staff;

2. Secretaries and other officials of Cabinet rank who hold their positions at the pleasure of the President and their
personal or confidential staff(s);
3. Chairman and members of commissions and boards with fixed terms of office and their personal or confidential
staff;

ADMINLAW/ Tacder2
 4. Contractual personnel or those whose employment in the government is in accordance with a special contract to
undertake a specific work or job, requiring special or technical skills not available in the employing agency, to be
accomplished within a specific period, which in no case shall exceed one year, and performs or accomplishes the
specific work or job, under his own responsibility with a minimum of direction and supervision from the
hiring agency; and
5. Emergency and seasonal personnel.

MIAA vs CA
MIAA is not a GOCC but an instrumentality of the National Government and thus exempt from taxes. When the law vests
in a government instrumentality corporate powers, the instrumentality does not become a corporation. Unless the
government instrumentality is organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, it remains a government instrumentality
exercising not only governmental but also corporate powers.
Thus, MIAA exercises the governmental powers of eminent domain, police authority and the levying of fees and charges.
At the same time, MIAA exercises “all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law, insofar as these powers are
not inconsistent with the provisions of this Executive Order.”

What is a GOCC?
• Section 2 (13) AC 1987
Government-owned or controlled corporation refers to any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation,
vested with functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the
Government directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or, where applicable as in the case of stock
corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-one (51) percent of its capital stock:

What is 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
enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter.

Republic thru NPC vs Rambuyong

NPC is government instrumentality thus, Atty. Rambuyong should not appear as counsel against it.
NPC is a government instrumentality with the enormous task of undertaking development of hydroelectric generation of
power and production of electricity from other sources, as well as transmission of electric power on a nationwide basis, to
improve the quality of life pursuant to the State policy embodied in Section 9, Article 2 of 1987 Constitution.
Section 90 (b) (1) of the Local Government Code, sanggunian members are prohibited to appear as counsel before any court
wherein any office, agency or instrumentality of the government is an adverse party.
NPC is a government-owned and controlled corporation, it is embraced within the term “instrumentality.”

Section 2 of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides that:

xxxx
• (4) “Agency of the Government” refers to any of the various units of the Government, including a department,
bureau, office, instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled corporations, or a local government or a
distinct unit therein.
• (10) Instrumentality— refers to 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 enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. This term includes
regulatory agencies, chartered institutions and government-owned or controlled corporations.”

Maceda vs Macaraig
National Power Corporation still possessed tax exemption after the repeal made in PD 938. Being a non-profit organization,
when the NPC was exempted from all forms of taxes, duties, fees, imposts and other charges, under P.D. No. 938, the law
means exactly what it says, it exempts NPC from all forms of taxes including those that were imposed directly or indirectly
on petroleum products used in its operation.
Provisions granting exemptions to government agencies must be liberally construed in favor of the agency exempted.
Iron and Steel Authority vs CA
Republic of the Philippines is entitled to substitute For ISA even if its statutory term has expired. According to the rules
of court, entities which are authorized by law to institute actions can be parties to a civil action. The Republic itself is a
body corporate and juridical person vested with the full panoply of powers and attributes which are compendiously
described as “legal personality.”
The enabling statute of ISA expressly authorized it to enter into contracts in behalf of the government. ISA is also a non-
incorporated agency or instrumentality of the Republic of the Philippines. When the statutory term of a non-incorporated
agency expires, the powers, duties and functions as well as the assets and liabilities of that agency revert back to, and are
re-assumed by, the Republic of the Philippines, in the absence of special provisions of law specifying some other disposition.
Non-incorporated Agency – a government agency without any separate juridical personality of its own, enjoys immunity
from suit because it is invested with an inherent power of sovereignty.
Incorporated Agency - a government agency vested with a juridical personality separate and distinct from the Republic.
ADMINLAW/ Tacder3
 Section 2 of the Administrative Code of 1987 states:

1) Government of the Republic of the Philippines refers to the 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, the provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions or other forms of local government.

4) Agency of the Government refers to any of the various units of the Government, including a department, bureau, office,
instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled corporation, or a local government or a distinct unit therein.


(10) Instrumentality refers to 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 enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. This term includes regulatory agencies, chartered
institutions and government-owned or controlled corporations.

Powers and Functions of Administrative Agencies

What is an administrative body or agency?

It is a body other than the courts and the legislature which carries out the laws entrusted to it for enforcement or
execution and is granted with both quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers

What are the scope of its powers?

1. Express and implied powers
Its powers and limitations are measured by the constitution or by the law creating them.
It cannot arrogate unto itself any power in the absence of a legislation. Administrative
agencies have only powers conferred to it by a statute which must be liberally construed
or interpreted to enable them to discharge their assigned duties in accordance with the
legislative purpose. Administrative agencies only have such power as are necessarily
implied in the exercise of its express powers.
Where a general power is conferred to it by law, all the power necessary in the exercise of
its performance is also conferred unto it.
2. It has no inherent powers
Absence any provision of law, administrative agencies do not possess the inherent powers
to give punishment which is an attribute of the court.
3. It cannot confer quasi-judicial power upon itself.
Administrative agencies are tribunals of limited jurisdiction which is dependent upon the
provisions of the statute reposing powers in them.

What are the nature of its powers?

1. Special and limited
2. Commensurate with the duties to be performed and purposes to be lawfully effected
3. It has the presumptions of constitutionality and legality

Powers of administrative agencies

1. Investigatory powers
2. Quasi-legislative power
3. Quasi-judicial power

Types of administrative bodies

1. Carry governmental function BIR, BoC, CSC, LRA
2. Perform business services to the public PhilPost, PNR, NFA, NHA
3. Regulate business affected with public interest NTC, LTFRB, Insurance Commission, ERB, HLURB,
Bureau of Mines and Geosciences
4. Regulate private businesses and individuals under SEC, DDA Board, CID, PRC
police power
5. Adjudicate and decide industrial controversies NLRC, POEA
6. Grant privileges GSIS, SSS, PAO, Phil. Veterans Administration
7. Makes the government a private party COA
8. Doing business activity PAGCOR, PCSO

ADMINLAW/ Tacder4
 Biraogo vs Phil Truth Commission
The creation of the PTC is unconstitutional because it does not fall within the power of the president to reorganize his
office under Section 31 of the Revised Administrative Code. The word reorganization contemplates:
1. restructuring the internal organization of the Office of the President Proper by abolishing, consolidating or
merging units thereof or transferring functions from one unit to another;

2. transferring any function under the Office of the President to any other Department/Agency or vice versa; or
3. transferring any agency under the Office of the President to any other Department/Agency or vice versa.
Reorganization involves the reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy and
redundancy of functions. The creation of an office is never mentioned, much less envisioned in the said provision. Section
31 cannot legitimize the creation of PTC because the delegated authority of the president to structurally reorganize the
Office of the President to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency does not include the power to create an entirely new
office.

