PHILIPPINE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW By Carlo L.

Cruz Chapter 1 General Considerations

Nature
Administrative Law – that branch of modern law under which the executive department
of the government, acting in a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity,
interferes with the conduct of the individual for the purpose of promoting the
well-being of the community. Administrative law is a recent development, being a
consequence of the ever increasing complexities of society and the proliferation of
problems of government that cannot readily or effectively be addressed by the
public agencies or solved by other disciplines of public law. It was felt that the
legislative and judicial departments no longer had either the time or the needed
expertise to attend to these new problems. Thus, the obvious solution was
delegation of power. Two major powers of the administrative agency: 1. Quasi-
legislative authority– or rule making power 2. Quasi-judicial power – or
adjudicatory function

Sources of Administrative Law

Administrative law is derived from four sources or is of four (4) kinds: 1.
Constitution or statutory enactments – e.g. Social Security Act which established
the Social Security Commission. 2. Decisions of courts interpreting the charters of
administrative bodies
1
3. Rules and regulations issued by the administrative bodies – e.g. Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code. 4. Determinations and orders of the administrative
bodies in the settlement of controversies

Administration
Administration is understood in two senses: 1. Institution – administration as the
aggregate of individuals in whose hands the reins of government are for the time
being. 2. Function – administration as the actual running of the government by the
executive authorities through the enforcement of laws and implementation of
policies. Government (as distinguished from administration) is the agency or
instrumentality through which the will of the State is formulated, expressed and
realized. Administration Distinguished from Law Law is impersonal command provided
with sanctions to be applied in case of violation, while Administration is
preventive rather punitive and is accepted to be more personal than law. Law
maintains a watchful eye on those who would violate its order. While administration
on the other hand seeks to spare individuals from punishments of the law by
persuading him to observe its commands.

2
Chapter 2 Administrative Agencies
Definition Administrative agency – a body endowed with quasi-legislative and quasi-
judicial powers for the purpose of enabling it to carry out the laws entrusted to
it for enforcement or execution. Administrative agency may be regarded as an arm of
the legislature insofar as it is authorize to promulgate rules. It may also be
loosely considered a court because it performs functions of a particular judicial
character, as when it decides factual and sometimes even legal questions as an
incident of its general power of regulation. Creation and Abolition The
administrative body may be created by the Constitution or by a Statute. If created
by the Constitution itself, the administrative body can be altered or abolished
only by Constitution. But where the body was created only by statute, the
legislature that breathed life into it can amend or even repeal its charter,
thereby resulting in its abolition which is justified if made in good faith.

3
Chapter 3 Powers of Administrative Agencies
Quasi-Legislative Power – the authority delegated by the law-making body to the
administrative body to adopt rules and regulations intended to carry out the
provisions of a law and implement legislative policy. Quasi-Judicial Power – the
power of the administrative authorities to make determinations of facts in the
performance of their official duties and to apply the law as they construe it to
the facts so found.

Chapter 4 The Quasi-Legislative Power

It has already been remarked that the rule-making power of the administrative body
is intended to enable it to implement the policy of the law and to provide for the
more effective enforcement of its provisions. Through the exercise of this power of
subordinate legislation, it is possible for the administrative body to transmit the
“active power of the State from its source to the point of application,” that is,
apply the law and so fulfill the mandate of the legislature. Kinds of
Administrative Regulations (a) Legislative – 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. (b) Interpretative – are those which purport to do no more than
interpret the statute being administered, to say what it means. They constitute the
administrator's construction of a statute.

