ADMINISTRATIVE AND ELECTION LAWS

ATTY. AILEEN CASEM

Name: BIANCA DANICA R. UGAY
Activity No. 2 (Finals)

Answer the following questions:

1. Explain the Substantial Evidence Rule
The substantial evidence rule provides the most generally applied standard governing
the review of administrative action. The rule is a compromise between opposing theories of
a broad or de novo review of administrative actions and restricted review or complete
abstention. It holds that administrative determinations are final and conclusive upon the
courts and must be sustained if supported by substantial evidence upon the whole record
even if such evidence be not overwhelming or preponderant in the absence of any of the
established exceptions calling for judicial review.
1 In administrative cases, the courts cannot weigh once more the evidence submitted
before the administrative body and make their own findings of fact and substitute the same
for the findings of fact of the quasi-judicial agency. "Substantial evidence" has been
described as such evidence as will establish a substantial basis of fact from which the fact
at issue can be reasonably inferred.
2. Can the Courts exercise Judicial Review even if it not provided under the
Statute creating the Administrative Body?
Yes, the Courts can exercise Judicial Review even if it not provided under the Statute
creating the Administrative Body.
In many situations, the Constitution is held to require judicial review even though a
statute does not, and even though the statute attempts to preclude judicial review. The
courts have been established to prevent executive or administrative officials from exceeding
their jurisdiction or taking arbitrary and unreasonable action and no special provision of law
is necessary to confer upon the courts, authority already possessed by them under the
Constitution. The fact, however, that a statute does not provide for judicial relief or review
does not mean that there is no power or right of relief or review in a proper case under the
general powers and jurisdiction of the courts.
3. May a Lower Court issue an Injunction against an action of an Administrative
Body?
Yes, a Lower Court may issue an Injunction against an action of an Administrative Body.
A preliminary injunction will usually be granted when it is made to appear that there is a
substantial controversy between the parties and one of them is committing an act or
threatening the immediate commission of an act that will cause irreparable injury or destroy
the status quo of the controversy before a full hearing can be had on the merits. The
invocation of the urgency of judicial intervention in such case would be in keeping with the
court's broad discretion in granting injunctions.
4. What are the exceptions to the Doctrine of Finality?
 The exceptions to the Doctrine of Finality are as follows:
1. Review at an initial or intermediate stage of administrative action- wherein, the fact,
that a particular determination is not a "final order" for purposes of statutory review
has been held not to preclude the availability of judicial review:
a) to an interlocutory order affecting the merits of a controversy;
b) to grant relief to preserve the status quo pending further action by the
administrative agency;
c) when it is essential to the protection of the rights asserted from the injury
threatened;
d) where an administrative officer assumes to act in violation of the Constitution and
other laws;
e) where such order is not reviewable in any other way and the complainant will
suffer great and obvious damage if the order is carried out; and
f) to an order made in excess of power, contrary to specific prohibition in the statute
governing the agency and thus operating as a deprivation of a right assured by the
statute.

2. Review allowed by statutory provisions- which it has been said that it is a settled rule
that the declaratory judgments law is applicable and appropriate in instances where
there is no final decision or rule of an administrative agency which could be reviewed
by an existing remedy such as an appeal.

5. What is the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction?

The Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction is also referred to as the doctrine of prior resort, or
exclusive administrative jurisdiction, or preliminary resort.
It usually refers to cases involving specialized disputes which are referred to an
administrative agency of special competence to resolve the same. The doctrine applies only
where the administrative agency exercises its adjudicatory function the objective of the
doctrine is to guide a court in determining whether it should refrain or not from exercising its
jurisdiction.
The doctrine is based on sound public policy and practical considerations. It is not
applicable if it involves exercise of judicial discretion, issues involve are questions of law,
and where concurrent jurisdiction is conferred.
6. What is the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies?
The Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies requires that where a remedy
within an administrative agency is provided or available against the action of an
administrative board, body, or officer, and can still be resorted to by giving the said agency
every opportunity to decide correctly a given matter that comes within its jurisdiction, relief
must be first sought by availing this remedy before bringing an action in or elevating it to the
courts of justice for review.
It allow first the administrative agency to carry out its functions and discharge its
responsibilities within the specialized areas of its competence before resort can be made to
the courts.
 In the application of this doctrine, in some instances, the statute makes the exhaustion
of the remedies a pre-condition of the right to seek the intervention of the courts. It applies
where the claim or matter is cognizable in the first instance by an administrative agency
alone. Exhaustion must be raised at the earliest time possible, even before filing the answer
to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim by a motion to dismiss. Failure to invoke it at
the proper time operates as a waiver of the objection as a ground for a motion to dismiss
and the court may then proceed with the case and try it as if the doctrine had been
observed.
Thus, the only effect of non-compliance with the doctrine is to render the action
premature. However, it is subject to limitations and exceptions provided by law or required
by public interest. Thus, the doctrine is not applicable where the issue is purely legal, like
for example, action for damages beyond the power of the administrative agency to award
within the jurisdiction of the courts. It is not also applicable where a party has a right of
election between an administrative and judicial remedy.
7. What is the Doctrine of Ripeness for Judicial Review?
The Doctrine of Ripeness for Judicial Review determines the point at which courts may
review administrative action except that the former applies to administrative action other
than adjudication. The basic principle of ripeness is that the judicial machinery should be
conserved for problems which are real and present or imminent, and should not be
squandered on problems which are future, imaginary or remote.
The ripeness focus is upon the nature of the judicial process — upon the types of
functions the courts should perform and it is applied to rule-making and administrative
action not involving rule-making and adjudication. Likewise, there are guidelines have been
advanced, if at all, should one who doubts the validity of a statute or regulation be forced.
8. When do you file a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition or Mandamus?
In seeking direct recourse to the Court via a petition for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, petitioners' choice of remedy to question
the validity of the assailed administrative issuances falls under the Court's expanded
certiorari jurisdiction brought about after 1987, when the new Constitution "expanded" the
scope of judicial power by providing in the second paragraph of Section 1, Article VIII that:
"Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."
Even when the expanded certiorari jurisdiction of the courts is properly invoked, the
petition for Certiorari, Prohibition or Mandamus must still be filed with the lowest court of
concurrent jurisdiction, following the principle of hierarchy of courts. Further, petitioners
should have first exhausted their administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial recourse
through the expanded certiorari jurisdiction of the courts in order to give the administrative
agency an opportunity to correct its mistake, if any.
The Court based its ruling on Section 3, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. Rule 64 states
that a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition or Mandamus should be filed within thirty (30) days
from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed.