University of San Carlos

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW TRANSCRIPTION

Allied Political Laws and Public International Law
Administrative Law
Atty. Daryl Bretch Largo

August 9, 2010
In Administrative Law, the rules are more or less fixed or stable. It is very seldom that you will see
decisions of the SC overturning or reversing earlier decisions in administrative law unlike in your
Constitutional Law 1, Constitution 2, elections laws... That is why you can borrow the old books in
administrative law from your relatives and from your parents.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
There is the basis of the creation or establishment of a separate and specialized field of political law
or part of public law which is called administrative law. It is called a modern field of public law in the
sense that it is not one of the traditional fields of public law like Constitutional Law (study of
constitution and the interpretations arising out of or the doctrines made b the SC interpreting the
constitutional provisions); the Criminal Law (part of public law because it deals with the relationship
between the people and the state); Public International Law. All others are relatively modern. And
very much modern of course in the filed of Political Law is Administrative Law.
If you are asked in the mock bar exam to write something about the modern complexities in life or
in society as basis for the establishment of administrative law, what will you write?
Mary Anne mentioned of the need foe specialized bodies or experts to address administrative
concerns. What else?
Well of course, since societal concerns are becoming more and more complicated, then it is the
observation of all governments of the world that the traditional branches of the government may
not be able to address all these concerns with great dispatch and with competence. The need is
expediency, and so the solution is delegation of powers.
The traditional branch, the policy-making body, is the Congress, society is governed by laws, and
laws are enacted by Congress. You remember the idea of Congress as the legal sovereign for it is
that branch of the government that issues commands. The basic or traditional idea is for each and
every activity of man, it should be govern by Congress. Like how a seller relates to a buyer, it
should be govern by Congress. In fact, the Congress has already enacted the Civil Code of the
Philippines on obligations and contracts, or on the law of sales. But the thing is businessmen
started to engage themselves in a much more complicated transaction involving estate,
subdivision, condominium. And so perhaps it may not be perfectly covered by the Civil Code of the
Philippines, and so laws had been issued specifically dealing with these moderns transactions, and
then create a specialized body to handle this area of concern. That is why you have for example
your HLURB as one administrative agency dealing with sales involving subdivisions, condominiums,
etc. the point is Congress has no longer the time and the expertise to deal with such complicated
concerns of the society. Before for example, you have your traditional in the executive department
like the DOTC dealing with transportation and the traditional method of communicating like
telephone. Now, the mode of communication is also getting more complicated like we have now the
cellphones. And so the Congress found a need to create a much more specialized body because it
doesnt have the time and the expertise to deal with this. Like for example you have the National
Telecommunication Commission (NTC) to deal with these matters. That is just the illustration of this
so-called lack of time and expertise to deal with more complicated concerns in the society. That is
the basis of administrative law
As mentioned earlier, as part of the study here are the rules on delegation of legislative powers
because that is the solution of this problem of Congress being unable to address complicated
concerns because it doesnt have the time and expertise. So we study rules on delegation
In the process of delegation, almost always, the Congress will vest the administrative agencies with
special powers known as quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers.
That is why in the outline, after studying rules on delegation, we study these specific powers, quasilegislative and quasi-judicial.
And later on, the final part of the study of administrative law would be judicial review because while
administrative agencies are vested with quasi-judicial powers or even quasi-legislative powers, in
matters of law, it is the regular court that has final say on this mater. And so it is settled that the
acts of administrative agencies whether quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial acts or functions may still
be subject of judicial review. And it in that part that we study also the popular areas of bar
questions relating to prior exhaustion of administrative remedies, doctrine of primary jurisdiction,
and the exceptions and the effects of not complying with these principles.

Administrative Law

Sources of Administrative Law

1. Constitution It creates not just the traditional agencies of the government (referring to the
legislative, executive and judicial branches). Apart from that, the Constitution also creates
specialized bodies like the independent Constitutional Commissions like COMELEC, COA, and the
CSC. It also mandates for the creation of other specialized bodies like the National Police
Commission or the Commission on Human Rights. So the Constitution in deed is the primary source
of administrative law, especially that part dealing with the control power of the President.
2. Statues creating the administrative body This is to say that primarily, administrative agencies
are to be created by Congress. And so if we look for the sources of admin law , we can refer to the
statute or the charter creating that particular body.
I started with the statute because later on you will learn that in case of a conflict between the
statute creating the administrative body and the Revised Administrative Code of 1987, it has been
ruled by the SC that the statute creating the body prevails in the sense that it is a special law and
Administrative Code of the Philippines was characterized by the SC as a general law. And you know
of course in statutory construction that between special law and general law dealing with the same
subject matter, special law prevails.
3. Administrative Code of 1987 When did the Administrative Code of 1987 take effect? It was
amended later on by RA 6228. It was mentioned there that it should take effect two years after the
publication in the Official Gazette. It was officially published November 24, 1987. And since the
amendatory law provided for two years, it took effect therefore on Novemeber 24, 1989.
4. Administrative Code of 1917 interestingly the Administrative Code of 1917, the old
Administrative Code, may also be a source of administrative law.
Sir, wala diay na nag-repeal ang Administrative Code of 1987 since it deals with the same subject
matter?
Case in point Mecano vs. COA (1992). An officer of the NBI asked for payment of compensation after
he was hospitalized. He alleged that he is entitled to payment of just compensation under the
Administrative Code of 1917 under a particular section there (not sure si sir) which provides for
compensation for government officials if they suffer Injury or they become sick by reason of the
performance of their function. When he invoked that and filed the case, the Administrative Code of
1987 already took effect. Unya ingon dayon ang COA nga repealed na ang gihimo nimo nga basis
nga law. In the Administrative Code of 1987, no mention was made there about payment of
compensation for sickness or injuries as a result of the performance of the function by the
government officer. Although there was already the Employees Compensation Act. Pero lahi man
ang iyang gi-invoke, Admin Code man.
In this case, the SC had the opportunity to declare whether Administrative Code of 1987 repealed
the 1917 Admin Code. the SC went into analyzing the repealing clause of the Administrative Code
of 1987. It is a case of implied repeal that is mandated there because it does not specifically
mention that Administrative Code of 1917 shall be repealed. It simply says that all laws, decrees,
proclamations that are inconsistent with this Code are herby or deemed repealed, modified or
amended. But you know of course, basic in statutory construction, that implied repeal is frowned
upon and as much as possible, two statutes that are covering or touching on the same matter must
be harmonized.
Incidentally, according to the SC, the Administrative Code of 1987 has a limited subject matter than
the Administrative Code of 1917. Naa pa kuno sa Administrative Code of 1917 provisions on notary
public and other provisions there nga wala gi-cover sa Administrative Code of 1987. Miingon man
ang SC if it is the other way around (if mas comprehensive pa ang Administrative Code of 1987 kay
sa Administrative Code of 1917) and it can be gleaned from the intention of Congress that it was
really to replace the old Administrative Code, the SC could have given a different ruling. But its the
opposite. Mas gamay ang subject sa Administrative Code of 1987. The Administrative Code of 1987
specifically deals with government organs, agencies and operations. Wala na tong mga notary
public, etc covered na to karon by different laws or rules of the SC.
So take not of that. The old Admin Code may still be a source of administrative law.
5. Jurisprudence Since this is part of political law, jurisprudence is a great source of administrative
law.
6. Rules and Regulations of the Administrative Agency.
7. Decisions and Orders of administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial power.
*****
In Leveriza vs. IAC (1988), SC had the occasion to rule on the true characteristic of the Admin Code
it is a general law. This is the case that involves a conflict between a provision in the
Administrative Code and the charter creating the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA). In the
charter, the administrator of the CAA was given the power to enter into a lease agreement
Administrative Law

involving a government property. Under the Admin Code, it should be through the President of the
Republic of the Philippines. So theres a conflict a charter allowing the administrator to enter into
a lease contract involving property held in its governmental capacity while the Admin Code says
property held in governmental capacity when involved in a transaction should be entered into by
the President of the Republic of the Philippines.
The SC ruled that the charter prevails because it is a special law and Admin Code is a mere general
law.
*****
Administrative law, however, is part of the larger study of administration. Administration refers to
that aggregate of persons or group of persons in whose hands the reins of government are placed
for the time being by the people.
We also refer to administration as public management. And there are two aspects of administration
when we refer to management as the concept of administration. We have internal administration
and external administration.
By internal administration, we refer to rules governing personnel matters like promotion, transfer,
removal, and other rules involving personnel matter. This is basically part and to large extent part
of the study of the law of public officers.
The study of administrative law, that we are studying now, is more of external administration. So
we dont study much the rules governing personnel that is law of public officers.
External administration is that law which governs the relationship between the administrative
authorities and the administrative agencies in relation to the public in general.
Again, we study the relationship inter governmental agencies. How is this governmental agency
related to another agency? If an agency s under this agency in an attachment relationship, what
can this agency do with respect to the agency that was attached to this particular department? If a
particular unit of a bureau is part of the line bureau as distinguish from staff bureau, what is the
power of the director of that bureau over a functional unit of a line bureau? So inter governmental
agencies. This is where we study the President as the chief executive in relation to the department,
bureaus and agencies. We also deal wit President and other agencies not forming part of the
departmental framework such as regulatory agencies, chartered institutions, GOCCs, and also the
LGU when exercising governmental function.
Not only that. Most of the part of study of admin law, we also deal with how this administrative
agency in general relates to the public. Like for example, the requirements for the validity of the
rules and regulations promulgated by an administrative agency, or the rules issued pursuant to its
quasi-legislative function - because we want to know if these rules can compel or bind the public.
And if it can bind the public, and a particular individual for example violates the particular rule,
does admin law provides for remedies. In that regard, we study the relationship between the
administrative agencies and the public. And we study the remedies also of these members of the
community when affected by the exercise of the powers of the administrative agencies.
2004/5/6 Bar Exam: Milista siya ug agencies. Unya gipangutan state whether the agencies or
institution are agencies of the government or instrumentalities of the government.
Naa na se Section 2 of the Introductory part of the Administrative Code of 1987. Para dili kaayo
bug-at magdaladala mo sa Admin Code, very important lang for you to bring Books 1 to 4, and you
go straight to Book 7. You will only be reading there just 25% lang of the whole Admin Code.
Concept of Agency
Apparently the concept of agency of government is more comprehensive than instrumentality of
the government. Because if you look at the definition of agency of government, it started with
various units of government. So apparently, any unit of the government is part of the concept of
agency of the government. But it continues it says various units of the government, including (1)
a department, bureaus, and offices; (2) instrumentality that includes regulatory agencies, chartered
institutions and government-owned or controlled corporations, and local government units when
performing governmental functions. Mao na ang scope sa agency of the government.
Again, comprehensive ang scope sa agency of the government. It covers various units of
government including the department. And you know, part of the department is the bureau; and
part of the bureau, maybe office. Kanang department is divided into bureaus and the bureau is also
divided into offices.
Instrumentality as distinguished from the department and the LGU, in Admin Code,
instrumentalities of government are those agencies that do not form part of the departmental
framework. Kadtong mga agencies nga wala mi form part sa department or departmental
framework, it is proper to call them instrumentalities of the government.
But of course,
instrumentalities of the government are agencies of the government.
Administrative Law

What are the agencies that are integrated in the departmental framework? How do you know that
an agency is not part of the departmental framework? And if it is not, it is specifically referred to as
an instrumentality of the government.
Ingun-anion ra na pagsabot Class, very simple. Remember that we had a new Constitution in Feb.2,
1987. It is a political and legal procedure that each time a particular state adopts a new
constitution, what should follow in order to implement the constitution should be an administrative
code. Anywhere in world, mao jud na, basta mag bag-o gani ug Constitution, mura na ang Admin
Code ug Implementing statute of the Constitution pertaining to the government. Pertaining to the
government dili tong implementing statute pertaining to the Bill of Rights, to the Declaration of
Policies. If you look at the Admin Code, lantawa ba gi reiterate ra ang provision sa 1987 Constitution
pertaining to the Executive department, Legislative department, and Judicial department kay
government ra man iyang focus.
So pag-iisue sa E.O. 292 (Revised Admin Code), it created all the departments in the national
government, ranging from the National Defense, Tourism, Public Works and Highways, Education,
Environment and Natural Resources, Finance and all nga nagsugod departments created one time
through the Revised Administrative Code of 1987.
Not only that, the Admin Code, under Books 5 to 6, nag create sila ug different attached agencies
and other functional units so naa didto ang mga bureaus.
For example, the Department of Finance divided into different bureaus like the BIR. Which in turn,
the bureau can be divided into different offices like a regional office because an office is a functional
unit of a bureau like Regional Office Region 7 of BIR. That is an office, that is part of a bureau, and
bureau is part of the department.
The moment an agency is to be created outside of these agencies already created by the Admin
Code, as a rule, they have to be created by Congress. Agencies that were created by Congress,
distinct and separate from the RAC of 1987 agencies will either be considered (1) regulatory
agencies, or (2) chartered institutions (there is a separate charter, the charter is the law creating
the agency), and then you have (3) GOCCs.
Outside na sila sa department framework in the sense nga wla na sila gi-apil ug create by the
Revised Admin Code of 1987.
E.O. 292 (Revised Administrative Code of 1987), of course, was promulgated when the President of
the Philippines, then late President Corazon Aquino, was exercising legislative power kay
provisional power at that time.
At any rate, pag-human adtong Admin Code, other agencies will now be created by Congress as a
general rule. And these agencies now, if do not form part of the agencies created by the Admin
Code, then they are particularly referred to as instrumentality not part or integrated in the
departmental framework.
However, if the agency is created as part of the departmental framework, then you do not call it an
instrumentality because it was created by Congress to form part of the department. In fact, it is one
of the reasons why it can be argued that the Truth Commission, for example, was created by virtue
of an Executive Order and was not created by Congress because when it was created, it was
created as an adjunct office or body or commission to the Office of the President. Why can you
consider it as adjunct to the Office of the President? Because (1) the budget is to be taken from the
budget already allotted to the Office of the President; (2) the staff personnel will come from the
Office of the President as a rule. So it is a separate agency in other words. So the argument whether
it is to be created by the Congress or not may be answered that way. Well, this is an agency to be
created as part of the Office of the President.
And lastly, LGUs performing governmental functions. LGUs form part of the agency of the
government when only performing governmental function.
Important Terms
It is important in Admin Law to know the concept of these terms:
"Department" refers to an executive department created by law. The law here referring to the
Revised Administrative Code. Like the Department of Finance, DENR, etc.
"Bureau" refers to any principal subdivision or unit of any department. This will give you an idea
that a department is divided into different bureaus. Like example the Department of Finance is
divided into BIR and BOC.
"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
Administrative Law

or occupied by individual persons, whose functions are defined by law or regulation (mao
na nia ng study pertaining to public officers).
"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.
"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.
Like UP, or Polytechnic University which have a charter. Chartered Institutions are vested with
specific functions in order to implement constitutional objectives. Like in the constitution, theres a
policy on promoting the welfare of the youth. The rearing of the youth will receive the support of
the government. that is th reason why the UP was created because it is free or at least subsidized.
Because according to the Constitution, the rearing of the youth shall receive the support of the
government. And how will the government do that? By establishing public schools. Thats why it is
better termed as a chartered institution kanang mga state colleges and universities. But this does
not mean that instrumentalities of the government do not have charter. Naa giyapon but we just do
not call them chartered institutions for purposes of administrative law. We just call them
instrumentalities of the government.
"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:
Bahala na ug proprietary basta for public need lang giyapon. Dili majority ha. It is at least 51%. Ako
lang gi klaro ning figures. Because 51% is not majority. It is 51%. Majority is 50% plus one share.
Kani siya 51% of the capital stock. Kanang 51% becomes majority in meaning only when there are
100 shares. So 51% there is majority. %
"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.
Let me go back rather to other slides included in my previous discussion. This is how i subdivided
the agency of government , by agency of government we are referring to instruments of
government including department and you have the bureau, the office and the instrumentality that
would regional agencies, chartered institutions, governmental corporations. LGUs the form part of
agency of government when performing governmental function. These are the terms mentioned
earlier, department, bureau, office, instrumentality, chartered institution or GOCCs. It is found in
the introductory part.
CREATION, REORGANIZATION AND ABOLITION
Lets go to creation, Reorganization and Abolition, in this part we need to consider the following
factors. What is meant by reorganization? Does reorganization include abolition of office? Does it
also include the creation of an office? Or does it only refer to mere changes in the organization of
the administration? Streamlining? Transfer of functions only? What about abolition? When can we
say that an office have been abolish? Before we even begin to analyze the problem, whether there
is good faith or bad faith because in sure you have that idea already, when we talk about abolition,
you first ask the question whether there was abolition. Then you also consider who or which has the
authority to create to reorganize or abolish administrative agencies? Why, because you will later on
learn, that the 1st level of analysis when you are confronted with abolition problem is not to go
straight to bad faith or good faith. The 1 st level of analysis here is that whether the abolition was
done by a legitimate authority because if the abolition was done by one who is not conferred with
the authority, then its useless to talk about bad faith or good faith in the 1 st place. You have to
know who creates an office. After having determine who has the authority to abolish, lets ask how
abolition or reorganization can be done. It must be done in good faith and definitely not in bad faith.
How will you know that the abolition was done in good faith and not in bad faith? Are there
indications of bad faith? If yes, what are the examples? So you will familiarize yourself with this
common, or what I call Indicia of (Bad faith) which are found in Larin vs Executive Secretary. Indicia
of Bad faith as also enumerated by the civil service laws. Another question is what is the effect of
the reorganization or the abolition to the officer that is affected? Because it may happen that after a
reorganization one office has been abolish and the one occupying it will of course complain. If that
is the question may the person or officer holding the office that has been abolish claim violation of
his security of tenure? This also touches in sub-areas of law of public officers. We will study this

Administrative Law

partly again in local government. These are the factors you should consider of you are confronted
with the problem of abolition.
1st what does reorganization include? We have the case of Larin vs Exec Secretary 1987, and its not
true that it has been overruled in 1987 because Larin has been cited in so many cases since then.
Its persuasive effect really is obvious and it takes a categorical declaration by the Sc if it is to
overturn the decision of Larin vs Exec Secretary. But just to make sure that it is still the prevailing
doctrine for purposes of (not clear). Atty Banda vs Ermita (2010) cited Larin vs Executive secretary.
We will go to this case later on.
INCLUSION: REORGANIZATION
But 1st what does reorganization include? Of course it includes transfer of function, it will include the
grouping and consolidation of offices and agencies, remember the Case of DOTC vs Mabalot? That
is also a landmark case in admin law or rather it is an important or significant case in Admin law.
The secretary of DOTC issued an order declaring the DOTC (CAR) was transformed into the regional
office of the LTFRB. DOTC and LTFRB are different. It was questioned as invalid because it was
primarily done by the Secretary of the Department and not even the President. Can the secretary
do that, consolidate or group agencies? Its a case of consolidation because he DOTC CAR was
converted into or was given the regional function of the LTFRB. Its DOTC as well as a Regional office
of the LTFRB. Primary question there was, can the secretary do that? Second, is on the issue of
whether the executive department can do that? The argument was that it should have been by
Legislative fiat. If you look at the concept of reorganization, it will be the grouping, consolidation of
agencies and even to abolish offices, transfer function, create and classify function services and
activities and to standardized salaries and materials. Basically those are the things that can be
covered by reorganization. Why talk about reorganization? In many cases it is a case of
reorganization rather than a simple abolition. The point I am driving at here is that dont confuse
yourself with the idea of reorganization and the idea of abolition. There is no question of abolition
because certainly an office can be abolished. But the question here is can an office be abolished as
a result of mere reorganization? Answer is yes, Larin vs Exectutive Secretary. The president, in fact
in Larin, is authorized to effect organizational changes including the creation of offices in the
department or agency under its supervision. Ok, so Abolition and creation included in the concept
of reorganization.
This is how abolition was perceived in National Land titles and Deeds
Registration vs CA. There is abolition if there is a creation of an office different from the one abolish.
It does not matter whether an office that is newly created still embraces full or some of the duties
of the old office. That is still abolition. Its no argument, that there is no abolition because it still
functions the way the old organization functions at the time except that this office have been give
new functions. That is no argument. It is irrelevant, whether or not the new office assumes all or
some of the duties of the old office. There is abolition just the same and the creation of a new and
different one. We have cases illustrating these concepts later on, but 1 st the modes creating public
offices.
MODES IN CREATING PUBLIC OFFICES
In the case of DOTC vs Mabalot, the SC enumerated the different modes in creating public offices:
1. Constitution 2. By law 3. By authority of law. Its no argument to say that the creation of an
office should be through legislative action; of course it can be done by the instrumentality of the
constitution. Essentially it is legislative so it is created by law. The third one is important; congress
can actually delegate the power to create to another. We look at for example the office of the
president, I will show to you later on the basis of what we call the continuing power of the president
to reorganize the executive department. The admin code of 1987, which is a law, conferred upon
the president the power to reorganize. So if an office is to be created, within the executive
department, lets say pertains to the office of the president, then it is an office created not by law
but by authority of law. It will be shown later on the basis for the continuing power of the president
to reorganize offices. In the case of DOTC, (diba I told you about the issue of whether or not the
Secretary can do that) the secretary can do that as the presidents alter-ego? If the secretary of the
department performs an act it is presumptively the act of the president. Dili na hilabtan sa
president then mao na na, alter-ego man sya. That is an act presumptively the act of the president
until and unless revoke by the president himself. We will study later on the meaning of alter-ego.
How much if it is the executive secretary that will do that because under the admin code the act of
the secretary if by way of authority of the president is the act of the president. What is the
difference with the act of the department secretary? The act of the department secretary is
presumptively the act of the president. PRESUMPTIVELY. But the act of the executive is really the
act of the president. That is why it is allowed for an executive secretary to allow the act of a
secretary of a department. We will go to that later on because we will study qualified agency, single
executive doctrine and etcetera So these are the cases that will illustrate b authority of law. This
is again in the case of DOTC vs Mabalot.
General Appropriations act for 1996-1987 or any general appropriations act for that matter. In fact I
have examined the general appropriations act of 2010, which still carries the same provision that
allows the President to reorganize the office of the president and the executive department. This is
by authority of law, the law which is the revised Admin Code of 1987 or the general appropriations
act. In the case of Viola vs Alunan III, sec 4938 of the LGC allow the Board of Directors (BOD) of the
Liga ng mga Barangay to create such other positions that maybe deemed necessary for the
management of the chapter. Diba the LGC of 1991, law but it did not create a position there; it
Administrative Law

allows the board of the director of the Liga to also create other positions so the office of the
secretary was created by the BOD. It was pursuant to the authority of law, meaning the authority of
sec 4938. Its very simple, by law or by authority of law. But in the case of Eugenio vs Civil Service
Commission (CSC), SC said that creation is primarily a legislative function. So who can abolish an
office? We are done with who may create, the constitution, by law or by authority of law. The next
question is who may abolish? Pwede nimo sugat sugaton, well if an office of agency was created
pursuant to a legislative enactment, Congress can abolish the office. However if it is created by
authority of law, it is a bit tricky or confusing. My opinion on this matter is this where an agency is
created by law then only congress can abolish. That is taken in the pronouncement in the case of
Eugenio vs CSC. But if it is created by the constitution then only a constitutional amendment can
abolish it. Where another one is authorize by law to create then it can also abolish unless the
intention of Congress is otherwise. It is possible for congress to authorize a delegate to create an
office but the delegate is not empowered to abolish the office if the power to abolish is retained by
Congress. The creation and the consequences of creation, if you are the delegate and the power
given to you is clearly to create do not assume right away that you have the power to abolish
because if the intention can be found or discovered that Congress retains the power to abolish the
office created then only Congress can abolish. Although it is seldom that it happens. Just for the
purpose of having the perfect picture of this issue.
PRESIDENTS POWER TO REORGANIZE
Now, I have mentioned about the Presidents power to reorganize, you can give three basis for this
Presidents power to reorganize the executive department. 1. The continuing authority of the
president as found in the usual General Appropriations act. It is also found in the General
Appropriations act of 2010. 2. Then you have sec. 20 book III of the 1987 Admin Code, it is referred
to as the residual powers of the president. 3. And the presidents control power over Department,
bureaus and offices under the 1987 Constitution. You know of course the concept of Residual
powers when a power is not vested, allocated or assigned to the congress or Judiciary then it
pertains to the President. That is why, in your rule on appointment of an officer, if an office have
been created by Congress and the Congress did not mention the appointing authority, as a rule you
have the residual power, the President has the Residual Power especially so that appointing powers
are essentially executive. These are the basis for the presidents power to reorganize.
VALIDITY OF REORGANIZATION; ABOLITION
Now you have the issue on the validity of reorganization. That is the issue on the validity, then if it
is affected by the issue on reorganization especially if there is abolition that is when you question
the reorganization. Nothing happens to you then there is no question. This is how you analyze
questions on reorganization, 1st you have to take note of these requisites: a. it must be
done by a legislative body. If the office is created by law then congress, if created by the
constitution then the constitution, if created by a delegate GR the delegate unless
congress reserves the power to abolish. For offices under the executive department you apply
your basic knowledge on the continuing authority of the President; if it is an agency outside the
Executive department that is when you talk about legislative Fiat or action. But if it is offices in the
executive department then its allowed that President will reorganize. That was clearly used in the
case of Larin vs Executive Secretary when there was a corresponding reorganization in the BIR,
there was a creation of an office, etc. And there was the case of Secretary DOTC vs Mabalot
involving the DOTC and the LTFRB merged in the same office that is part of reorganization. It is not
correct that only congress can create office and therefore it is also not correct to say that only
Congress can abolish office. The President may also abolish the office as exercise of valid
reorganization. 2nd it must be done in good faith, it must not be done in bad faith. How do
you determine good faith? There are 2 accepted objectives in order for reorganization to be valid.
That the Reorganization be done for the purposes of economy or for the purpose of
efficiency. Taken in the case of Larin, these are example of abolition in bad faith: if the abolition is
for the purpose of defeat security if tenure and for political reasons, if it involves a mere change in
nomenclature of position or where agency has created an additional office performing the same
functions of the one already abolish. This is bad faith because it was purposely abolish and a person
was affected and removed from office and then the authority who abolish the office will argue
that you cant talk about removal, if the office have been validly abolished. Removal presupposed
the existence of an office. It is a wrong argument for a person who already lost his job as a result of
reorganization that his office had been abolished. There is no violation of security of tenure; if you
lose your job as a result of valid abolition then you cant claim security of tenure. That is to say that
the abolition is legitimate and done in good faith because security of tenure presupposes that the
office still exists and that you were merely removed from that existing office. But if there is no office
to speak of, then you have not been removed. What is done is abolish the office and argue that you
cant ask for reinstatement because you have not been removed as the office had been abolished.
There is no removal from an office that has been abolished. Later on an office is created with a new
name and performing the same function and the appointing authority will hire another set of
officers that is also an indication of bad faith. If the claim of economy is belied with the existence of
ample funds, during the hearing it is proven that the office has still enough funds, and then it is bad
faith. If you dont observe sec. 2 and 3 of RA 6656 the Civil Service Law, there are many provisions
covering civil service employees, one of which is if an office is abolished and the officer occupying
that office no longer has his job and later on the same office creates other department rather or the
law creates another office, the under the civil service laws, those who have been removed by virtue
Administrative Law

of reorganization under the civil service law must be given preferred status during the hiring. That
is why if you go to sec 2 and 3 of RA 6656 you would see that proviso there. It is found in sec. 4 that
if there is a new position created that one that is considered and preferred in filling out the newly
created position is the officer removed as a result of reorganization. That is why dont confuse
yourself with the next in rank rule, because it does not apply to a newly created position. The Nextin-rank rule is only when a position is left vacant. It is not even an absolute rule; its just an order of
preference. That the officer next in rank should be preferred but then again as you have learned in
the law on public officers its the appointing authority that has the discretion. This was the one I
have mentioned earlier, may a public officer validly claim violation of security of tenure of an office
is abolish as a result of reorganization? It depends on the validity if the abolition. If the abolition is
valid meaning done by a legitimate authority, and done in good faith there is no violation of
security of tenure because there is no position to speak of in the 1 st place. Tenure as a concept
presupposes the existence of an office, when there is no office then there is no more tenure to
speak of. If it is invalid whether without authority or with authority but done in bad faith then there
is violation. It does not follow President has continuing powers to reorganize it is not immediately
valid, it should still be done in good faith. It should be for the purposes of efficiency and for the
purpose of economy. Otherwise even if done by a legitimate authority but done in bad faith then it
is still an invalid abolition in which case the officer concern can still claim violation of Security of
tenure.
Is there such a thing as vested right? No, there is no such thing as a vested right or interest in an
office. The public office is a public trust. It is not a property right except for constitutional offices
which provide special immunity as to salary and tenure, then no one is said to have a vested right
in an office or its salary.
ALTER-EGO DOCTRINE, QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY DOCTRINE, SINGLE EXECUTIVE
DOCTRINE
Id like to proceed to the Presidents power over administrative agencies. You should be able to say
something at least if asked to define or discuss any of these concepts: Alter-ego Doctrine, Qualified
political Agency Doctrine, Single Executive Doctrine. They all refer to one and the same concept,
that the executive power is vested in the PRESIDENT ALONE. The executive power is not vested in
the executive department. Unlike in legislative power, if you go to sec. 1 art. 6, Legislative power
shall be vested in Congress consisting of the Senate and House of Representatives. It is clear that is
vested not in one person but to a body that consist of 2 houses. If you go to judicial power, it shall
be vested in one Supreme Court and other courts as maybe created by law. Very peculiar though
that the executive power shall be vested in the PRESIDENT ALONE> so what does it mean if it refers
to the president alone? Acts of officials who are other than the president, like the secretary of the
department should only be considered as the act of an Alter-ego. You cant say that it is an act of
the secretary. Under the Alter-ego Doctrine, the Act of the secretary is presumptively the act of the
President. It is also the meaning of Single-executive. Therefore, the act of the Alter-ego maybe
reversed, overturned or set-aside by the president because that is supposed to be the act of the
president having been revoked its like saying that No, its not actually my act. The Act of the
secretary of department can be an act of the president, thats why you must call it as the Act of the
Alter-ego of the President and not the act of the secretary. Then here you should also take note of
the concept of control, supervision, control and supervision. These are the known and basic admin
relationships or attachments. So you have the relationship control, the relationship of supervision
and the relationship of attachment. You study these concepts here.
In your outline you were asked to read the case of Marcos vs Manglapus, for the purpose of
reviewing in fact of the nature of the executive power. Remember the case of Marcos vs Manglapus?
Diba, the Marcoses wanted to go back to the Philippines, the president refused through secretary
Manglapus, it was argued that the president cant do that because that power is not vested in the
president under the constitution and expression unios exclusion alterios, if it is not conferred to the
president then the president cant exercise the power. In the case of Marcos vs Manglapus the SC
had the occasion to describe the power of the president. The executive powers does not only refer
to the enumerated powers in the constitution, its the sum total of all powers which pertain to the
constitution whether enumerated, implied or inferred. Such that in the so called Residual Powers of
the President, the power is not conferred or vested in the legislature or the judiciary and not
prohibited in the constitution, the President can exercise the power.
That is the nature of the
executive power. That is your Alter-ego doctrine, single executive, qualified political agency
doctrine. The act of the secretary is presumptively the act of the president one need not bring to
the office of the president, under Qualified Political Agency Doctrine.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY DOCTRINE
Im sure you can recall your prior exhaustion of administrative remedy doctrine. Before the litigant
invokes the authority of the regular court in a controversy that started in an administrative agency,
1st the litigant must exhaust all administrative remedies, and 2 nd that the administrative remedies
must have been completed. Even if you are in the last remedy then you have not completed the
remedy yet then it is still considered pre-mature, one exception though is your Qualified Political
Agency Doctrine. If It is a decision of the Secretary of a Department the question is are you required
to go to the office of the president to have the decision of the secretary reversed to go to the
regular courts? As a rule no, because the act of the Secretary is presumptively the act of the
President so you dont need to go to the office of the President, you go to court now. That is perhaps
Administrative Law

an exception to prior exhaustion of Admin Remedy. Why is it an exception? Because supposedly you
still have one last remedy that is the office of the president. But because of the Alter-ego Doctrine
application then it is allowed. Except as provided in the rules, Standard practice in the director of
Land decision when approved by the Secretary of Agriculture, this decision should be appealed as
the office of the president as last result. Doctrinal jurisprudence, decisions of the director of lands
approved by the secretary of Agriculture this should be appealed to the office of the president as
last resort. Failure to appeal will be considered non compliance of prior-exhaustion of administrative
agencies, notwithstanding the Alter-ego doctrine. This came out twice in the bar exam. Why is this
so> maybe because there is an administrative rule which specifically requires the director of Lands
decision and approved by the Sec of Agriculture, you must go to the office of the President as last
resort. Maybe because of that rule, you cant invoke the alter-ego doctrine. What is sure is that is
the practice. You cant go directly to the regular court; this is the exception to the exception as a
matter of practice this should be referred to the office of the President as the last resort. Then you
have Lacson-Magallanes case.
ATTACHMENT
The _____ of the Court of Appeals is an illustration of attachment. The Philippine Ports Authority
(PPA) was attached to DOTC. Over personnel matters does DOTC secretary have jurisdiction over
the PPA? General Manager, dismissed an employee, the dismissal was reversed by the DOTC
secretary so analyze the relationship. The problem will tell you or it will be easy if it mentions
attached then Beja vs CA will apply. If the word attached is not placed but what is places is how
an agency is related to the department. You go to the different administrative relationships you
read Chapter 7 sec 38 of the Admin Code book 4, the different administrative relationships. One is
supervision and control, 2nd, administrative supervision, 3rd attachment. if you look at attachment It
refers to the Lateral relationship of the department or its equivalent. And the attached agency or
corporation for purposes of program and implementation. It is attached laterally it is not under its
supervision and control. If you have studied Public administration, if you have analyzed
governmental structure, direct line presupposes jurisdiction and authority. But if horizontal, staff
relationship, meaning that office is not under the control and supervision of the office up there.
Common offices could be consultancy task, advisory position e.g. legal counsel, if you look at the
governmental structure or even private structure, you can have the president and you the general
manager you add a line to the side, counsel. It is consultancy or advisory. It is not something that is
under the control and supervision of the president. That can happen in public agencies. Im talking
about lateral relationships. So an attached agency are not under the supervision and control of the
Department to which it is attached therefore, according to the SC in matters of personnel or
personnel matters, the codal provision is specific, the relationship is only for Policy and Program
Coordination. This is established not by the exercise of Control but either of the Following: there are
three ways in which attachment can be done. 1. By having the department represented in the
governing board of the Corporation, either the department Secretary or the undersecretary or
assistant undersecretary will be included or form part of the board of the attached agency. This is
one way of ensuring policy and program coordination. It could be a chairman; it could also be a
member that depends on the law. It could also have a voting or nonvoting right, what is important
is one way of accomplishing this attachment relationship is by allowing the department to have a
seat in the board of the attaching agency. 2. Having the attached agency comply with a system
of periodic reporting which shall reflect the progress of program project 3. Or having the
Department or its equivalent provide general policies to its representative in the Board. I just
made it clear just in case the examiner will not place attached agency but will just describe, eg.
An agency was created pursuant to blah, blah, blah. under the law the Secretary of the
Department shall seat in the board of its agency. The agency will also require for it to submit some
reports in order to monitor the progress of its project in the DENR. And the DENR sets the Policies, is
I an employee of this attached agency, but he was dismissed by the General Manager. This is what
happened in Beja vs CA, and sought the reversal of the decision dismissing him from service. Can
the Department Secretary reverse the Decision? No they have to go to CA. As to management of
personnel an attached agency is generally free from departmental control and interference. The
easiest basis that you can have is the lack of relationship, it is not under lateral relationship. Then
there are so many attached agencies in the Admin code, just browse through it. Attachment is very
common that is why I have to include this in our study of Admin Law. Department of Agriculture for
example there are 17 attached agencies. (see admin code). So what is the relationship of the
attached agency to the Department? Apply, Beja vs CA. as to management of personnel an
attached agency is generally free from departmental interference and control.
CONTROL POWER OF THE PRESIDENT
Control Power of the President is still subject to judicial review. It was argued that when a decision is
rendered by the President then it is the end of the process and under the law there is no remedy of
going to courts. But Judicial review is something that is not placed in the law because it is of
constitutional origin. Acts of President, Acts of Congress, they are all subject to judicial review. For
example in one case, United Residents of Dominican Hill, under these rules the quasi-judicial
agency concerned here there is stated that the decision of the agency is final and conclusive. Even
if there is such statement place but it is still subject to judicial review.
POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

Administrative Law

Powers of Administrative Agencies, you have quasi-legislative powers, quasi judicial powers and
implied powers. How do we distinguish Legislation from Quasi-legislative functions? Legislation
being originally vested in Congress is considered plenary. Legislation can cover both aspects as to
what the law shall be and how the law shall be enforced. It could be the law provides what it shall
be and the same law could also provide how the law shall be enforced. But in practice Congress
decides what the law shall be and the how and enforcement of the law is delegated to quasilegislative bodies. Eg. What the law shall beNO smoking in PUV. The law is it should be prohibited.
How will this be implemented? The law will state that this agency is empowered to implement this
law or promulgate rules and promulgations on how to implement the law. It will provide for a
system of monitoring, test, etc. what the law shall be cant be delegated. Only the how or the
enforcement of the law can be delegated. Other terms quasi-legislation, subordinate legislation or
rule-making power.
What about Judicial power and quasi-judicial power? Judicial power is the adjudication of a
controversy by determining legal rights, or duties through the application of law. Quasi-judicial
however is the determination of facts in a judicial manner. Judicial power is conclusive being the
power given to the Judicial department and the exercise of quasi-judical power is not conclusive
especially if it is in behalf of law.
QUASI LEGISLATIVE AND QUASI JUDICIAL
The next thing is you should distinguish quasi-legislative from quasi-judicial. Distinction between
Quasi Legislative and Quasi Judicial function. Quasi Judicial function requires notice and hearing,
Quasi Legislative requires only publication as a general rule. How do you determine if a function is
quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial? What the examiner will do is to describe a particular act of an
admin agency and he will not tell you whether that act is pursuant to a quasi-legislative or quasijudicial. Later on he will ask whether it was valid because there was no notice or hearing and
therefore the rule should not be binding on him. Why? Was the power exercise Quasi-judicial? If it
was not and it was mere quasi-legislative function notice and hearing are generally not required.
How do you determine whether the power exercised by the agency Quasi Legislative or Quasi
Judicial? In the exercise of a function the act done by the administrative body is to affect the
general public and no particular person or party that is quasi-legislative. Rate fixing for example
could either be quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial depending on the situation, if a rate has been fixed
to apply to the general public then that is quasi-legislative. If the rate is fixed because somebody
applied for that rate then the decision is quasi-judicial. There is rate fixing that is directly imposed
by the Admin Body e.g. tuition fee. But if you apply for a specific rate to apply e.g. transportation,
one rate will not apply because there are different routes, the decision by admin body will only
apply to you since you applied then that will be only considered as quasi-judicial. Notice and
hearing required in Quasi Judicial function but not in Quasi Legislative as publication is the
minimum requirement. Quasi Judicial sets different requirements to go to court that is the doctrine
of prior exhaustion of admin remedies but if it is Quasi Legislative then dont mention about prior
exhaustion of administrative remedies. For example there is a regulation issued by the BIR you feel
that it is objectionable, you want the declaration to be declared invalid because it is not in
accordance with the NIRC you go directly and file to the Court. The Examiner will then say that the
BIR will file a motion to dismiss on the grounds of failure to comply with prior exhaustion of
administrative remedies. The answer should be the BIR is not correct since what was exercised is
quasi-legislative function therefore you can go to court. In one of the cases there, what rule applies
though in cases of quasi-legislative? Hierarchy of Courts. You dont go directly to the SC, even
implementing rules that you want to be nullified, you go the RTC. Even implementing rules of a
national office apply before the RTC. Remember hierarchy of Courts. The quasi-judicial decisions are
generally brought to the CA and the SC because quasi-judicial are deemed equal in rank with the
RTC. Quasi legislative, RTC.

Power of control of the President

Last time we were talking about control power of the president and of course the control power of
the president is subject to judicial review. That is why we have cases about the control power of the
president because it is subject to judicial review if it involve proper allocation of power or If it
involves proper exercise of power then it is always subject to judicial review. The Power of control of
the President cant reverse a final decision of a quasi-judicial body when that decision of course has
already attained finality. The recourse is to go to the regular court. For example, in a particular
administrative rule says that the decision of this administrative body in the exercise of its quasijudicial function will become final and executor y and unappealable after 15 days, usually that is the
period. Then after 15 days has lapsed after a month for example and then you still elevate the case
to the office of the president invoking power of control on the part of the president. While it is true
on the part of the president that the power of control can modify, alter, set aside a decision of its
subordinate, a decision may be made between an act of an administrative body performing its
quasi-judicial capacity and a its non quasi-judicial capacity, as said the recourse is to go to the
regular court because it cant be remedied in the administrative body. Conversely if the
administrative rule provides for conclusiveness of an administrative decision, that will not bind the
court. As earlier mentioned one important distinction between a judicial and quasi-judicial function,
while judicial function is a final decision on rights through the application of law, quasi-judicial
decisions are never final. When a quasi-judicial decision determination of rights or facts is by
Administrative Law

10

judicial means, there is reception of evidence, there is weighing of evidence, there is application of
law in the set of facts that is judicial. It is only in that sense judicial, but as to the persuasiveness of
a quasi-judicial decision, it is never final. Even if the rule of procedure of an administrative body is
final and conclusive as to its decision, it is still subject to judicial review. This is where your Rule 65
will apply because there is no more plain and speedy remedy under the law. The rule of procedure
already says that the administrative decision is final and executory, that is where you would apply
your rule 65. But you must of course invoke grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction.
Administrative Relationships
Before we go to the different powers of an administrative agency dont forget the different
administrative relationships I have mentioned this last time when we took up Beja vs CA. kindly to
sec. 38 when you study administrative relationships. There are three recognize administrative
relationships, 1. Supervision and control 2.Administrative supervision and 3.Attachment.
How do you evaluate the relationship between one administrative agency with another
administrative agency? The 1st rule is to look at the law. Ayaw sa ang administrative code. You look
at the law, and try to evaluate whether the law provides a specific and more categorical
relationship between these administrative agencies and that will govern. Take note that the
administrative code is general. The charter creating the administrative agency is a special law so
you go to the charter first. Now when will these different administrative relationships apply? You
apply this only when the charter does not mention any administrative relationship. In many case it
does not mention administrative relationships. So thats when you apply section 38. Now this is
best understood by giving an example, in the case of supervision and control, which will have to
include the scope of the following authority of a higher administrative body:
1. Act directly
2. Direct the performance of a duty
3. Restrain the commission of an act
4. The one having supervision and control may review approve, reverse or modify acts and
decisions of its subordinate
5. It may determine priorities and may prescribe standards, guidelines of plans and programs. A
typical example of a relationship is that of the presidents delegate in relation to a particular
bureau, or a secretary who is an alter-ego of the president in relation to a particular bureau like to
the office of the president to a particular bureau it is govern by supervision and control. The 2 nd one
is administrative supervision. So no more control. In the absence of a provision to the contrary in
the charter, this one will govern. A good example for this one is the department secretary in
relation to a regulatory agency. You have the Department of Transportation; the secretary of that
department has administrative supervision unless otherwise provided in special laws over LTFRB
because it is a regulatory agency. Ok so a department secretary over a regulatory agency is
governed by Administrative supervision.
Matters that cant be the subject of an exercise of supervision
Take note however of b. 2 section 38 there are matters that cant be the subject of an exercise of
supervision. You have 3 matters in par. B 1. You have the supervisor which do not have jurisdiction
over personnel action except appeal 2. It does have supervision over contracts. 3. It cant control
the decision of a regulatory agency when it is exercise in its quasi-judicial function. Thats why in
the NLRC, its decision is not reviewed by the secretary of DOLE. The NLRC is under DOLE but since
it is exercising, in illegal dismissal cases, it is exercising quasi-judicial functions then it cant be
reviewed by the Secretary. That is why the decision there becomes final and unappeasable in the
NLRC. That is why we have the famous case of St. Martin Funeral, where by virtue of certiorari, rule
65 appeal to the CA.
Fundamental Powers of Admin Agencies
Fundamental Powers of Admin Agencies, we have already started with the definition of these terms
and we had this last time. Take note of that. Take note also of the so called Doctrine of Necessary
Implication, implied from express powers. An example of this is the power to promulgate rules of
procedure by quasi-judicial bodies. If a law creates a quasi-judicial body, and therefore expectedly
granting it quasi-judicial functions, the law does not need to provide authority for it to promulgate
rules of procedure. And even if the subject does not give expressly does not give expressly the
quasi -judicial body so created by that statute the power to promulgate rules and procedure, by
necessary implication, because it will perform quasi-judicial function and therefore exercise the
function in a judicial manner, then there has to be a set of rules like the rule on the filing of the
complaint, the filing of the answer, ho many days, etc. it can be done even if there is no express
grant. That is the doctrine of necessary implication.
This one is just a theoretical consideration in admin law, but this will help you understand other
areas in administrative law. I dont even think this will come out in your bar exam, unless the
examiner is a teacher in administrative law.
Administrative Law