4
The interpretative regulation is issued by the administrative body as an incident
to its power to enforce the law and is intended merely to clarify its provisions
for proper observance by the people. It is an elementary rule in administrative law
that administrative regulations and policies enacted by administrative bodies to
interpret which they are entrusted to enforce, have the force of law, are entitled
to great respect, and have in their favor a presumption of legality. By contrast,
the legislative regulation is issued by the administrative body pursuant to a valid
delegation of legislative power and is intended to have the binding the force and
effect of a law enacted by the legislature itself. Classification of Legislative
Regulation (a) Supplementary – intended to fill in the details of the law and “to
make explicit what is only general.” (b) Contingent – issued upon the happening of
a certain contingency which the administrative body is given the discretion to
determine or to ascertain some circumstances and on the basis thereof may enforce
or suspend the operation of a law. Requisites of Administrative Regulation (a) Its
promulgation must be authorized by the legislature; (b) It must be within the scope
of the authority given by the legislature; (c) It must be promulgated in accordance
with the prescribed procedure; (d) it must be reasonable. First Requisite:
Promulgation Must Be Authorized by the Legislature Authority to promulgate the
regulation is usually conferred by the Charter itself of the administrative body or
by the law it is supposed to enforce.

5
When Congress authorizes promulgation of administrative rules and regulations to
implement given legislation, all that is required is that the regulation be not in
contravention with it, but to conform to the standards that the law prescribes.
Second Requisite: Regulation Must Be Within the Scope of the Authority Given by the
Legislature Assuming a valid authorization, it is still necessary that the
regulation promulgated must not be ultra vires or beyond the authority conferred.
Third Requisite: Regulation Must Be Promulgated in Accordance with the Prescribed
Procedure As in the enactment of laws, the promulgation of administrative
regulations of general application does not require previous notice and hearing,
the only exception being where the legislature itself requires it. In the absence
of such a requirement, the administrative body can promulgate the regulation in its
exclusive discretion. But where the regulation is in effect a settlement of a
controversy between specific parties, it is considered an administrative
adjudication and so will require notice and hearing. As for publication, the
applicable rule is now found in Executive Order No. 200 which provides that laws
“shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of their
publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation
in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided.” 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. 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 law. The Supreme Court, it would seem, requires publication
of the administrative regulation only if it is of general application and penal in
nature.

6
Fourth Requisite: Regulation Must Be Reasonable Like statutes, administrative
regulations promulgated thereunder must not be unreasonable or arbitrary as to
violate due process. Penal Regulations The power to define and punish crime is
exclusively legislative and may not be delegated to the administrative authorities.
While administrative regulations may have the force and effect of law, their
violation cannot give rise to criminal prosecution unless the legislature makes
such violation punishable and imposes the corresponding sanctions. Special
requisites of a valid administrative regulation with a penal sanction: (a) The law
itself must make violation of the administrative regulation punishable; (b) The law
itself must impose and specify the penalty for the violation of the regulation; (c)
The regulation must be published. Construction and Interpretation Regulation should
be read in harmony with the statute and not in violation of the authority conferred
on the administrative authorities. The administrative regulation that contravenes
the statute is, of course, invalid. Enforcement It is established that the power to
promulgate administrative regulations carries with it the implied power to enforce
them. This may be effected through judicial action or through sanctions that the
statute itself may allow the administrative body to impose. Amendment or Repeal
Like the statute, the administrative regulation promulgated thereunder is subject
to amendment or repeal by the authorities that promulgated them in the first place.
Of course, it may be changed directly by the legislature.
7
Chapter 5 The Quasi-Judicial Power
Quasi-judicial power – is the power of the administrative agency to determine
questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply, in accordance with
the standards laid down by the law itself. The proper exercise of the quasi-
judicial power requires compliance with two conditions, to wit: (1) Jurisdiction
must be properly acquired by the administrative body (2) Due process must be
observed in the conduct of the proceedings A. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction – may be
simply defined as the competence of an office or body to act on a given matter or
decide a certain question. Without jurisdiction, the determination made by the
administrative bodies are absolutely null and without any legal effect whatsoever.
It is the legislature that has the power to confer jurisdiction upon the
administrative body and so limit or expand its authority. It can be said that each
administrative body has its own peculiar jurisdiction as conferred upon it by the
specific provisions of its charter. The law may allow some administrative bodies to
award certain kinds of damages while denying the same power, for no apparent
reason, to other administrative bodies.