Kapisanan ng mga Kawani ng Energy Reg Board vs Commissioner

There was a valid abolition. Section 38 of RA 9136 provides for the abolition of the existing ERB and the creation of ERC.
All laws enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. To justify the nullification of a law, there must be a clear and
unequivocal breach of the Constitution. KERB failed to show any breach of the Constitution. A public office is created by
the Constitution or by law or by an officer or tribunal to which the power to create the office has been delegated by the
legislature. The power to create an office carries with it the power to abolish.
Under Section 2 of RA 6656 a reorganization is done in bad faith when:
1. Where there is a significant increase in the number of positions 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;
Where incumbents
are replaced by those less qualified in terms of status of appointment, performance and merit;
3. Where there is a reclassification of offices in the department or agency concerned and the reclassified offices perform
substantially the same function as the original offices;
4. Where the removal violates the order of separation provided in Section 3 hereof.”
A valid order of abolition must not only come from a legitimate body, it must also be made in good faith. An abolition is
made in good faith when it is not made for political or personal reasons, or when it does not circumvent the constitutional
security of tenure of civil service employees.
Abolition of an office may be brought about by reasons of economy, or to remove redundancy of functions, or a clear and
explicit constitutional mandate for such termination of employment.
ERC assumed the functions of ERB since it has new and expanded functions which are intended to meet the specific
needs of a deregulated power industry.
CHREA vs CHR
CHR is not exempted from the long arm of the Salary Standardization Law. RA 6758, An Act Prescribing a Revised
Compensation and Position Classification System in the Government and For Other Purposes, or the Salary
Standardization Law, provides that it is the DBM that shall establish and administer a unified Compensation and
Position Classification System. This power to “administer” is not purely ministerial in character. The word to administer
means to control or regulate in behalf of others; to direct or superintend the execution, application or conduct of; and to
manage or conduct public affairs, as to administer the government of the state.
Irrefragably, it is within the turf of the DBM Secretary to disallow the upgrading, reclassification, and creation of
additional plantilla positions in the CHR based on its finding that such scheme lacks legal justification.
Notably, the CHR itself recognizes the authority of the DBM to deny or approve the proposed reclassification of positions
as evidenced by its three letters to the DBM requesting approval thereof. As such, it is now estopped from now claiming
that the nod of approval it has previously sought from the DBM is a superfluity. CHR is not a constitutional commission,
and as such enjoys fiscal autonomy. Along the same vein, the Administrative Code, on Distribution of Powers of
Government, the constitutional commissions shall include only the CSC, the COMELEC, and the COA, which are granted
independence and fiscal autonomy. In contrast, Chapter 5, Section 29 thereof, is silent on the grant of similar powers to
the other bodies including the CHR. Thus:
• SEC. 24. Constitutional Commissions. – The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be independent, are the
Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.
• SEC. 26. Fiscal Autonomy. – The Constitutional Commissions shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. The approved annual
appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released.
• SEC. 29. Other Bodies. – There shall be in accordance with the Constitution, an Office of the Ombudsman, a
Commission on Human Rights, and independent central monetary authority, and a national police commission.
Likewise, as provided in the Constitution, Congress may establish an independent economic and planning
agency.
From the 1987 Constitution and the Administrative Code, it is abundantly clear that the CHR is not among the class of
Constitutional Commissions. As expressed in the oft-repeated maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the express
mention of one person, thing, act or consequence excludes all others. Stated otherwise, expressium facit cessare tacitum
– what is expressed puts an end to what is implied.
Nor is there any legal basis to support the contention that the CHR enjoys fiscal autonomy. In essence, fiscal autonomy
entails freedom from outside control and limitations, other than those provided by law. It is the freedom to allocate and
utilize funds granted by law, in accordance with law, and pursuant to the wisdom and dispatch its needs may require
from time to time.
ADMINLAW/ Tacder5
 CHR as a constitutional body enjoying limited fiscal autonomy, in the sense that it is entitled to the automatic and regular
release of its approved annual appropriations; nonetheless, it is still required to conform to the Salary Standardization
Law.
AMIN and MAMALO vs Executive Secretary Ermita
The reorganization was valid. The transformation of DAR to Department of Land Reform, PCUP (Urban Poor) and NCIP
under the control of DLR in within the power and control of the President. The constitution confers the power and control
over department, bureaus to the president alone. Executive power id the power to enforce and administer laws. The
president, being the chief executive has the authority to assume directly the function of the executive departments,
bureau or office, or interfere with the discretion of its officials. Thus, he is granted administrative power over offices under
his control.

Administrative Code of 1987 SEC. 31.

- As thus provided by law, the President may transfer any agency under the Office of the President to any other
department or agency, subject to the policy in the Executive Office and in order to achieve simplicity, economy and
efficiency. Gauged against these guidelines, the challenged executive orders may not be said to have been issued
with grave abuse of discretion or in violation of the rule of law.

- Finally, in transferring the NCIP to the DAR as an attached agency, the President effectively tempered the exercise of
presidential authority and considerably recognized that degree of independence. The Administrative Code of 1987
categorizes administrative relationships into

1. supervision and control,

2. administrative supervision, and
3. attachment.

With respect to the third category, it has been held that an attached agency has a larger measure of independence from
the Department to which it is attached than one which is under departmental supervision and control or administrative
supervision. This is borne out by the “lateral relationship” between the Department and the attached agency. The
attachment is merely for “policy and program coordination.” Indeed, the essential autonomous character of a board is
not negated by its attachment to a commission.
• Note: Legislative as characterize from Executive
The legislative power is the authority under the constitution is to makes laws, alter and repeal the same. It is
vested in the congress and is broad, general and comprehensive. Any power deemed legislative is lodged in the
Congress unless the constitution has lodged it elsewhere.

Bagaoisan vs Nat’l Tobacco Administration

The reorganization of NTA is valid. It is an act well within the authority of the president motivated and carried out in good
faith. The issued EO has not abolished the NTA but merely mandated its reorganization through streamlining.

Constitutional provisions and other statute granting the president’s power and control:
• Article 7 Section 17 Constitution- grants the president’s control of all executive departments, bureaus,
agencies and offices which may justify an executive action to inactivate the functions of a particular office or to
carry out reorganization measures under a broad authority of law.
• Section 78 of the General Provisions of Republic Act No. 8522- (General Appropriations Act of FY 1998) has
decreed that the President may direct changes in the organization and key positions in any department, bureau
or agency pursuant to Article VI, Section 25 of the Constitution,
• Article VI, Section 25 of the Constitution- grants to the Executive Department the authority to recommend
the budget necessary for its operation. Evidently, this grant of power includes the authority to evaluate each and
every government agency, including the determination of the most economical and efficient staffing pattern,
under the Executive Department.
• Section 78 of Republic Act No. 8760- provides the mandate that the actual streamlining and productivity
improvement in agency organization and operation shall be effected pursuant to Circulars or Orders issued for
the purpose by the Office of the President.
• Section 31, Book III of Executive Order No. 292 (otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987), the
President, subject to the policy in the Executive Office and in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency,
shall have the continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the President.
The law has spoken clearly. We are left only with the duty to sustain.

ADMINLAW/ Tacder6
 Quasi-legislative power

Administrative agency is granted a rule-making power to implement the law it

is entrusted to enforce. It has the power to amend, repeal or alter its own rules
and regulations. It has the force and effect of law and is binding on the agency
and all those dealing with the agency. However, a regulation not adopted
pursuant to law is no law and has neither the force and effect of a law.

Legislative Power Quasi-legislative Power

Power to make laws and Power of administrative agencies to issue administrative rules and
the power to fix a regulations in order to implement the law and the legislative policy fixed
legislative policy by the legislature.
The administrative agency is acting in a legislative capacity,
supplementing the statute, filling in the details, or "making the law," and
usually acting pursuant to a specific delegation of legislative power to
implement the broad policies laid down in a statute
Cannot be delegated by Power of subordinate legislation
legislature to The statute has delegated power to the agency to adopt the rule; and It
administrative agencies provides that the rule shall, if within the delegated power, have
authoritative force

Conditions:
The power to promulgate a rule is a valid delegation of power provided that the 2 conditions below must occur
1. The statute is complete in itself setting forth the policy to be executed
2. Statute must fix a standard, mapping out the boundaries of the agency’s authority to which it
must conform

Prospective application
A stature operates prospectively only and not retroactively unless the contrary is provided.

Requisites for the validity of administrative rules and regulations

1. Must be issued in the authority of law
2. Must not be contrary to the constitution
3. Must be promulgated according to the prescribed procedure with notice and gearing in certain cases in order to
satisfy due process
4. Publishes in full in its purpose is to enforce or implement existing laws pursuant to a valid delegation

Limitations:
1. It may not make rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution or defeat the
purpose of a statute
2. It may not enlarge nor embrace matters, restrict or limit the controlling statute. When there is a conflict between
the basic law and the rules and regulation, the basic law prevails
3. Must be uniform in operation, reasonable, not unfair nor discriminatory

Requirement of reasonableness
1. There must be a reasonable relationship to the purpose sought to be accomplished
2. It must be supported by good reasons
3. It must be free form constitutional infirmities or arbitrariness

How is rule-making power granted?

1. By some legislative act
2. By implication for the efficient exercise of powers expressly granted

Kinds of rulemaking power

1. Supplementary
2. Interpretative
3. contingent

ADMINLAW/ Tacder7
How to determine the validity or rules?
1. Legislative rule
2. Interpretative rule

Legislative and interpretative rules distinguished:

Legislative Interpretative
Power to may be issued only under may be issued as a necessary incident of the
create new law express delegation of law, administration of a regulatory statute. Indeed, one
charged with such administration must necessarily
interpret its provisions before he can apply them to
the particular situations, whether he embodies
such interpretations in the generalized form of
regulations or confines them to the case-by-case
approach.
Presence of Legislative regulations are Interpretative regulations are but statutory
statutory said to have the force and interpretations, which have behind them no
sanction. effect of law unless they are statutory sanction. Such regulations, whether so
ultra vires or were issued expressly authorized or issued only as an incident
under an unconstitutional of statutory administration, merely embody, so far
delegation. as their legal effects go, administrative
interpretations of an existing law
Binding force Valid legislative rules have Merely interpret previous law
and effect. the same force and effect as
valid statutes. When an administrative agency renders an opinion
or issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets
a pre-existing law and the administrative
interpretation is at best advisory for it is the courts
that finally determine what the law means.

No vested right can be acquired on a wrong

construction of the law by administrative officials
and such wrong interpretation does not place the
government in estoppel to correct or overrule the
same.

General Classification of issuances

1. Circulars
issuances prescribing policies, rules, procedures promulgated pursuant to law
applicable to individuals and organization outside government and designed to
supplement the law or to provide means of carrying them out
2. Orders
Directed to particular offices, officials, employees concerning specific matters for
observance and compliance by all concerned

Numbering system of issuances- must be properly identified beginning with number 1

Official Logbook- record in chronological order all final acts, decisions, transactions, date which is controlling and must
be in custody with the administrative officer.

Retroactive operation of rules, regulations and ruling

The power of an administrative body to adopt rules and regulations includes the power to give them a retroactive
effect within the limits specified by the statute. Rulings must be applied prospectively only if it fails to provide that
it can operate retroactively. A new ruling must not be applied retroactively if by doing so would be unreasonable
and inequitable.

Amendment or repeal of administrative rules and regulations

An administrative agency has the power to amend, alter or repeal rules and regulations promulgated by it. By doing
so, it does not necessarily mean that the earlier rule was unreasonable but because the exercise of such discretion would
benefit public interest. Such power to amend, alter or repeal is not subject to judicial control. Administrative agencies must
not ignore procedural rules but parties may voluntarily waive its compliance founded on acts and verbal declarations.
Amendment cannot also be permitted if it is intended for the sole benefit and convenience of the agency. It is also not allowed
to amend, or promulgate special rules of procedure for the purpose of affecting particular case

ADMINLAW/ Tacder8
Requirements of notice of hearing and publication
NO NEED
- When only administrative interpretations and does not apply to named or specified parties
- Those internal in nature regulating only the personnel of administrative agency and not public
When publication is needed
- When rules and rates apply to a named or specified parties
- When the law specifically requires that it be published
- When it has the force and effect of law