11

Interpretation and Construction of Administrative Powers How do you interpret or construe powers
of the administrative agencies, liberally or strictly? A power of an administrative agency may be
interpreted either liberally or strictly depending on the issue. If there is no issue on whether the
administrative body can exercise a particular power, then the rule is it shall be interpreted liberally
in the light of the purposes for which it was created. Meaning, it should be liberally construed in
order to allow the admin body to accomplish or fulfill the objective of the law that it seeks
to implement.
In Matienzo vs Albera case (1988), involving PD 101 in 1970s gave colurom operators of public
utility vehicles the chance to be legalized. The Department of transportation or the particular
board) allowed the registration of colurom vehicles. But the law said that after six months ,
the Department of Transportation will now strictly regulate the operation and in fact penalized the
operation of colurom vehicles (those without franchise and still operate public utility vehicles).
Milapas na man ang six months, cge pa man japon ug legalize, accept or issue the certificate of
public convenience sa mga colurom operators. It was questioned: ui milapas na ka sa six months.
Take note that there was no question that the delegate can exercise that power, that is to issue
rules to allow colurom operators to become legitimate operators. Bisan milapas na ang six months,
SC said no problem because what the delegate was to actually accomplish the objective of the
law. So it was liberally construed in the light of the purposes for which it was created.In the other
case (Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan), the issue there is whether the administrative body, in the first
place, can exercise a particular power. If that is the issue, then it should be strictly construed. It is
only in that light that you will apply strict construction of the power of the delegate. Ang nahitabo
dinha sa Azarcon class (hahaha.. akong pagdungog una kay nahitabo ni sa Carbon class), a
private individual was authorized by the BIR to take possession of a distrained property. Unya
private individual man siya. Upon demand, he was not able to deliver the property restrained by the
BIR to the BIR, and so he was sued for malversation as a public officer. Ingon sya nga private
individual man ko nganong naa may jurisdiction nako ang Sandiganbayan. Ingon pod ang BIR:
when you were required to take possession or custody of the distrained property by the BIR, he was
converted kuno into a public officer. SC said: wala man na sa law. It is not found in the NIRC that if
you are given custody by this private individual of the distrained property, you will be converted
into a public officer. Because this is common man nga mahitabo. Unya wa man niya nauli kay
tiglang man. Ingon ang SC you cannot expand the NIRC. So strictly construed because the issue
there is whether or not the BIR can turn the private individual into a public officer just because he
has been given the custody of a distrained property. Since it was not found in the law,
an interpretation that will over expand the provision of the law cannot be allowed.
Unlike constitutional bodies, administrative agencies must locate in the statute relied upon a grant
of power, express or implied, before it can exercise it.
Here is another illustration of liberal construction. The Office of the Adjudication and Legal Affairs of
the HLURB (?), it decided a case via division. Because it is a collegiate body, gi divide ang
collegiate body into different divisions. But the law, PD 951, does not provide for a rule where a
collegiate body deciding the subdivision cases ca divide its body to different division. Authorized
lang to come up with rules and procedure. Unya ang rules and procedure class ky gi divide man ang
body into three different divisions. Gi assail as invalid because the division of the collegiate body
was not mentioned in the statute. SC said: Liberal construction especially rules or procedure.
Rules or procedure of admin body should be liberally construed in order to effectively exercise its
function. So even if the law does not provide, the quasi-judicial body may divide itself to several
divisions and assign to it the power conferred upon the body. May be ang COMELEC, kung wala pa
gibutang nga sa Constitution nga en banc ug a division, it may still divide itself as a body into
different divisions even if the Constitution does not allow it because the COMELEC is an
administrative body (although in later cases it is deemed a judicial body).
Another rule on interpretation (applying doctrine of necessary implication (Laguna Lake
Development Authority vs. CA) : the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB), was given the power to
regulate and adjudicate pollution cases. Under the law, thats the most you can get power to
regulate and adjudicate pollution cases. Mi-issue ang PAB ug cease and desist order. It was
questioned by the various municipalities affected by the cease and desist order. Aha an na
kwaa nga power your honor nga if you look at the law creating the LLDA, the power given to it
were simply he power to regulate and adjudicate pollution cases. There is no provision that gives
the PAB the power to issue cease and desist order especially so that this power is judicial in
character.
SC ruling: Doctrine of Necessary Implication. How can a regulatory body regulate an activity if it
cannot stop a prohibited activity? Therefore, it is implied from the power to regulate that it should
be allowed to issue cease and desist order. Dili lang injunction kay klaro ra kaayo nga court power.
In GSIS vs. CSC, the CSC issued a writ of execution. It was laso questioned: Wala man na sa
Constitution nga the CSC has a power to issue a writ of execution after a decision rendered by it
and writ of execution after a decision had been rendered by it and the decision had become final
and executory. Again, doctrine of necessary implication. Since it has the power to render a decision
and provide rules when the decision becomes final and executory, then that body should be clothe
with power to execute its own decision. It is implied from the power to decide a controversy. While it
Administrative Law

12

is not especially granted by the Constitution, nga to the letter gyud na the power to issue writ of
execution, it is implied from the power to adjudicate (GSIS v. CSC).
This is very important. You should know the limitation of the doctrine of necessary limitation. You
underscore greater. The doctrine of necessary implication does not authorize the exercise of powers
greater than the express powers. Sa ato pa, maka-imply ka ana class ug power kung ang express
power provided the implied power is not greater than the express power. So it is important to
evaluate what power can be implied from the express power. For example, in Cario v. CHR, I think
you are familiar with this case. The Commission on Human Rights is given the power to investigate.
Does it have the power to render a decision? So dinhi imong i-analyze, between the power to
investigate and the power to adjudicate, which power is greater? You should be able to explain that
also that, Sir feel lang nko ha, I will not be able to give pa the reason pero feel lang nko, the power
to adjudicate is greater than the power to investigate. Correct nuon na. Ang imong intuition correct.
Correct na sya. Pero you should be able to explain because investigative function or investigation
only forms part or is a component of only of adjudication. That is fact-finding mn. So if you conduct
hearing and determine facts in a given controversy, that is the nature of investigation. You just
ascertain facts. Thats all. But when you render a judgment by determining rights or duties through
the application of law on a given set of facts (not clear) after investigation, that becomes
adjudication. Are you following? Of course, you know that. That is very easy to understand. So kung
investigative power lang, di kutob lang ka sa investigation. You cannot imply the power to
adjudicate. In the same manner that, as we will study later on, the power to investigate will not also
necessarily involve the power to cite the person in contempt if, though given the power to issue
subpoena, if no power to cite in contempt has been granted by law because that is, again, a higher
power. Subpoena power versus contempt power. Contempt power is a greater power compared to
subpoena power. Do you agree? Natural subpoena does not entirely include any punitive measure.
Ang contempt is essentially punitive. So which one is greater in degree? That is the general rule. We
will study later on. Its a bit complicated if we talk about subpoena power and contempt power this
early. But that is just to show to you a situation where a greater power cannot be implied from a
lesser power.
The power to regulate also does not include the power to prohibit. If it simply says regulate trade,
then it cannot prohibit trade. Of course, it can prohibit a specific business if that particular business
has violated certain laws, like, law on sanitation, building, etc. You can prohibit that operation of a
particular business, but to restrict altogether the business of massage parlor, for example, on the
ground that it had been a venue of, you know what I mean, so you cannot altogether because there
is no law that prohibits the operation of massage. You can only regulate. If the power granted by the
Local Government Code to local government units, for example, to regulate does not carry with it
the power to prohibit. You can also have that as your framework. So take note of that. Gwapo nang
himuan ug question sa exam just to test. Kahibaw bitaw ka unsa nang doctrine of necessary
implication and the limitation of that doctrine.
Delegation of Power
Quasi-legislative power, the doctrine of subordinate legislation. You know the rule is non-delegation
of legislative power? Why? The idea is well we are governed by the principle of separation of
powers. The doctrine of separation of powers necessarily prohibits, as a rule, the sharing of powers.
Sharing of powers will only be allowed by the very Constitution itself for if there is no rule like that,
then you cannot maintain the doctrine or the principle of separation of powers. It will disturb the
doctrine of separation of powers. As a rule, legislative power, since it is vested in Congress, as a
rule, it cannot (Congress cannot) delegate it to the President. As a rule, it cannot delegate to the
judicial branch. Of course, dunay mga philosophical reasons for that as espoused by your famous
author of the separation of powers doctrine, Baron de Montesquieu. Kaila mo ana nya? Silingan na
nato. Baron de Montesquieu, a French philosopher, who really espoused the doctrine of separation
of powers. (not clear) for there will be tyranny, for the King will be the policy-maker and the
executor and at the same time, the judge. So there will be tyranny, principles like that. The idea,
therefor, is non-delegation. But there are exceptions, of course. Santiago v. COMELEC and other
Supreme Court decisions, enumerated in the textbooks, would easily enumerate at least five
exceptions:
(1) The delegation to the President under Sec. 28, Art. VII of the Constitution regarding the fixing of
tariff rates and import quotas, the basis, of course, is the President has the necessary resources and
means to determine the economic need for certain imports. Why? Because it has the Department of
Foreign Affairs and other competent administrative agencies.
(2) Delegation to the President under Sec. 23 of Art. VII on emergency powers. In times of national
emergency, youve learned that the Congress can grant the President emergency powers, but only
insofar as necessary to carry out a declared national policy. The Constitution does not mention as to
the nature of emergency powers, but we can resort to logic by saying that since it is a power
granted by Congress, since the Constitution does not provide for its nature, then we can say that it
should be legislative. That power called emergency power should be legislative character because
it is power that is delegated by a legislative body. And as a rule, administrative body can do that if
the power does not belong to it.
(3) Delegation to the people Peoples Initiative.

Administrative Law

13

(4) Delegation to local government units. It is allowed not by express constitutional provision, but
by tradition, that local government units had been, in the past, granted delegated powers police
power, eminent domain and taxation. In fact, in one Supreme Court decision, since time
immemorial, the government had been practicing that and so by reason of tradition, we allow it
despite the absence of a constitutional provision.
(5) Delegation to administrative bodies. What is the basis for the delegation to administrative
bodies? We already mentioned about them the modern complexities in the society, Congress does
not have the time and the expertise to address these complicated concerns and so the birth of
subordinate legislation. Under this doctrine, the administrative body has the authority to
promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given legislation and effectuate these policies.
Theres the reason there the legislature often finds it impracticable, if not impossible, to anticipate
and provide for multifarious complex situations. Thats easy to understand
This one is important nature of subordinate legislation. Implementing rules have the force of law.
They are entitled to great respect by courts and because implementing rules, that are valid of
course, are understood to form part of the statute that the rules seek to implement, then it shall
also enjoy presumption of legality. So it has the force of law, it is entitled to great respect and it is
also presumed legal. Therefore, it is incumbent upon anyone claiming that (story about the
dewende omitted). So take note of that ha. Sir nganong imo man ng gi-highlight? Because, again
this may appear theoretical but having a good framework would help you understand this rule
however will not apply to decisions of quasi-judicial bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions. so,
kanang mga entitled to great respect... di na mu apply sa quasi-judicial decisions. peru kung
subordinate legislation, medjo mu respect ang courts. peru kung quasi-judicial decisions, there is no
such thing as 'respect for that opinion'. precisely, even interpretative rules (rules gihapun ni ha, lain
sd nang decisions interpreting rules in a given controversy). interpretative rules are simply rules
issued by administrative agencies exercising subordinate legislation. even that also deserve great
respect. kana, interpretation.
in the case of eastern telecommunications, 2006 case in your outline that was clarified. if it is
interpration of a rule by an administrative agency, that also deserves respect by courts. peru
interpretation of a rule when applied to a given controversy is a different situation because that is
already quasi-judicial. unya kana nga power to decide a case in a judicial manner is simply a
borrowed power. that is essentially a judicial power. okay? and judicial power, according to the SC,
is vested in the supreme court and such other lower courts as may be established by law. so, courts
always have the final say if we talk about exercise of judicial power. so, again tentative. take note of
that. ky basin ug ma-miss out man gud ninyu. decisions of administrative bodies deserve great
respect or unsa na, finality... wala! applicable rana siya class to administrative rules (subordinate
legislation), including interpretative rules.
mu-issue kag rule explaining a particular rule issued by the same administrative body. in fact that is
the rule--interpretative rules issued by the administrative bodies interpreting its own rules will be
respected by courts. of course, you will learn later on that there are exceptions. like if it is obviously
erroneous, etcetera, or if the interpretation violates a law. apart from those situations, it will have
the force of law entitled to great respect and the presumption of legality.
(unnecessary chika ni sir)
fundamental limitation. Echegary vs. Sec. of Justice. administrative rules and regulations are
intended to carry out, not to supplant nor to modify the law. an administrative agency cannot
amend an act of Congress. unsy ____ ni echegary? death penalty? oo, dunay death penalty
law providing originally for electrocution. later on it was amended by another law providing for
another method of exceution, it was lethal injecton. unya, daghan to ug issues class but for
administrative law there was a finding about a certain section 19 man cguro of the implementing
rule in carrying out the execution of the death sentence. about the suspension of the execution in
the case of a pregnant woman. no question because the implementing rule failed to include one
year from the delivery, and then they added pa gyud suspension of 3 years. a provision that you
don't find in the death penalty law has amended. easily, ingun dayun ang SC nga dili na pwede.
later on we will study the (d jud ku kasabot) when we study potestas delegata non delegari potest
in relation to the manual to be prepared by a director--because there was no provision that the
manual will have to be approved by the secretary. there was therefore total application. that is very
obvious. it cannot add, it cannot supplant...
Is it possible for an implementing rule to have a provision touching on a matter that is not found in
the statute? ang inyu lang class ky ang phrase implementing rules are intended to carry out, not to
supplant nor modify the law.. kanang word nga modify for example should not be interpreted nga
ang implementing rule dili ka add ug certain subject matter sa iyang rule. pwede! Holy
Spirit Homeowners Association vs. Defensor in 2006, that is the question. the SC said 'that provision
does not necessarily contradict the statute' so ayaw ka ug kanang strict kaau ang interpretation sa
modify. ang meaning sa modify is ma-modify ang objective, dili ky ma modify ang provision.
otherwise, mu ingun nalang kag waman ni gamit ang implementing rules ug dili ta ka add ug
certain details. precisely the doctrine of subordinate legislation allows the delegate to fill in the gap
in the law. because congress precisely cannot anticipate future conditions. ang nahitabo sa Holy
Administrative Law

14

Spirit Homeowners Association--part of pila to ka-hectares, murag 300 or 400 nga property nga gi
declare formerly as national government center. peru nganu mana.. wa pud ta ka-cguro noh, maybe
naa gyud tay intended budget for that peru ambut asa na kaha na. that's a good idea noh. so ingun
ang government nga wa man niya magamit, atu nalang ning ihatag sa mga beneficiaries (daghan
mansd ug nag squat), part of it. and then the implementing (?) agency was the national housing
authority and other related agencies. the law provides that it will be given to residents there and
other qualified beneficiaries. ang implementing rule class ky ni ingun man presyo is 700 per sq
meter. cguro wai problima, ky natural function man sa national housing authority to sell man kaha
to intended beneficiaries at a very cheap price. that cheap price is not questionable. ang gi
question there was gi provide na. kinahanglan jud kuno nga after 60 days kinahanglan i-execute
ang intended beneficiary ug contract to sell. failure to do that kuno after 60 days, d na maka avail
ang beneficiary sa 700 per sq. meter. mu mahal na. ingun dayun ang (ambut) nga 'you don't see
this in the law. mura man siya ug form of penalty for not entering into a contract to sell within a
certain period of time which is not even provided for by law.' ingun dayun ang SC nga that is wrong.
that is to say nga dili diay maka add ug certain details ang implementing agency? so, a provision
that is not found in the statute is not necessarily contradictory to the statute. what is important, as
what we have mentioned earlier, is to consider the objective of the law. ky if that provision happens
to be not found in the statute but just the same it will accomplish the objective of the law, it's
alright.
test of delegation. by completeness test it means that a law should be complete in all its terms and
conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate the only thing he
has to do is to enforce it.
Comparing with some professors in this university on the issue on whether or not both tests must
be complied with. If both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authority
to the delegate and compliance with one already accomplishes that objective then why comply with
the other one? Nangita jud ko kung naa ba categorical declaration na both test must be complied
with. Tests man gud ang gi ingon. So kung test siya nya ma comply nimo ang isa in relation to the
purpose of the rule then ok na. Kamo unsa inu opinion? Do you really understand the meaning of
completeness test and sufficient standard test? In other words you need to know the subject
matter of both tests. Wa jud koy nakit.an na categorical pronouncement from the SC that both test
must be complied with. Ang ako ra nakit.an both test are INTENDED to prevent total transference of
legislative authority to the delegate but after discovering that they do not actually refer to the
same subject matter then both test must be complied with. Both because they are dealing with
different subject matter. When is the law complete? The law is complete if it is able to identify the
subject matter to be delegated, who will do it, and how the delegate will do it.
Alright we will continue, the sufficient standard test as defined requires that the law delegating the
power to subordinate must define a legislative policy. The policy marks out his limit and marks out
his boundary and specify the public agency and indicate the circumstances under which the
legislative command must be effected. It does not require that it must be literally determinate. It is
enough that it is determinable. Even by simply looking at the legislative history of the law. As long
as found in the legislative history or in the preparation of the law or other provisions that will
determine that policy. Example is fair and equitable employment practices in the case of Eastern
Shipping lines vs. POEA. The law allows the POEA to come with contract for overseas employment.
It was questioned because the parties will not be able to determine the terms and conditions. Di
man kay the law allows the POEA to come up with employment for overseas workers and the
standard used was simply fair and equitable employment practices.
Examples of Legislative policies/ Sufficient Standards:
1) Fair & equitable employment practices in the case of Eastern Shipping Lines vs POEA where
POEA was authorized by law to prepare a contract of employment. The law allows the POEA
to come up with a contract of employment to overseas workers and the standard used was
simply fair and equitable employment practices pwede na. if the POEA thinks that that
particular employment condition is within the standard which is fair & equitable employment
practice, that is allowed
2) Public interest
3) Justice & equity
4) Public Convenience and welfare (Edu vs Ericta on EWD)
5) Simplicity, Economy
However if it says that the delegate may do acts which it sees fit, that is unbridled discretion
already. Take not that the purpose of sufficient standard test is to prevent total abdication of
legislative power/discretion.
US vs Toribio involving a prohibition of transport of carabaos from one town to another where the
meat inspection commission was given authority to dispose of confiscated carabao meat, how? as it
sees fit dili gyud na pwede.
Doctrine of Potestas Delagata non delegari potest delegated authority cannot e further delgated.
So an administrative agency cannot further delegate.

Administrative Law

15

KLU vs Garcia on fixing of fair rates for uses. First delegation was to fix the fair rates. However PSC
said that bus operators may impose other rates they deem fit SC: that is further delegation.
American Tobacco vs Director of Patents there was delegation but only part of the discretion. The
respondent was assigned to decide on application for patents, so he delegated this to hearing
officers. SC said that this is ok as long as the Director of Patents would ultimately make the
decision.
Echegaray case- the manual made y the Director has been authorized by law to the SOJ, the latter
delegated the same to the Director who will provide the manual for the implementation for the
death sentence. But the manual was to be prepared by the Director without having the SOJ to
review the manual. SC said this is total abdication which is not allowed.
Kinds of Interpretative Rules:
1) Subordinate Legislation
2) Interpretative Rules
3) Internal Rules
The first 2 affect the public. The significance of determining such is on the issue of publication.
Notice & hearing is not required in the promulgation of legislative rules on in QJ functions. If a rule
has been made pursuant to its legislative function, as a rule publication is required.
Taada vs Tuvera Interpretative rules (interpreting what the rule is) and internal rules (which does
not affect the public) do not need published in order to be valid. Publication is a part of due process
and if it will not affect property, liberty, it does not affect the public. Rules are binding on courts if
theres no controversy. Interpretation of rules, which does not require publication, is just advisory
subject to judicial interpretation.
Requisites for validity of Administrative regulations:
1) Authorized by congress e.g. Tariff & Customs code authorizing the president
2) Within authority of the law
Pp vs Maceren Old fishing law prohibited the use of obnoxious/poisonous substance in fishing.
Maceren was caught using electro fishing. The IRR prohibited electro fishing. SC said that this
cannot be allowed because it is difficult to liken electro fishing to a substance. The remedy
should be a curative law. The IRR cannot supplant/add to a law.
3) Not Ultra Vires
4) In accordance with prescribed procedure
5) Fairness & Reasonableness
You have the case of Holy Spirit Home Owners Assoc vs.--- we have already discussed this. All that
is required is that the delegation to be germane to the object and purpose of the law. The
delegation not be in contradiction but in conformity prescribed by law. This one is very important: in
accordance with required procedure. These are questions that have been asked in several bar
exams in different manner- objective or problem; in many cases problem. Kinahanglan
comprehensive imong answer to this if given a problem. Is prior notice and hearing required? Ang
ako baya gihatag nga rule last week, duna jud koy general Why is it required? Ako lang gi test
ang we are talking of rule-making na. Is prior notice and hearing required in subordinate
legislation? Lahi ang prior notice and hearing, lahi sad ang publication. Ayaw ka confuse class sa
publication and notice and hearing ha. Publication- well go to that later. The rule is, its not a
requirement in order to comply with administrative due process but of course, certainly that is a
correct ascertation(?) that the if the law requires that there should be notice and hearing If the
answer is Yes, naa jud diay situation nga dunay notice and hearing. Ang pinaka popular, sige balik2
sa bar exam, kini rate-fixing power of administrative agency. Does it require prior notice and
hearing? It seems to be rule-making pero essentially it is quasi-judicial because it only applies to
particular persons after determination of facts- then it should be considered as quasi-judicial.
Therefore, prior notice and hearing would be a requirement. Dunay Sec. 9 Chapter 2 of Book VII of
the Admin Code requiring for the circulation of notices and to afford interested parties to submit
views prior to the adoption of the rule. Dunay specific provision in Sec. 9 that if it is a rate-fixing
rule, publication is required but not necessarily a hearing. So lahi ang publication. In rate-fixing rule,
publication is required but not necessarily hearing. It is --- so if its not in reality a rate-fixing rule
and in a concept of subordinate legislation. If it is a rate-fixing under the concept of quasi-judicial
function because there is a specific party involved after a determination of fact a judgment would
be rendered in so far as a particular party is concerned- meaning it is not for the general public,
hearing there is already a requirement. Wala na na siya sa concept of subordinate legislation. Ratefixing will be under the concept of subordinate legislation if the rate is applied to all. However, a
statue may provide that an administrative regulation of general application, as opposed from ---,
would not require previous notice and hearing. The law does not require notice and hearing. It is
perfectly alright. What cannot be dispensed with is publication. Notice and hearing- pwede ra ang
Administrative Law

16

statute mo dispense ani. If silent ang statute- in a sense nga it does not dispense/mention with the
(requirement of) notice and hearing, Sec. 9 Chapter 2 of Book VII will now apply wherein there must
be at least a circulation of notices and to afford interested parties to submit views prior to the
adoption of the rule. Lain man nang notice and hearing because you are really required to conduct
a public hearing and send out notices that there will be a public hearing in this particular day. Pero
og mo ingon lang ka nga circulate notices and to afford interested parties to submit views notice
lang ana is that there will be this rule, unya interested parties shall submit position paper or any
communication to the administrative body to air their concern, pwede na na. That is the minimum
requirement IF the law does not dispense with notice and hearing. Lahi siya nga rule noh. For
purposes of complying with due process, notice and hearing is NOT required in subordinate
legislation. Dili siya required. That is why it is perfectly alright for the law to say nga walay notice
and hearing. Try to analyze Sec. 9. If the law says notice and hearing is not a requirement for the
effectivity of this particular rule, is that wrong? NO, its perfectly alright because precisely notice
and hearing is not a requirement in subordinate legislation. It is only a requirement in quasi-judicial
function. Minimum requirement for administrative rule is publication. Kung silent ang rule nga wala
mag dispense sa notice and hearing, dunay minimum requirement? YES, Sec. 9 Chapter 2 of Book
VII- circulate notices and afford interested parties to submit views pero dili ka mag conduct og
public hearing kay mo send out ra man ta og notices tungod kay ang administrative agency mag
conduct og pubic hearing- like kanang bang mga notices nga if it is about urban poor, o kana cge
post na didto, dunay public hearing, mu attend in this particular date Ang mogawas sa bar exams
simple ra man. Tagaan ka lng situation nga from there you will determine nga ah quasi-judicial
function ni kay specific party unya nay determination of factsso quasi-judicial kabalo naka notice
and hearing requirement jud na siya or tagaan ka og problem nga purely legislative rule- the
administrative agency simply issues a rule and applies to the public in general, walay specific
party... so kabalo na ka
Now, EXCEPTIONS to notice and hearing. (1) When the statute itself requires it. The basis is admin
code. (2) When the administrative rule substantially adds to or increases the burden of those
directly affected. The basis is jurisprudence. Those directly affected ha dili specific person lang.
Otherwise, quasi-judicial function na siya. Directly affected meaning kadtong obviously covered by
the rule. Dili specific person/party kay dili na na administrative rule. A landmark case of this
requirement of notice and hearing in administrative rule is CIR vs. CA. Tanawa, first example, EO
172 created by the ERB provided for the rule authorizing the ERB to fix the prices of petroleum
products only upon notice and hearing. In the meantime it can issue provisional rates without notice
and hearing. Provisional rates lang pero for prices of petroleum, ang law na mismo nag ingon nga
upon notice and hearing. So imo na i comply. Og wala pa na sa EO 172 pwede na I dispense with
There must be circulation atleast of notices and affording interested parties to submit their (not
clear). But provisional rates, kabawo nka sa idea of provisional kay temporary lagi sya, no notice of
hearing is required. Ex-parte pwde which is more or less common to administrative agencies. Basta
provisional, pwde na ex-parte, anyway, its temporary.
The case of CIR vs CA, Fortune Tobacco manufactured cigarettes called Champion, Hope and More.
Ang issue was subject to lower tax but depende ang rate kung i-categorize xa as locally
manufactured but bearing foreign brand or locally manufactured pero dili bearing foreign brand.
Lain-lain. Kun wa ko masayop, 55% kun bearing foreign brand unya 44%. in the first category, taas
ang rate, in the 2nd category lower ang rate. Before the issuance of the subject memorandum
circular, the cigarettes were classified as locally manufactured not bearing foreign brands. Later on,
gi-usab man ang memorandum circular kai nagpuli-puli lgi ang mga commissioner. So, gi-usab, gireclassify xa into locally manufactured but bearing foreign brands kai kani kunong Champion, Hope
ug More, listed xa sa World Tobacco Directory as having been manufactured by murag a Japanese
firm, another one in foreign country so foreign brand. What's my point? My point is, with the
1st memorandum circular, ang rate payable kai 44% lng unya nag-issue ug memorandum circular,
nahimo na xa ug 55%. the issue was, the memorandum circular was issued without prior notice and
hearing. Ingon sad dayon ang BIR: wa mo malipong, interpretative rule ni; it's just interpreted
provision of the national internal revenue code. Ingon sad dayon ang SC: btaw, maybe yes pero it is
a basic tenet of due process considering that in this case there is a substantial addition of a burden
to be taxed to your concern. Ingon ka millions of pesos involved, pila ang difference anang 55% ug
44%. pero ingon ang SC nga because the new rule increases the burden of those covered, it
behooves upon the agency to afford those directly affected a chance to be heard and thereafter to
be duly informed before the due issuance given force and effect of law. The law does not require the
hearing but because it added burden to those affected, jurisprudence says there should first be a
hearing, a chance to be heard.
But in GMA vs MTRCB, filing of copies with UP Law Center is mandatory means in all cases ayaw na
pag-huna-huna unsay nature anang administrative issuance. Sec3 requires its agencies to file with
the office of the national administrative register (ONAR) of the UP Law Center 3certified copies of
every rule adopted. Pero wala may problema sa mga interpretative rules nga dili mo-add burden
kai walay ma-apektohan _____. For example dili maka-submit ang administrative concerned sa
ONAR nya wa man sad mo-questiona ana so kato rang mga rules nga of course will affect the
public nya mahibaw-ang nga walay submission of 3 certified copies of the rule to the ONAR dili na
xa ma-enforce mao jud na. Administrative issuances not publish or filed with the ONAR are
ineffective and may not be enforced, you cannot be bond by it in other words. Ang himuon sa
agency concerned mo-submit ug 3 copies. Later on dha pa cla maka-enforce, mao ra nay mahitabo.

Administrative Law

17

Rules with penalties

The statute must declare the violation as punishable. The statute must provide for the penalty and
the rule must be published.
The statute must declare the violation is punishable. Dli pwde that the declare that the interim rules
declare the act as punishable. The statute must declare the violation is punishable Insofar as the
penalty is concerned, it should be the statute that should impose and specify the penalty. But
usually and mahitabo man gud ani is that the statute provides for a penalty not more than 1 year
imprisonment. The implementing rules moingon lng 6 months. Mu hatag naman xa Scope of
authority. Adto na xa sa completeness test. And he rule must be published as a condition sine qua
non.
Usually ang e hatag sa bar exams has something to do with permits, franchises and licenses.
Saado vs. Court of Appeals. The action of an administrative agency in granting or
denying, or in suspending or revoking, a license, permit, franchise, or certificate of
public convenience and necessity is administrative or quasi-judicial. Nganu man?
Franchising man gud imu ma affect. Imu na e revoke, Quasi judicial na. the function of granting
certificate of public convenience quasi-judicial na. license. It is dependent upon the
ascertainment of facts by the administrative agency, upon which a decision is to be
made and rights and liabilities determined. Ascertainment of facts, decision documented and
right and liability.
This one is important. Status of Quasi-Judicial Bodies vis a vis the Courts. Co equal lng na
xa. When a quasi-judicial body excercises its quasi- judicial function, deemed co equal lng na xa sa
RTC. Pero Completuha class ha. When we say a quasi-judicial body it talks about an agency na mu
exercise quasi judicial function. Ang administrative agency lagi mu exercise man xa ug subordinate
legislative power. Rule -making power. Di na nmu tawgon ug quasi judicial body. Kung mu exercise
xa gni ug quasi-judicial function, quasi- judicial body na. insofar as function is concerned, co-equal
xa with the RTC. Therefore you dont go to the RTC for decisions of quasi judicial agencies. Dba
Rule 43 of the Rules of court provide for petition for review of decisions of quasi-judicial bodies.
Except in the decision for just compensation. Dba sa agrarian reform dona nay determination of just
compensation? Heirs of Vidad vs. Land Bank of the Phil. the DARAB here will determine just
compensation. In the determination of just compensation, there will be ascertainment of facts,
there will be determination of rights to the just compensation and to pay the just compensation.
Unya specific because it will refer to the holder of the land over that right of reform program. So
quasi-judicial yan. Supposedly co-equal with the RTC but the law provides for a different procedure.
It is only in this case not unless the case another law that has more or less situation but in many
cases it involves DARAB. So even decisions of DARAB rendered in exercised of quasi-judicial
function, that decision will still go to the RTC constituted as Special Agrarian Court (SAC). Nganu
mana Sir nga diba co-equal mana with RTC? Magbuot ka nga mao may naa sa rules. Kana nga mga
rule na it is co-equal will only apply if there is no specific rule that governs their procedure. But
when the specific rule provides otherwise that would govern. Ingana ra kasayon and administrative
law. In this case duna may provision, in fact in this case the SAC (RTC) is mandated to review the
decision of the DARAB in the matter of just compensation among others. According to the SC the
procedure in the determination of just compensation under RA 6657, commences with the
Landbank of the Philippines determining the value of the land, initial determination by the
Landbank. Unya mao nay gamiton pra pag offer ngadto sa landowner para sa just compensation.
Kung morefuse ang landowner then there will be a hearing for the determination of the just
compensation after the landowner had been notified thereof. There will be a summary
administrative proceeding to determine the just compensation. Summary ha dili ex parte so naa
gihapoy noticed. So the party disagreeing the decision of the DARAB will bring the matter to the
RTC designated as Special Agrarian Court for the final determination of just compensation.
You remember the case that declared the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law as a special kind of
expropriation, extraordinary expropriation. Being so, the determination of just compensation is
always judicial. Di gani pwede Congress mo pass ug law fixing just compensation, it is always
judicial. Mao nay basis even just compensation determination by the DARAB will have to go to the
RTC. So contrary to petitioners argument DARAB do not exercise concurrent jurisdiction with RTC
sitting as SAC in determining just compensation cases. Kay ngano man? Kay ang party diri miappeal dayon sa CA kay ingon siya quasi-judicial body gud ni co-equal ra ni sa RTC using the
general rule. Mao lage nah if the law does not provide for a special rule like this one.
There is also the requirement for the valid exercise of the quasi-judicial power. Jurisdiction, I think
its an obvious requirement. Diba duna man toy controversy involving employee and employer?
When we have this controversy should it be settled by the NLRC? Kinsa man ning mga parties?
Employee asking for claim money for example from an employer, so unsa man? Ato ibutang
existing pa ang EE-ER relationship, DOLE ang jurisdiction. Kung wala, NLRC? Because imu gi.assume
nga ang iyang claim labor standard. Kahinumdum mo atong case involving San Miguel nga mga
Sales Agent? Nga duna silay program, nagpacontest ang San Miguel na when you are able to
reached this quota you will be awarded something like money ba to or whatever, nya wala
gi.comply sa company. Does the NLRC have the jurisdiction over the case? Ingon ang SC you look at
the applicable law and that will resolve the controversy. Since it is a claim involving a contract the
applicable law is Civil Code not the labor code. That denies outright already the jurisdiction of the
Administrative Law

18

Labor arbiter. It is so happened that it was filed in the labor arbiter but I could not fairly remember
but maybe there was also an issue of illegal termination. So ingana ra nah siya ka.simple. You just
refer to the law applicable to the controversy. Kani kay gikiha nya ang globe kay dunay gipadala na
telegraphic message nya wa miabot so gikiha nya. Didto niya gikiha sa Public Service Commission,
daan na kaso. So didto, unsa may jurisdiction sa Public Service Commission? Matters of rates, way
labot nang dili moabot na message. Civil Law, civil code provision ang mo.apply. So beyond the
jurisdiction of the administrative body.
DUE PROCESS
Due process requirement, ayaw anang opportunity to be heard ha. It includes opportunity to explain
ones side and even opportunity to seek for a reconsideration of an action or ruling of the admin
agency. Kanang 1st two, di na ko mo.discuss kay kahibaw naman ka ana. Opportunity to seek
reconsideration, caveat ni class. Pananglitan ang party to the case, ang respondent for example a
complaint has been filed against the respondent. The complaint did not reach the respondent. The
notice also by the admin agency asking the respondent to file an answer did not reach the
respondent. Wa gyud siyay kalibutan nga nay kaso, gawas ng decision kay waman siya mitubag. Of
course unsaon pagtubag nga waman siya kadawat ug notice sa complaint ug notice gikan sa admin
agency. Pero kadawat siya sa decision. Gipalapse niya ang 15 days within which to file his motion
for reconsideration. Ingon ang SC there was no denial of due process. Ka-grabe gud? Wala siya
kareceived ug notice nga naa diay case filed against him, wala siya kahibaw nga gi.orderan diay
siya sa admin agency to file an answer, reply or whatever? Ang nadawat ra gyud niya is the
decision. But it was found out that he had actually ample time to file for a motion for
reconsideration. The respondent failed to do that, according to the SC ah you had the opportunity
to seek for a motion for reconsideration. Pwede na nah, administrative due process. Not unless
again the specific rules of procedure provides otherwise. Like the procedure in NLRC, more or less
specific. Kana lang opportunity to seek reconsideration, murag maoy pinaka minimum bah. Kaning
opportunity to be heard, kadto ra gud ning personal appearance, papers lang okay na nah. Or waka
mi.appear when required but you knew that there was a hearing but you opted not to appear. Ang
importante is that you have the opportunity to seek reconsideration.
REQUISITES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS
Ang Tibay vs. CIR; River vs. CSC, requirement of impartiality of tribunal applies to admin due
process. So requirement of impartiality also ang imu kinahanglan i-elaborate. Exceptions to notice
and hearing as requirement to due process? Listed mani sa inyong outline ang importante lang you
are able to explain why.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Summary abatement of nuisance per se (police power)

Preventive suspension (not a form of penalty)
Padlocking of filthy restaurants, theaters, etc. (nuisance per se)
Cancellation of passport of accused (pragmatism, accused may escape)
Summary distraint and levy (lifeblood doctrine)
Grant of provisional Authority (temporary unless law requires otherwise)