8
For example, the SEC and NLRC are allowed to award damages virtually to the same
extent as a court of justice. Yet similar authority has not been conferred by its
charter to NTC. It is a well-settled principle that unless expressly empowered,
administrative agencies are bereft of quasi-judicial power. 1. Rules of Procedure
Where an administrative body is expressly granted the power of adjudication, it is
deemed also vested with the implied power to prescribe the rules to be observed in
the conduct of its proceedings. But to be valid, the rules must not violate
fundamental rights or encroach upon constitutional prerogatives. 2. The Subpoena
Power The power to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum is not inherent in
administrative bodies. It is settled that administrative bodies may summon
witnesses and require the production of evidence only when duly allowed by law, and
always only in connection with the matter they are authorized to investigate.
Unless otherwise provided by law, the agency may, in case of disobedience, invoke
the aid or Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case falls.
The Court may punish customacy or refusal as contempt. The Supreme Court
distinguished between the power to “investigate” and the power to “adjudicate:”
“The purpose of investigation, of course, is to discover, to find out, to learn,
and obtain information. Nowhere included or intimated is the notion of settling,
deciding or resolving a controversy involve in the facts inquired into by
application of the law x x. In the legal sense, “adjudicate” means to settle in the
exercise of judicial authority x x. “Adjudge” x x implies a judicial determination
of a fact, and the entry of judgment.” 3. The Contempt Power Like the subpoena
power, the power to punish for contempt is essentially judicial and cannot be
claimed as an inherent right by the administrative body.
9
To be validly exercised, it must be expressly conferred upon the body and,
additionally, must be used only in connection with its quasi-judicial as
distinguished from its purely administrative or routinary functions. As a rule,
where, say, a subpoena of the administrative body is disregarded, the person
summoned may not be directly discipline by that body. The proper remedy id for the
administrative body to seek assistance of the courts of justice for the enforcement
of its order. The power to hold in contempt must be exercised not on the
vindictive, but on the preservative principle. B. Notice and Hearing The right to
notice and hearing is essential to due process and its nonobservance will as a rule
invalidate the administrative proceedings. Persons are entitled to be notified of
any pending case affecting their interests so that, if they are minded, they may
claim the right to appear therein and present their side or refute the position of
opposing parties. Nevertheless, there are instances when notice and hearing can
validly be omitted. Among the justifications for such omissions are the urgency of
immediate action (which does not preclude the enjoyment of the right at a later
time without prejudice to the person affected) and the fact that the right had
previously been offered but not claimed. 1. Administrative Due Process While
administrative determinations of contested case are by their nature judicial, there
is no requirement for strict adherence to technical rules as are observed in truly
judicial proceedings. It is a general rule that they are unrestricted by the
technical or formal rules of procedure which govern trials before a court. This
rule is applied to questions of evidence, pleading and other matters. Nevertheless,
it is essential that due process must be observed, for the requirements of fair
play are not applicable to judicial proceedings only.