PBCom vs CIR
The revenue regulation which alters the reglementary period from 2 years to 10 years is invalid. Such circular created a
clear inconsistency with the provision of the National Internal Revenue Code. BIR did not simply interpret the law; rather
it legislated guidelines contrary to the statute passed by congress.
Revenue memorandum circulars are considered administrative rulings which are issued from time to time by the CIR’s
executive officers, whose duty to enforce it, is entitled of great respect but not conclusive and will be ignored if judicially
found to be erroneous. Courts will not countenance administrative issuances that override the law they seek to apply and
implement. Administrative issuances are mere interpretations and not expansions of the provisions of law. In case of
emergency, the law prevails.
BIR did not simply interpret the law; rather it legislated guidelines contrary to the statute passed by the Congress.
Ople vs Torres
The National Computerized Identification Reference System is unconstitutional because it is a usurpation of the legislative
powers of the congress since it requires a legislative act. AO308 involves a subject matter that is not appropriate to be
covered by an administrative order. It must be in harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of
implementing the law and carrying out legislative policy. The AO unduly expanded the limits of administrative legislation
and consequently erodes the plenary power of congress to make laws. Regulations are supposed to be a substitute for
the general policy-making that congress enacts in the form of a public law. Although administrative orders are entitled
with respect, the authority to prescribe rules and regulations is not an independent source of power to make laws.
Legislative Power
• Authority under the constitution to make, alter and repeal laws
• Vested in the congress
• Possesses a plenary power for all purposes of civil government
• Ant power deemed to be legislative is necessarily possessed by the congress unless the constitution has lodged
it elsewhere.
• Embrace all subjects and extends to matters of general concern or common interest
Executive Power
• vested in the president
• power to enforce and administer laws
• power of carrying laws into practical operation and enforcing their due observance
• the President
- Chief Executive
- Represents the government as a whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced by officials and employees
of his department.
- Has control over the executive department, bureaus and offices which means that he has the authority
to assume directly the functions of the executive department and interfere with the discretion of its
officials
- Has the duty to supervise the enforcement of laws for the maintenance of general peace and public order.
- He is granted administrative power over bureaus and offices under his control to enable him to discharge
his duties effectively
Administrative Power
• concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental organs
• enables the president to fix a uniform standard of administrative efficiency and check official conduct of his
agents
• enables him to issue administrative rules, orders and regulations
Administrative Order- are acts of the president which relates to particular aspects of governmental operation in
pursuance of his duties as administrative head. It is an ordinance issued by the president which relates to specific aspects
in the administrative operation of government.
Dadole vs COA
DBM’s Local Budget Circular is void for going beyond the supervisory powers of the president.
Although the constitution guarantees autonomy to LGU’s, the exercise of local autonomy remains subject to the power
of control by congress and power of supervision to the president. Cabinet and other executive officials are subject to the
power of control of the president who can remove them from office or changed their actions and decisions. However,
political subdivision or elected officials whose power emanates from the electorate only become subject to the
president’s supervision so long as their acts are within the sphere of their legitimate powers. The president may not
withhold or alter any authority or power given by the constitution. The president can only interfere in the affairs and

ADMINLAW/ Tacder9
 activities of an LGU if he sees that the latter has acted contrary to law. Any directive by the president or any of his alter
ego seeking to alter the wisdom of a law conforming judgment on local affairs of a local government unit is a nullity
because it violates the principle of local autonomy and separation of powers of the executive and legislative
departments in governing municipal corporations.
DBM over-stepped its power of supervision over the LGU by imposing a prohibition that did not correspond with the law
it sought to implement.
Supervision- overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. If
the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them, the former may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them
perform their duties
Control- the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer has] done in the
performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.
Supervisory power- the power of mere oversight over an inferior body; it does not include any restraining authority
over such body
Officers in control- lay down the rules in the performance or accomplishment of an act. If these rules are not followed,
they may, in their discretion, order the act undone or redone by their subordinates or even decide to do it themselves.
Supervising officials- merely see to it that the rules are followed, but they themselves do not lay down such rules, nor
do they have the discretion to modify or replace them. If the rules are not observed, they may order the work done or
redone, but only to conform to such rules. They may not prescribe their own manner of execution of the act. They have
no discretion on this matter except to see to it that the rules are followed.
What then is the duty of the chief executive over LGU’s?
• Chief Executive is only wielded the power of checking whether local governments or their officials were
performing their duties as provided by the fundamental law and by statutes. He cannot interfere with local
governments, so long as they act within the scope of their authority.
Article 10 Section 4 of the constitution
The president of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local governments.
• The said provision has been interpreted to exclude power of control.

Lupangco vs CA and PRC

PRC’s Resolution on Additional Instruction to Examinees is not a valid exercise of the quasi legislative power. It is
unreasonable and infringes the student’s constitutional right. The unreasonableness is obvious in that one who is caught
committing the prohibited acts even without any ill motives will be barred from taking future examinations conducted by
the respondent PRC. it also infringes on the examinees' right to liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. Respondent PRC
has no authority to dictate on the reviewees as to how they should prepare themselves for the licensure examinations.
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.
RTC’s Jurisdiction
• The Professional Regulation Commission is attached to the Office of the President for general direction and
coordination. Acts of the Office of the President may be reviewed by the Regional Trial Court.
• judicial review of a Presidential act arises from the separation of powers into three co-equal departments. When
a presidential act is challenged before the courts of justice, the legality of his acts is under judicial review, not
because the Executive is inferior to the courts, but because the law is above the Chief Executive himself, and the
courts seek only to interpret, apply or implement the law
British American Tobacco
The subsequent issuance of Revenue Resolution by the BIR amending the National Internal Revenue Code is invalid
insofar as they grant the Bureau of Internal Revenue the power to reclassify or update the classification of new brands
every two years or earlier. IT unjustifiably emasculate the operation of Section 145 of the National Internal Revenue Code
because they authorize the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to update the tax classification of new brands every two
years or earlier when nowhere in Section 145 is such authority granted to the Bureau. Congress categorically rejected
the empowerment of the DOF and BIR to periodically adjust the excise tax rate and tax brackets, and to periodically
resurvey and reclassify cigarette brands.
Unless expressly granted to the BIR, the power to reclassify cigarette brands remains a prerogative of the legislature
which cannot be usurped by the former.
Mabanta vs HDMF
There was in valid exercise of quasi-legislative power by the HDMF when it required employees to have both
provident/retirement and housing benefits for all its employees in order to qualify for exemption from the Fund when PD
1752 used the terms “and/or.”
It is without doubt that the HDMF Board has rule-making power. However, it is well-settled that promulgations of rules
and regulations should be within the scope of the statutory authority granted by the legislature to the administrative
agency since it is only a product of a delegated power to create new and additional legal provisions that have the effect of
law. 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. Such amendment and subsequent repeal of Section 19 are both
invalid, as they are not within the delegated power of the Board. The HDMF cannot, in the exercise of its rule-making
power, issue a regulation not consistent with the law it seeks to apply. Indeed, administrative issuances must not override,

ADMINLAW/ Tacder10
 supplant or modify the law, but must remain consistent with the law they intend to carry out. Only Congress can repeal
or amend the law.
A department zeal may not be permitted to outrun the authority conferred by the statute.

