Thus, the obvious solution was

delegation of power.
Two major powers of the
administrative agency:

PHILIPPINE
ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW
By
Carlo L. Cruz

1. Quasi-legislative authority or
rule making power
2. Quasi-judicial power or
adjudicatory function

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

Administration
Administration is understood in
two senses:

Chapter 1
General
Considerations
Nature
Administrative Law that
branch of modern law under
which the executive department
of the government, acting in a
quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial
capacity, interferes with the
conduct of the individual for the
purpose of promoting the wellbeing of the community.
Administrative law is a recent
development , being a
consequence of the ever
increasing complexities of society
and the proliferation of problems
of government that cannot
readily or effectively be
addressed by the public agencies
or solved by other disciplines of
public law.
It was felt that thelegislative and
judicial departments no longer
had either the time or the needed
expertise to attend to these new
problems.

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

Chapter 3

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

Chapter 2
Administrative Agencies

application, that is, apply the law

and so fulfill the mandate of the
legislature.
Kinds of Administrative
Regulations
(a) Legislative the
administrative agency is acting in
a legislative capacity,
supplementing the statute, filling
in the details, or making the
law, and usually acting pursuant
to a specific delegation of
legislative power.
(b) Interpretative are those
which purport to do no more than
interpret the statute being
administered, to say what it
means. They constitute the
administrator's construction of a
statute.
The interpretative regulation is
issued by the administrative body
as an incident to its power to
enforce the law and is intended
merely to clarify its provisions for
proper observance by the people.
It is an elementary rule in
administrative law that
administrative regulations
and policies enacted by
administrative bodies to
interpret which they are
entrusted to enforce, have the
force of law, are entitled to great
respect, and have in their favor a
presumpption of legality.
By contrast, the legislative
regulation is issued by the

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

Chapter 4
The Quasi-Legislative
Power
It has already been remarked
that the rule-making power of
the administrative body is
intended to enable it to
implement the policy of the law
and to provide for the more
effective enforcement of its
provisions.
Through the exercise of this
power of subordinate legislation,
it is possible for the
administrative body to transmit
the active power of the state
from its source to the point of

First Requisite: Promulgation

Must Be Authorized by the
Legislature
Authority to promulgate the
regulation is usually conferred by
the Charter itself of the
administrative body or by the law
it is supposed to enforce.
When Congress authorizes
promulgation of administrative
rules and regulations to
implement given legislation, all
that is required is that the
regulation be not in contravention
with it, but to conform to the
standards that the law
prescribes.
Second Requisite: Regulation
Must Be Within the Scope of
the Authority Given by the
Legislature
Assuming a valid authorization, it
is still necessary that the
regulation promulgated must not
be ultra vires or beyond the
authority conferred.
Third Requisite: Regulation
Must Be Promulgated in
Accordance with the
Prescribed Procedure
As in the enactment of laws, the
promulgation of administrative
regulations of general application
does not require previous notice
and hearing, the only exception
being where the legislature itself
requires it . In the absence of
such a requirement, the

administrative body pursuant

to a valid delegation of
legislative power and is
intended to have the binding
the force and effect of a law
enacted by the legislature
itself.
Classification of Legislative
Regulation
(a) Supplementary intended
to fill in the details of the law and
to make explicit what is only
general.
(b) Contingent issued upon
the happening of a certain
contingency which the
administrative body is given the
discretion to determine or to
ascertain some circumstances
and on the basis thereof may
enforce or suspend the operation
of a law.
Requisites of Administrative
Regulation
(a) Its promulgation must be
authorized by the legislature;
(b) It must be within the scope
of the authority given by the
legislature;
(c) It must be promulgated in
accordance with the prescribed
procedure;
(d) It must be reasonable.

Like statutes, administrative

regulations promulgated
thereunder must not be
unreasonable or arbitrary as to
violate due process.
Penal Regulations
The power to define and punish
crime is exclusively legislative
and may not be delegated to the
administrative authorities. While
administrative regulations may
have the force and effect of law,
their violation cannot give rise to
criminal prosecution unless the
legislature makes such violation
punishable and imposes the
corresponding sanctions.
Special requisites of a valid
administrative regulation
with a penal sanction:
(a) The law itself must make
violation of the administrative
regulation punishable;
(b) The law itself must impose
and specify the penalty for the
violation of the regulation;
(c) The regulation must be
published.
Construction and
Interpretation
Regulation should be read in
harmony with the statute and not
in violation of the authority
conferred on the administrative
authorities.