Quantum of proof
This is also very relevant. You know substantial evidence. What is substantial evidence? Such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Do you
know the status of substantial evidence in relation to the other proofs required in other
proceedings? Enerygy regulatory Board vs. CA, hierarchy of evidentiary values.
1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases
2. Clear and convincing evidence in extradition cases
You remember kadto bag-o na case 2007, Govt of Hongkong vs. Pulalia Jr. Govt of USA vs.
Puruganan in 2002? I think gi-discuss na ni Judge Sinco. No bail in extradition proceedings kay its
not a criminal case lage. Pero later on giusab. In 2007, bail may now be granted in extradition
proceedings because that is one way of affording the person or the government observing human
rights.
Energy Regulatory Board vs. CA, Hierarchy of Evidentiary Values. Proof beyond reasonable doubt in
criminal cases, cite pursuant sa no 2, clear and convincing evidence in extradition. Extradition
cases, do you remember your bago nga case 2007 Government of Hong Kong vs. Odalia Jr,
Government of USA vs. Ponkanan in 2002 I think its already discussed by Judge Cinco. No bail in
extradition proceedings its not a criminal case lagi but later on, giusab 2007. Bail may now be
granted in extradition proceedings because that is one way of affording a person against the
government of certain human rights. So, in that case the Supreme Court mentions that extradition
proceedings is clear and convincing evidence. Unsa man na sir Clear and Convincing Evidence? The
way it was defined by the SC is evidence that does not prove beyond reasonable doubt but more
that preponderance of evidence. Substantial evidence is number 4 in the hierarchy of evidentiary
values. What about affidavits? What is the rule of affidavits in administrative proceedings? First
question. Admissible? Nganung relevant question man na? because an affidavit if not identified by
the affiant is hearsay. Is it admissible in admin proceedings? Answer is Yes, only in so far as
admissibility is concerned. Mao bitaw nay himoon sa labor arbiter sa mga cases. Affidavit man lng
Administrative Law

19

na sa mga parties unya walay procedure nga ipa identify like in court hearing. Why is it admissible
though? --- vs. Gianzon, although admissible in evidence, affidavit being self serving must be
received with caution. By themselves generalized as Proper affidavits cannot constitute relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind may accept as adequate unless it is corroborated by some other
evidence. There must be some other relevant evidence is to corroborate the allegations in the
affidavit. So, admissible sya pero receipt with caution tungod lg kno kay lawyer man ang nghimo
ana. Perma lng pd dayun ang affiant. So, kanus a sya relevant for purposes of substantial evidence?
When that affidavit is corroborated with other pieces of evidence. That is why, I found it relevant to
include this case of Ombudsman vs. Bungubong because it is discussed the so called minimum
standards of substantial evidence although wala ni ingon nga mao gyud ni ang minimum standards
but in a way that was how the SC ruled or decided the case. The Standard of substantial evidence is
satisfied when there is reasonable grounds to believe that respondent is responsible for the
misconduct complain of, even if such evidence are not overwhelming or preponderant. It should be
enough for a reasonable mind to support a conclusion.
Now, true or false? Technical Rules of evidence are not applicable in administrative proceedings?
True or False? Unsay treatment ninyo sa mga technical rules on evidence? D ba ang atong nahibaw
an.. It should not be applied strictly in administrative proceedings... Kani pareha ra sad ni cya class.
In several cases, the following rules will apply in administrative proceedings. So, kita muingon nga
technical rules of evidence will not apply? They will apply, qualified ra sa analysis sa imong
minimum standards in admin due process. For example, he who alleges must prove the allegation,
that is basic in the rules on evidence. Burden of proof na cya nga issue. So kung ikaw ang
complainant and you allege that there was illegal dismissal. Is it not, that in labor cases, it is
incumbent upon the complainant to prove that there was in the first place dismissal? So that if
there was dismissal, it becomes incumbent now upon the employer to prove that it was legal. So, in
many cases, what was establish nga wala g dismiss kay milakaw, nanglood, nahadlok kasab an kai
nangawat. So, there was a dismissal in the first place. Maong mapildi ang mga complainants.
Inability to prove the allegations. And also, mere allegation is not evidence. Mao bitaw nang
affidavit, allegations man na. Dli bana Testimonial? Testimonial lagi but as evidence of a fact,
kuwang. Kinahanglan nay additional evidence. Self serving evidence is a weak evidence.
In a case of contradictory statements, greater weight is generally given to positive testimonies than
to mere denial. Applicable gihapon in administrative proceedings. And in the Bungubong case,
affidavit of desistance may be considered. So, naa gihapoy minimum standards. Those are general
rules. These are the beware matod pa.
Related powers to promulgate rules of procedure, subpoena power, contempt power. We already
discussed doctrine of Necessary Implication, rules of procedure, implied---power to adjudicate.
SUBPOENA AND CONTEMPT POWER
Carmelo vs. Ramos. Since subpoena and contempt powers are not inherent in administrative
bodies, administrative bodies can only exercise these powers when 1.) duly allowed by law and 2.)
only in connection with the matter they are authorized to investigate. Under sec. 37, Book 1 (not
sure) it says here; when authorities to take testimonies or receive evidence is conferred upon any
administrative officer, such authority shall include the power to administer oath, summon witnesses
and require reproduction of document in a subpoena duces tecum The administrative code already
provides that if you are given by law the power take testimony as a consequence of your
investigative power, pwede ka ka issue ug subpoena. Kinahanglan lang, duna nang power to take
testimony or administer oath. Ok? Implied na by virtue of Sec. 37 nga maka issue ug subpoena both
Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum. The authority may be found in the law or in the charter itself or
it can be found in Sec 13, Chapter 3, Book 7 of the Admin Code, just a Caveat from the case of
Ramos. Sec 13, Chapter 4, Book 7, of the admin code that authorizes admin agencies to seek the
aid of regional trial court to cite disobeying party in direct contempt. If an admin agency is given
the power to issue subpoena, the relevant question is, does it also have the power to cite the
disobeying party in contempt of court? If the law grants that admin agency contempt power, no
question about it like the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act pwede na. Ang question lang
kung wala pero nay subpoena power, wala gi grantan ug contempt power. Answer, It depends on
the agency. If the agency is an agency created by the admin code, then that agency can avail of
Sec 13, Chap 3, Book 7 of the admin code which provides that that agency can seek the aid of court
and cite the disobeying person in indirect contempt, RTC. That was settled ha in Ramos case. Kung
agency created by congress not part of the agencies created by the admin code, can they seek the
aid of court to cite in contempt? SC said, in Ramos, NO. Kinahanglan grantan sa gyud ka ug
contempt power by the law. So, those that are created by law and not forming part of the agencies
already created by the admin code, there must first be authority to take testimony before this
Section can be applied. Kay kung duna na kay authority to take testimony for evidence, mao na to
mo apply ang Sec 37 but this only applies to issuance of subpoena duces tecum. Pero kung
contempt gain, dili gain ka tagaan ug contempt power, you will not cite the person in contempt.
RES JUDICAT
Is there Res Judicata in Admin Decisions? Before there was no res judicata in admin decisions.
Recent developments say that res judicata is applicable in admin decisions provided, usual
requisites are present. But please pay attention to res judicata as a principle in administrative
adjudication of citizenship, there is no res judicata if it is about citizenship. Kung administrative
Administrative Law

20

adjudication. Because res judicata in citizenship requires judicial adjudication. Board of

Commissioners vs. De la Rosa, it involves citizenship. the finding of admin agency of the
citizenship of a person is provisional, temporary. There is no res judicata there even if it is final and
executory. There is only res judicata if the decision is judicial, meaning, 1st that decision comes
from the SC, no less, 2nd the citizenship is the main issue of the case, 3 rd there must have been
active participation of the Solicitor General.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Basic rules on review. Findings of facts made by a judicial body are to be respected for as long as
they are supported by substantial evidence. So subject to review ba? Yes, precisely to find out if it is
supported by substantial evidence. Exceptions: 1.) Grave abuse of discretion, 2.) there is fraud 3.)
there is error of law. Ombudsman vs. Bungubong citing Montemayor vs. Bordalian.
For the final part of administrative law are the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction and Prior Exhaustion
of Administrative remedies.
The doctrine of prior exhaustion of administrative remedies, is one of the favourite areas in admin
law asked in the bar exams. But for you, you should be able to distinguish one from the other.
Pataka ra unya ka og apply. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction has a different application from the
doctrine of prior exhaustion of administrative remedies. You apply the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, if in a given situation, the regular court and the administrative body has concurrent
jurisdiction over the subject matter. Very famous ani na example is kanang the tariffs and customs
code. Violation of the tariff and customs code, kwa on sa bureau of customs mao ni usual problems
sa bar, even ang judges masayop pa man gani. Mu claim ang supposedly having possession of the
alleged smuggled goods na dili lagi siya smuggled and that it was legally taken. Kabaw ka unsa iya
gi buhat? He filed a case of replevin before the regular courts to recover possession of the alleged
smuggled goods. What is the issue? Recovery of possession of movable property. The regular
courts has jurisdiction over recovery of possession of personal property, precisely there is replevin
as a cause of action to recover personal property. But the law also gives the Bureau of Customs
authority over smuggled goods. So diri na mu come in ang doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The
court cannot issue a writ of replevin in this case because the Bureau of Customs is given the
authority by the Tariff and Customs Code to determine precisely whether or not the goods have
been legally or illegally transported into the Philippines. It has the competence to do that kung
smuggled ba or dili. Thats where the doctrine of primary jurisdiction will apply. The court will also
refer the case or the matter to the administrative agency, dili kay mu refer and make an order na
hey administrative agency you do this. But it will just only suspend the proceedings and its up for
the parties concerned to invoke the authority of the quasi-judicial body, mao rana ang effect. There
is no specific prohibition saying that there is our own procedure so that is the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction.
The doctrine of prior exhaustion of administrative remedies provides that while referral to an
administrative agencies and resort to administrative remedies are made condition precedent before
controversy can be brought to court, mao na ang condition, it is required that the party going to
court must first exhaust administrative remedies and let the administrative proceeding be
completed before he can go to court. The different rule is in the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the
court will dismiss the case. Basically the ground for the dismissal is failure to state a cause of
action. Although under rule 16 of the rules of court, dunay gi butang didto na additional in 1997,
failure to comply with conditions precedent; but still failure to state a cause of action, if he failed to
exhaust administrative remedies. Of course there are exceptions. What are the exceptions? The
other term for doctrine of prior exhaustion of administrative is the doctrine of amity and
convenience. Just go to the textbook for the exceptions. Very common in the bar exam is the
question on pure questions of law. So you really have to know when is a question dealing with pure
question of law and when is the question dealing with pure questions of facts. It is a question of law
of course if it does not involve the evaluation of facts or weighing of facts before the law may be
applied. If it simply calls for the evaluation of the law without waiting for evaluating the facts then
that is pure question of law. Ngano man sir? Because in matters of law, it is the court that has full
competence. Sa bar exams, pinakadaghan so far ang gi pangayo ang 5 exceptions to the rule on
prior exhaustion of administrative remedies, we have one bar exams 3 ra ang gi pangayo. Kana
kay enumeration man, kung sa problem sir? Number 1 gyud na ang pure questions of law. Second,
act is patently illegal. So the examiner will paint a picture of an act that is in complete disregard of
existing rules, muadto pa ba ka sa secretary or the department. You can go to court directly if its
patently illegal. It would be useless to go to a higher body if the act is patently illegal, so the
aggrieved party needs an immediate relief; you have to go to court because that body cannot grant
him that immediate relief but the court. Of course, no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy is also
popular as an exception and quo warranto. Question from Aylward: are there exceptions to the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction? None, basta mu come in lng to ang situation na there is concurrent
jurisdiction on a particular matter the court will yield to the competence of the administrative
agency and let the administrative body determine the issue first. Kanang basis of exhaustion of
administrative remedies kabaw naman ka ana. Question from Fritz? Sir, unsa gani to about ang
private land, naa ba nay exceptions? If it is an issue involving private lands, it is the regular courts
which has authority. Wala man sad gud agency that has authority over the issue on ownership of
private lands. What about in the HLURB? When it involves the ownership of private lands, the civil

Administrative Law

21

code applies so it should be the regular courts. Ang sa HLURB, dili man issue ang ownership so
regular courts gihapon, walay jurisdiction ang regular courts.

Administrative Law

22