Annie Sand vs Abad Santos Educational Institution

The Philippine Nursing Act, Republic Act No. 877 as amended by Republic Act No. 4704 expressly empowers,
in section 9 thereof, the board "subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines [to] promulgate
such rules and regularly as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act."
Section 3 of the cited Act specifically empowers petitioner board to inspect nursing colleges and schools and
vests it with authority "to issue, suspend, revoke, or reissue certificates of registration for practice of nursing.
The cited rule (Rule 69, section 5, Article VIII of the rules and regulations promulgated on July 27, 1967 by
petitioner board) is the same provision found in Rule 70, section 5, Article VIII of the original rules and
regulations promulgated on June 1, 1954 (thirteen years earlier) by the same board and which was never
challenged by respondent school nor has it been the object of any complaint from any of the other nursing
schools. One of the Legal force and effect of administrative rules and regulations is a principle widely accepted
that the contemporaneous construction placed upon the statute by the executive officers whose duty is to
enforce, it is entitled to great weight and consideration by the courts. This is especially true if the
administrative interpretation has been observed for a long time without objection.

The grant the Board of Examiners the same visitorial powers as those granted to the Bureau of Private
Education would not result in a power struggle between the two. The Supreme Court held that this manifestly
addresses itself to the wisdom of the provisions of the Act which is beyond its domain to inquire into.

Republic of the Philippines vs. Hon. Migrinio

The PCGG cannot do more than what it was empowered to do. Its powers are limited. Its task is limited to
the recovery of the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses, their relatives and cronies. The PCGG cannot, through
an order of its chairman, grant itself additional powers — powers not contemplated in its enabling law. The
rule of law mandates that an agency of government be allowed to exercise only the powers granted it.
Moreover, the record shows that private respondent was being investigated for unlawfully acquired wealth
under RA 3019 and 1379, and not under EO1, 2, 14 and 14-A.
The PCGG may investigate and cause the prosecution of active and retired members of the AFP for violations
of Rep. Acts Nos. 3019 and 1379 only in relation to E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, i.e., insofar as they involve
the recovery of the ill-gotten wealth of former Pres. Marcos and his family and "cronies." But the PCGG would
not have jurisdiction over an ordinary case falling under Rep. Acts Nos. 3019 and 1379, as in the case at bar.
E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A did not envision the PCGG as the investigator and prosecutor of all unlawful
accumulations of wealth. The PCGG was created for a specific and limited purpose and necessarily its powers
must be construed with this in mind.
In view of the patent lack of authority of the PCGG to investigate and cause the prosecution of private
respondent for violation of RA 3019 and 1379, the PCGG must also be enjoined from proceeding with the
case, without prejudice to any action that may be taken by the proper prosecutory agency. The rule of law
mandates that an agency of government be allowed to exercise only the powers granted it.
Conte vs Coa
The said financial assistance partakes of the nature of a retirement benefit that has the effect of modifying
existing retirement laws particularly R.A. No. 660. It is simply beyond dispute that the SSS had no authority
to maintain and implement such retirement plan and in the guise of rule-making, legislate or amend laws or
worse, render them nugatory. Hence, SSS Resolution No. 56 is hereby illegal, void and no effect.
It is doctrinal that in case of conflict between a statute and an administrative order, the former must prevail.
A rule or regulation must conform to and be consistent with the provisions of the enabling statute in order
for such rule or regulation to be valid. The rule-making power of a public administrative body is a delegated
legislative power, which it may not use either to abridge the authority given it by the Congress or the
Constitution or to enlarge its power beyond the scope intended. Constitutional and statutory provisions
control with respect to what rules and regulations may be promulgated by such a 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. Though well-settled is the rule
that retirement laws are liberally interpreted in favor of the retiree, nevertheless, there is really nothing to
interpret in either RA 4968 or Res. 56, and correspondingly, the absence of any doubt as to the ultra-
vires nature and illegality of the disputed resolution constrains us to rule against petitioners.

ADMINLAW/ Tacder11
 The Revised Securities Act does not require the enactment of implementing rules to make it binding and
effective. The provisions of the RSA are sufficiently clear and complete by themselves. The requirements are
specifically set out and the acts which are enjoined are determinable. To rule that absence of implementing
rules can render ineffective an act of Congress would empower administrative bodies to defeat the legislative
will by delaying the implementing rules. Where the statute contains sufficient standards and an unmistakable
intent (as in this case, the RSA) there should be no impediment as to its implementation.

The mere absence of implementing rules cannot effectively invalidate provisions of law where a reasonable
construction that will support the law may be given. It is well established that administrative authorities have
the power to promulgate rules and regulations to confirm to the terms and standards prescribed by the
statute as well as purport to carry into effect its general policies.

The necessity for vesting administrative authorities with power to make rules and regulations is based on the
impracticability of lawmakers providing general regulations for various and varying details of management.
It is well established that administrative authorities have the power to promulgate rules and regulations to
implement a given statute and to effectuate its policies, provided such rules and regulations conform to the
terms and standards prescribed by the statute as well as purport to carry into effect its general
policies. Nevertheless, it is undisputable that the rules and regulations cannot assert for themselves a more
extensive prerogative or deviate from the mandate of the statute. Moreover, where the statute contains
sufficient standards and an unmistakable intent, as in the case of Sections 30 and 36 of the Revised
Securities Act, there should be no impediment to its implementation.

Chapter 3, Book VII of the Administrative Code refers to “Adjudication” and does not affect the investigatory
functions of the agencies. Moreover, the law creating the PED empowers it to investigate violations of the
rules and regulations and to file and prosecute such cases. It does not have an adjudicatory power. Thus,
the PED need not comply with the provisions of the Administrative Code on adjudication. The SEC retained
jurisdiction to investigate violations of the RSA, reenacted in the Securities Regulations Code despite the
abolition of the PED. In this case, the SEC already commenced investigating the respondents for violations
of the RSA but during the pendency of the case the Securities and Regulations Code was passed thereby
repealing the RSA. However, the repeal cannot deprive the SEC of its jurisdiction to continue investigating
the case. Investigations by the SEC is a requisite before a criminal case may be referred to the DOJ since the
SEC is an administrative agency with the special competence to do so. According to the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, the courts will not determine a controversy involving a question within the jurisdiction of an
administrative tribunal where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring
the specialized knowledge and expertise of said administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate
matters of fact.

KMU vs Director General

President Arroyo has the power to issue EO 420 which requires all GOCC to streamline or harmonize an identification
system. Certainly, under this constitutional power of control the President can direct all government entities, in the
exercise of their functions under existing laws, to adopt a uniform ID data collection and ID format to achieve
savings, efficiency, reliability, compatibility, and convenience to the public. The Presidents constitutional power of
control is self-executing and does not need any implementing legislation.
Of course, the Presidents power of control is limited to the Executive branch of government and does not extend to the
Judiciary or to the independent constitutional commissions. Thus, EO 420 does not apply to the Judiciary, or to the
COMELEC which under existing laws is also authorized to issue voters ID cards. This only shows that EO 420 does not
establish a national ID system because legislation is needed to establish a single ID system that is compulsory for all
branches of government.
Thus, in issuing EO 420, the President is simply performing the constitutional duty to ensure that the laws are
faithfully executed.

Clearly, EO 420 is well within the constitutional power of the President to promulgate. The President has not usurped
legislative power in issuing EO 420. EO 420 is an exercise of Executive power the Presidents constitutional power of
control over the Executive department. EO 420 is also compliance by the President of the constitutional duty to ensure
that the laws are faithfully executed.
Smart Communications vs NTC
Doctrine of Administrative Exhaustion
NTC need not exhaust administrative remedies before going to court. This principle applies only where the
act of the administrative agency concerned was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial function, and not
when the assailed act pertained to its rule-making or quasi-legislative power.

ADMINLAW/ Tacder12
 Even assuming that the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies apply in this case, the records
reveal that petitioners sufficiently complied with this requirement. Petitioners were able to register their
protests to the proposed billing guidelines. They submitted their respective position papers setting forth their
objections and submitting proposed schemes for the billing circular.
Administrative agencies possess quasi-legislative or rule-making powers and quasi-judicial or administrative
adjudicatory powers. 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 non-
delegability and separability of powers.

The rules and regulations 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. The administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial power when it performs in a judicial manner
an act which is essentially of an executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner
is incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted
to it.
NTC has no jurisdiction where what is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued
by the administrative agency in the performance of its quasi-legislative function, the regular courts have
jurisdiction to pass upon the same. The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by an
administrative agency contravenes the law or the constitution is within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
petitioners were justified in invoking the judicial power of the Regional Trial Court to assail the
constitutionality and validity of the said issuances. Hence, the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to hear
and decide the case.
In like manner, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies only where the administrative agency exercises
its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function. The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide a
court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative
agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the
court.
Belgica vs Ochoa
Pork Barrel System- the collective body of rules and practices that govern the manner by which lump-sum, discretionary
funds, primarily intended for local projects, are utilized through the respective participations of the Legislative and
Executive branches of government, including its members.

The Pork Barrel System involves two (2) kinds of lump-sum discretionary funds:
1. Congressional Pork Barrel-- a kind of lump-sum, discretionary fund wherein legislators, either individually or
collectively organized into committees, are able to effectively control certain aspects of the fund’s utilization
through various post-enactment measures and/or practices.
2. Presidential Pork Barrel-- a kind of lump-sum, discretionary fund which allows the President to determine the
manner of its utilization.

Pork Barrel, Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) are
unconstitutional.

Violation of Separation of Powers. Under the 2013 PDAF Article, legislators have been authorized to participate in “the
various operational aspects of budgeting,” including “the evaluation of work and financial plans for individual activities”
and the “regulation and release of funds”, in violation of the separation of powers principle. From the moment the law
becomes effective, any provision of law that empowers Congress or any of its members to play any role in the
implementation or enforcement of the law violates the principle of separation of powers and is thus unconstitutional.

Violation of Non-delegability of legislative power. The power to appropriate is lodged in Congress and must be
exercised only through legislation, pursuant to Section 29(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Insofar as the 2013 PDAF
Article has conferred unto legislators the power of appropriation by giving them personal, discretionary funds from which
they are able to fund specific projects which they themselves determine, it has violated the principle of non-delegability
of legislative power;

It disrupted Local autonomy. The gauge of PDAF and CDF allocation/division is based solely on the fact of office,
without taking into account the specific interests and peculiarities of the district the legislator represents. As a result, a
district representative of a highly-urbanized metropolis gets the same amount of funding as a district representative of a
far-flung rural province which would be relatively “underdeveloped” compared to the former. This concept of legislator
control underlying the CDF and PDAF conflicts with the functions of the various Local Development Councils (LDCs).
Insofar as it has authorized legislators, who are national officers, to intervene in affairs of purely local nature, despite the
existence of capable local institutions, it has likewise subverted genuine local autonomy.

ADMINLAW/ Tacder13
 Constitutionality of the Presidential Pork Barrel
While the designation of a determinate or determinable amount for a particular public purpose is sufficient for a legal
appropriation to exist, the appropriation law must contain adequate legislative guidelines if the same law delegates rule-
making authority to the Executive either for the purpose of (a) filling up the details of the law for its enforcement, known
as supplementary rule-making, or (b) ascertaining facts to bring the law into actual operation, referred to as contingent
rule-making.

The phrase “and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President” under Section 8 of PD 910
constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power insofar as it does not lay down a sufficient standard to adequately
determine the limits of the President’s authority with respect to the purpose for which the Malampaya Funds may be
used. As it reads, the said phrase gives the President wide latitude to use the Malampaya Funds for any other purpose
he may direct and, in effect, allows him to unilaterally appropriate public funds beyond the purview of the law. Hence,
insofar as it has conferred to the President the power to appropriate funds intended by law for energy-related purposes
only to other purposes he may deem fit as well as other public funds under the broad classification of “priority
infrastructure development projects”, it has transgressed the principle of non-delegability.
Review Centers vs Executive Secretary
The issuance of PGMA of EO 566 due to rampant cheating in the Nursing licensure exam is unconstitutional as it clearly
expands CHED’s coverage under RA 7722.
RA 7722 is limited to public and private institutions of higher education and degree-granting programs in all public and
private post-secondary educational institutions. EO 566 directed the CHED to formulate a framework for the regulation
of review centers and similar entities.
While Congress is vested with the power to enact laws, the President executes the laws. The executive power is vested in
the President. It is generally defined as the power to enforce and administer laws. It is the power of carrying the laws into
practical operation and enforcing their due observance.
As head of the Executive Department, the President is the Chief Executive. He represents the government as a whole
and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his department. He has control over the executive
department, bureaus and offices. This means that he has the authority to assume directly the functions of the executive
department, bureau and office, or interfere with the discretion of its officials. Corollary to the power of control, the
President also has the duty of supervising the enforcement of laws for the maintenance of general peace and public
order. Thus, he is granted administrative power over bureaus and offices under his control to enable him to discharge his
duties effectively.