10
Cardinal rights or principles to be observed in administrative proceedings: a. the
first of these rights is the right to a hearing; b. the tribunal must consider the
evidence presented; c. the tribunal must have something to support its decision; d.
evidence must be substantial evidence – relevant evidence that a reasonable mind
may accept as adequate to support a conclusion e. the decision must be rendered on
the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and
disclosed to the parties; f. the court must act on its or their own independent
consideration of the law and facts of controversy, and not simply accept the views
of a subordinate in arriving at a decision; g. the court should render its decision
in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues
involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered. It is basic to due process
that the tribunal considering the administrative question be impartial, to ensure a
fair decision. The law does not require another notice and hearing for a review of
the decision of the board. In M.F. Violago Oiler Tank Trucks vs. NLRC, there was no
denial of due process where the petitioners received notice of the scheduled
investigation the day before said date of the hearing or investigation but failed
to present evidence. On the other hand, there was clearly such a denial where it
appears that a decision rendered against a person who was not a party to or even
notified of the proceedings taken before a labor arbiter. C. Administrative Appeals
and review Unless otherwise provided by law or executive order, an appeal from a
final decision of the administrative agency may be taken to the department head,
whose decision may further be brought to the regular courts of justice, in
accordance with the procedure specified by law
11
D. Enforcement of Decision In the absence of any statute providing for the
enforcement of an administrative determination, the same cannot be enforced except
possibly by appeal to the force of public opinion. Usually, however, the
administrative body is allowed certain sanctions that it may impose directly for
the enforcement of its own decisions, i.e. revocation of or refusal to renew
licenses, destruction of unlawful articles, summary closure of stores, refusal to
grant clearances, issuance of cease and desist orders, detention and deportation of
aliens, and imposition of fines. Significantly, many administrative bodies, such as
the SEC and the NLRC, have been vested with authority to grant provisional reliefs,
such as writs of preliminary attachment or injunction, intended to ensure the
enforcement of their adjudications. It is established that administrative agencies
who have not been conferred the power to enforce their quasi-judicial decisions may
invoke court action for the purpose. E. Res Judicata The general rule is that an
administrative decision is not considered res judicata so as to preclude its
subsequent reconsideration or revocation. Decisions of the previous incumbents of
the administrative body may be modified or reversed by their successors in the
exercise of their own powers of adjudication. Where the administrative decision has
been affirmed by a court decision, the doctrine of res judicata is applicable. The
effect of res judicata attaches to the judgment of the reviewing court rather than
to the administrative judgment. This rule has however been modified in this
jurisdiction. It is now well-settled in our jurisprudence that the decisions and
orders of administrative agencies, rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial
authority, have upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final
judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata. This principle is,
however, not applicable to all administrative proceedings, such proceedings that
are non-litigious and summary in nature without regard to legal technicalities
obtaining in courts of la
12
Chapter 6 Judicial Review
General Rules An administrative decision may be appealed to the courts of justice
only if the Constitution or the law permits it or if the question to be reviewed is
a question of law. However, jurisprudence is replete with cases where the Supreme
Court has applied the exceptions rather than the rule. In the case of the
constitutional commission, i.e., the Commission on Elections, the Commission on
Audit, and the Civil Service Commission, it is provided that “any decision order or
ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the
aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof.” On the basis of
Sec. 16 of the Interim Rules and Guideline implementing Sec. 9 (3) of BP Blg. 129,
the Court of Appeals may “review final decisions, orders, awards or resolutions or
regional trial courts and of all quasi-judicial bodies, except the Commission on
Elections, the Commission on Audit, the Sandiganbayan, and decisions issued under
the Labor Code of the Philippines and by the Central Board of Assessment Appeals.”
Other appeals are prescribed by special laws, such as RA No. 1125, providing for
appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals of any decision rendered by the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs, or any provincial or city board of
assessment appeals. Methods of review The methods of judicial review are prescribed
by the Constitution, statutes or the Rules of the Court. These methods may be
specific or general.