Administrative power is concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper
governmental organs. It enables the President to fix a uniform standard of administrative efficiency and check the official
conduct of his agents. To this end, he can issue administrative orders, rules and regulations.

An administrative order is:

Sec. 3. Administrative Orders. - Acts of the President which relate to particular aspects of governmental operation in
pursuance of his duties as administrative head shall be promulgated in administrative orders.

An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in the administrative
operation of government. It must be in harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of implementing the law
and carrying out the legislative policy.
Just like AO 308 in Ople v. Torres, EO 566 in this case is not supported by any enabling law. The Court further stated
in Oplea s well stated by Fisher:
Many regulations however, bear directly on the public. It is here that administrative legislation must be restricted in its scope
and application. Regulations are not supposed to be a substitute for the general policy-making that Congress enacts in the
form of a public law. Although administrative regulations are entitled to respect, the authority to prescribe rules and
regulations is not an independent source of power to make laws.
SEC vs GMA
Memorandum Circular No. 2 is not simply interpretative but an implementation of a statute which is RA 3531 which
regulates and affects the public at large. It does not appear from the records that it has not been published.
In Tanada vs Tuvera:
All statutes (local and private) shall be published as a condition for their effectivity which shall begin 15 days after
publication. Covered by this rule are PD’s and EO’s promulgated by the president. Administrative regulations must also
be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation.
Are there instances when rules and regulations need not be published?
Yes. Those that are merely internal in nature that regulate only personnel of administrative agency and not the public
including letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by
their subordinates in the performance of their duties.
Requirements of notice of hearing and publication
NO NEED
- When only administrative interpretations and does not apply to named or specified parties
- Those internal in nature regulating only the personnel of administrative agency and not public

ADMINLAW/ Tacder14
 When publication is needed
- When rules and rates apply to a named or specified parties
- When the law specifically requires that it be published
- When it has the force and effect of law

Investigatory Power
It is the power of an administrative body to look into the records and premises, and
investigate the activities of persons or entities coming to its jurisdiction. It is also
the power to require the disclosure of information. It is the lifeblood of od the
administrative process which is the flow of the fact, the gathering and analysis of
evidence. This investigatory power is useful not only for rule-making but also for
supervising and directing in order to determine a general policy and eliminate
obscure areas to find better solutions.

Scope and extent of its power

Initiation of investigation
Conduct investigation
Inspection and examination
Requiring attendance of witnesses,
giving testimony and production of
evidence
Hearing
Contempt proceedings
Application of technical rules
procedure of evidence
Upon a complaint or on its own motion
It may be required to conduct certain investigations as a mandatory duty
Must be held in private
Power to enter premises and inspect or examine things or operation therein as
they may deem necessary to determine whether a person has violated any
provision of the act being administered
The power to compel must be clearly given by the statute.
It does not include the power to require appearance or take testimonies which
may be required by a subpoena issued by the court but the issuance of subpoena
must be exerted through judicial process. Accordingly, it is common for the
statutes to provide for application to a court to enforce obedience to a subpoena
of an administrative agency or the giving of testimony before it.
Not necessary
Persons failing to attend may be punished.
In case of failure, he must be able to explain his inability
It cannot punish a person for contempt in the absence of a statutory grant
because such power is inherent in courts
of A government agency is given a wide latitude in its investigatory power.
It takes cognizance of unverified and anonymous complaints
Office of the ombudsman may investigate on its own, or by complaint of a person
for any act or omission of any public official

Subpoena meets the requirements for enforcement if the inquiry is

1. Within the authority of the agency
2. The demand is not too definite
3. The information is reasonably relevant

Simon vs CHR
CHR acted beyond its powers when it ordered the City Government to pay 200,000 financial aid to the squatters and
vendors. The court cannot conclude that the demolition falls within the compartment of human rights violation against
civil and political rights. It is true that CHR is constitutionally granted contempt powers to adopt its operational guidelines
and rules of procedure and cite for contempt violations thereof. However, that power should only apply to violations of its
adopted operational guidelines and rules of procedure essential to carry out its investigatory powers. The power to cite
for contempt those who refuse to cooperate must be exercised only in pursuing its investigative work. In the instant case,
it is not investigatory in character but prescinds from an adjudicative power that it does not possess
Evangelista vs Jarencio
The subpoena issued by PARGO is within the legal competence of the agency to issue. An administrative agency may be
authorized to make investigations, not only in proceeding legislative or judicial in nature, but also in proceedings whose
sole purpose is to obtain information upon which future action may require the attendance of the witness in proceedings
purely investigatory in nature. Here, the subpoena power of PARGO was derived from EO 4(5) which operates in extensor
to all functions of the agency necessary for the purpose of its creation.
Administrative agencies may impose subpoenas 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 the investigation be
for a lawfully authorized purpose. The purpose of the subpoena is to discover evidence upon which to make one if the
discovered evidence so justified.
The administrative agency has the power of inquisition which is not dependent upon a case or controversy in order to get
evidence, but can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated or even just because it wants assurance
that it is not. When investigative and accusatory duties are delegated by statute to an administrative body, it may take
steps to inform itself as to whether there is probable violation of the law.

ADMINLAW/ Tacder15
 Subpoena meets the requirements for enforcement if the inquiry is
4. Within the authority of the agency
5. The demand is not too definite
6. The information is reasonably relevant
Encinas vs Agustin
The dismissal of the BFP does not constitute res judicata because the latter applies only to judicial and quasi-judicial
proceeding and not when the act is purely an exercise of an administrative power which is purely administrative in nature
What then is a quasi-judicial proceeding?
1. There is taking evaluating of evidence
2. Determining the facts based on evidence
3. Rendering n order or decision supported by the facts proved

Isn’t it that administrative law also has quasi-judicial/ adjudicatory power? So how will we know, then, that the
administrative body is exercising its judicial power or is doing its investigatory functions?
Exercise of judicial power- power and authority to adjudicate upon the rights and obligations of the parties
Investigatory- evaluation of the evidence submitted to an agency based on the facts and circumstances presented to it
and is not allowed to make final pronouncement.

The proceeding before the BFP were merely investigative. Here, BFP proceedings was made only to determine whether a
formal change for an administrative offense should be filed against the petitioner. Its purpose is whether or not there was
sufficient ground to warrant the filling of an appropriate administrative case.

Bedol vs Comelec
The COMELEC has jurisdiction to initiate or prosecute contempt proceedings against Bedol through the creation of Task
Force Maguindanao because of the allegations of fraud and irregularities during the conduct of elections in the province.
The powers and functions of the COMELEC conferred upon it by the constitution and OEC are classified into
• Quasi-Judicial power- the power to resolve controversies arising from the enforcement of election laws, and to be
the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies and of all contests relating to elections, returns and
qualifications
• Quasi-legislative power- the power to issue rules and regulations to implement election laws and to exercise such
legislative functions as may be delegated to it by congress
• Administrative function- the power to enforce and administer election laws
The COMELEC possesses the power to conduct investigations as an adjunct to its constitutional duty to enforce and
administer all election laws by virtue of the explicit provisions of p6, s2, Art 9 of the constitution. In the same vein, to
withhold from the COMELEC the power to punish individuals who refuse to appear during a fact-finding investigation,
despite a previous notice and order to attend, would render nugatory the COMELEC’s investigative power, which is an
essential incident to its constitutional mandate to secure the conduct of honest and credible elections. In this case, the
purpose of the investigation was however derailed when petitioner obstinately refused to appear during said hearings and
to answer questions regarding the various election documents which, he claimed, were stolen while they were in his
possession and custody. The fact that the indirect contempt charges against petitioner were initiated motu proprio by the
COMELEC did not by itself prove that it had already prejudged the case against him. As borne out by the records, the
COMELEC gave petitioner several opportunities to explain his side and to present evidence to defend himself. All of
petitioner’s belatedly filed pleadings were admitted and taken into consideration before the COMELEC issued the assailed
Resolution finding petitioner guilty of indirect contempt. His evasiveness and refusal to present his evidence as well as
his reliance on technicalities to justify such refusal in the face of the allegations of fraud or anomalies and newspaper
publication mentioned to the Contempt Charge and Show Cause Order amounted to an implied admission of the charges
leveled against him.
Carino vs CHR
CHR does not have the power to try, decide and determine certain specific cases of the alleged human rights violations
when some public-school teachers were replaced when they held a strike during a class day. CHR may only investigate,
receive evidence and take findings of fact connected to human rights violations but nit adjudication. Fact finding is not
adjudication and it cannot be likened to the judicial function of the court or even quasi-judicial agency of official. The
function of receiving is not a judicial function. The power to investigate all forms of human rights is clearly granted by
the constitution where it can exercise its power in its own initiative or on complaint of any person. It may exercise its
power pursuant to such rules of procedures it may adopt, and in case of violation, it may cite contempt in accordance
with the rules of court. However, CHR cannot try and decide a case like quasi-judicial or even courts of justice do.
To investigate is not to adjudicate or adjudge since these two have distinct meanings.
Pichay vs ODESLA
The president has the power to investigate Pichay since he is a presidential appointee. Presidential appointees come
under the direct disciplining authority of the President. It is a well settled principle that the power to remove or to
discipline is lodged in the same authority on which the power to appoint is vested. The president, having the power to
remove or discipline also has the authority to investigate such public official and look into their conduct in the office.
Since Pichay is a presidential appointee, he comes under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the president, who is well within
his right to order an investigation into matters that require his informed decision.

ADMINLAW/ Tacder16
 AID-ODESLA did not encroached upon the powers of the ombudsman. The primary jurisdiction of the ombudsman is to
investigate and prosecute cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and not to administrative cases. In the exercise of its
primary jurisdiction, it may take over the investigation, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of the government.
Since the case filed before the AID-ODESLA is an administrative disciplinary case for grave misconduct, petitioner may
not invoke the primary jurisdiction of the ombudsman in order to prevent AID-ODESLA from the investigation.
However, the ombudsman’s authority to investigate both elective and appointive officials in the government may be
extensive but it is not exclusive. It may be shared with other similarly authorized government agencies.
While the Ombudsman’s function goes into the determination of the existence of probable cause and the adjudication of
the merits of a criminal accusation, the investigative authority of the IAD-ODESLA is limited to that of a fact-finding
investigator whose determinations and recommendations remain so until acted upon by the President. As such, it
commits no usurpation of the Ombudsman’s constitutional duties.
Sec vs Interport Resources
SEC retained jurisdiction to investigate violations of IRC’s failure to disclose negotiations with GHB despite the abolition
of SEC’s PED. The SEC already commenced investigation against IRC as early as 1994. Respondents were being called
to appear before the SEC and explain their failure to disclose. The SEC Chairman, having already made initial findings,
ordered a special investigating panel to hear the case. Even if the SEC regulation was repealed during the pendency of
the case, the repeal cannot deprive SEC of if jurisdiction to continue investigating the case. Violations or rules and
regulations enforced or administered by SEC shall be referred to the DOJ for preliminary investigation. SEC may still
impose administrative sanctions under Section 54. Ped in only exercising its investigative function and IRC is only being
investigated by PED for their alleged disclosure of the negotiations. The IRC have not shown themselves to be under the
imminent danger of sustaining any personal injury attributable to the exercise of its adjudicative function.
Balangauan vs CA
This case concerns Kathreen who unlawfully withdraws the 2.5million peso account of Mr. York in HSBC
Issue 1- whether public prosecutor in conducting preliminary investigation and the DOJ in reviewing the findings of
public prosecutor perform adjudicatory proceedings? NO
Preliminary investigation
• Does not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused
• Does not exercise adjudication nor rule-making functions
• It is merely inquisitorial in nature
• The only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime and enable the fiscal to
prepare for his complaint or information
• Its sole purpose is to determine whether a crime has been committed and there is probable cause to believe that
the accuse dis guilty thereof.
• While the fiscal is making such determination, he cannot be said to be acting as a quasi-judicial court for it is
the court who ultimately pass judgment on the accused
• A prosecutor is an officer of the executive department exercising powers akin “only” to those of a court and
similarity ends at this point.

Quasi-judicial body- an organ of government other than a court and other than a legislature which affects the rights of
private parties through either adjudication or rule-making.
A quasi-judicial agency- performs adjudicatory functions such that it awards, determine the rights of parties, and their
decisions have the same effect as judgments of a court.
The prosecutor is not a quasi-judicial body or a quasi-judicial agency.

ADMINLAW/ Tacder17