13
It is provided in RA No. 5434 that an appeal from a final award, order or decisions
of the Patent Office shall be taken by filing with said body and with the Court of
Appeals a notice of appeal within 15 days from notice of such award, order or
ruling, copies being served on all interested parties. The Administrative Code
generally provides that an appeal from an agency decision shall be perfected by
filing with the agency within 15 days from receipt of a copy thereof a notice of
appeal, and with the reviewing court a petition for review of the order. Copies of
the petition shall be served upon the agency and all parties of record. The
petition shall contain a concise statement of the issues involved and the grounds
relied upon for the review, and shall be accompanied with a true copy of the order
appealed from, together with copies of such material portions of the records as are
referred to therein and other supporting papers. The Supreme Court instructed
certain universally accepted axioms governing judicial review through the
extraordinary actions of certiorari or prohibition of determinations of
administrative officers or agencies: First, before said actions may be entertained,
it must be shown that all the administrative remedies prescribed by law or
ordinance have been exhausted; and, Second, that the administrative decision may
properly be annulled or set aside only upon a clear showing that the administrative
official or tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with a
grave abuse of discretion. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction or Prior Resort There
are two doctrines that must be considered in connection with the judicial review of
administrative decisions:(1) doctrine of primary jurisdiction or prior resort; and
(2) the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The doctrine of primary
jurisdiction simply calls for the determination of administrative questions, which
ordinarily questions of fact, by administrative agencies rather courts of justice.
If the case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized
skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters
or intricate questions of facts are involved,
14
then relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy
will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper
jurisdiction of the court Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Under
the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, an administrative decision
must first be appealed to the administrative superior up to the highest level
before it may be elevated to a court of justice for review. A. Reasons (1) The
administrative superiors, if given the opportunity, can correct the errors
committed by their subordinates; (2) Courts should as much as possible refrain from
disturbing the findings of administrative bodies in deference to the doctrine of
separation of powers; (3) On practical grounds, it is best that the courts should
not be saddled with the review of administrative cases; (4) Judicial review of
administrative cases is usually effected through the special civil actions of
certiorari, mandamus and prohibition, which are available only if there is no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy. B. Exceptions (1) When the question raised is
purely legal (question of law is involved); (2) When the administrative body is
estoppel; (3) When the act complained of is patently illegal; (4) When there is
urgent need for judicial intervention; (5) When the claim involved is small; (6)
When irreparable damage will be suffered; (7) When there is no other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy;

15
(8) When strong public interest is involved; (9) When the subject of the
controversy is private land; (10)In quo warranto proceedings C. Appeal to the
President Of special interest is the question of whether or not a decision of the
cabinet member has to be appealed first to the President before it may be brought
to a court of justice. Jurisprudence on this matter is rather indecisive. In the
early case of Demaisip vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that appeal to the
President was not necessary because the Cabinet member was after all his alter ego
and, under the doctrine of qualified political agency, the acts of the secretary
were the acts of the President. This view was abandoned in Calo vs. Fuertes, where
it was held that appeal to the President was the final step in the administrative
process and therefore a condition precedent to appeal to the courts. In Bartulata
vs. Peralta, however, the court reinstated the Demaisip doctrine, again on the
basis of alter ego justification. Tan vs. Director of Forestry, thereafter revived
Calo andagain required appeal to the President as a prerequisite to an appeal of a
Cabinet member's decision to the courts of Justice. D. Effect of Non-compliance The
failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of the
court and merely results in the lack of a cause of action which may be invoked in a
motion to dismiss. If this ground to dismiss the court action is not properly or
reasonably invoked, the court may proceed to hear the case. As previously noted,
the court has the discretion to require the observance of the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies and may, if it sees fit, dispense with it and
proceed with the disposition of the case. Questions Reviewable

16
Two kinds of questions are reviewable by the courts of justice, to wit: the
question of fact and the question of law. On the question of fact, review of the
administrative decision lies in the discretion of the legislature, which may or may
not permit it as it sees fit. But when it comes to the question of law, the
administrative decision may be appealed to the courts of justice independently of
legislative permission or even against legislative prohibition. The reason is that
the judiciary cannot be deprived of its inherent power to review all decisions on
questions of law, whether made initially by lower courts and more so by an
administrative body. A. Questions of fact Even if allowed to review administrative
decisions on questions of fact, courts of justice generally defer to such decisions
and will decline to disturb them except only where there is a clear showing of
arbitrariness or grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court ruled in Osias
Academy vs. DOLE that “findings of administrative agencies which have acquired
expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally
accorded not only respect but finality.” B. Questions of Law Administrative bodies
may be allowed to resolve questions of law in the exercise of their quasi-judicial
function as an incident of their primary power of regulation. However as a rule, it
is only the judicial tribunal that can interpret and decide the question of law
with finality.

17
18