administrative body can

promulgate the regulation in its
exclusive discretion.
But where the regulation is in
effect a settlement of a
controversy between specific
parties, it is considered an
administrative adjudication and
so will require notice and
hearing.
As for publication, the applicable
rule is now found in Executive
Order No. 200 which provides
that laws shall take effect after
fifteen (15) days following the
completion of their publication
either in the Official Gazette or in
a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines,
unless it is otherwise provided.
Interpretative regulations and
those merely internal in nature,
that is, regulating only the
personnel of the administrative
agency and not the public, need
not be published.
Publication must be in full or it is
no publication at all since its
purpose is to inform the public of
the contents of the law.
The Supreme Court, it would
seem, requires publication of the
administrative regulation only if it
is of general application and
penal in nature.
Fourth Requisite: Regulation
Must Be Reasonable

compliance with two conditions,

to wit:
(1) Jurisdiction must be properly
acquired by the administrative
body
(2) Due process must be
observed in the conduct of the
proceedings
A. Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction may be simply
defined as the competence of an
office or body to act on a given
matter or decide a certain
question.
Without jurisdiction, the
determination made by the
administrative bodies are
absolutely null and without any
legal effect whatsoever.
It is the legislature that has the
power to confer jurisdiction upon
the administrative body and so
limit or expand its authority.
It can be said that each
administrative body has its own
peculiar jurisdiction as conferred
upon it by the specific provisions
of its charter.
The law may allow some
administrative bodies to award
certain kinds of damages while
denying the same power, for no
apparent reason, to other
administrative bodies.

The administrative regulation

that contravenes the statute is,
of course, invalid.
Enforcement
It is established that the power to
promulgate administrative
regulations carries with it the
implied power to enforce them.
This may be effected through
judicial action or through
sanctions that the statute itself
may allow the administrative
body to impose.
Amendment or Repeal
Like the statute, the
administrative regulation
promulgated thereunder is
subject to amendment or repeal
by the authorities that
promulgated them in the first
place. Of course, it may be
changed directly by the
legislature.

Chapter 5
The Quasi-Judicial Power
Quasi-judicial power is the
power of the administrative
agency to determine questions of
fact to which the legislative policy
is to apply, in accordance with
the standards laid down by the
law itself.
The proper exercise of the quasijudicial power requires

falls. The Court may punish

customacy or refusal as
contempt.
The Supreme Court distinguished
between the power to
investigate and the power to
adjudicate:
The purpose of investigation, of
course, is to discover, to finnd
out, to learn, obtain information.
Nowhere included or intimated is
the notion of settling, deciding or
resolving a controversy involve in
the facts inquired into by
application of the law x x.
In the legal sense, adjudicate
means to settle in the exercise of
judicial authority x x. Adjudge
x x implies a judicial
determination of a fact, and the
entry of judgment.
3. The Contempt Power
Like the subpoena power, the
power to punish for contempt is
essentially judicial and cannot be
claimed as an inherent right by
the administrative body.
To be validly exercised, it must
be expressly conferred upon the
body and, additionally, must be
used only in connection with its
quasi-judicial as distinguished
from its purely administrative or
routinary functions.
As a rule, where, say, a subpoena
of the administrative body is
disregarded, the person

For example, the SEC and NLRC

are allowed to award damages
virtually to the same extent as a
court of justice. Yet similar
authority has not been conferred
by its charter to NTC.
It is a well-settled principle that
unless expressly empowered,
administrative agencies are
bereft of quasi-judicial power.
1. Rules of Procedure
Where an administrative body is
expressly granted the power of
adjudication, it is deemed also
vested with the implied power to
precribe the rules to be observed
in the conduct of its proceedings.
But to be valid, the rules must
not violate fundamental rights or
encroach upon constitutional
prerogatives.
2. The Subpoena Power
The power to issue subpoena and
subpoena duces tecum is not
inherent in administrative bodies.
It is settled that administrative
bodies may summon witnesses
and require the production of
evidence only when duly allowed
by law, and always only in
connection with the matter they
are authorized to investigate.
Unless otherwise provided by
law, the agency may, in case of
disobedience, invoke the aid or
Regional Trial Court within whose
jurisdiction the contested case

are by their nature judicial, there

is no requirement for strict
adherence to technical rules as
are observed in truly judicial
proceedings.
It is a general rule that they are
unrestricted by the technical or
formal rules of procedure which
govern trials before a court. This
rule is applied to questions of
evidence, pleading and other
matters.

summoned may not be directly

discipline by that body. The
proper remedy id for the
administrative body to seek
assistance of the courts of justice
for the enforcement of its order.
The power to hold in contempt
must be exercised not on the
vindictive, but on the
preservative principle.
B. Notice and Hearing

Nevertheless, it is essential that

due process must be observed,
for the requirements of fair play
are not applicable to judicial
proceedings only.
Cardinal rights or principles to be
observed in administrative
proceedings:
a. the first of these rights
is the right to a hearing;
b. the tribunal must
consider the evidence presented;
c. the tribunal must have
something to support its
decision;
d. evidence must be
substantial evidence relevant
evidence that a reasonable
mind may accept as
adequate to support a conclusion
e. the decision must be
rendered on the evidence
presented at the hearing, or at
least contained in the

The right to notice and hearing is

essential to due process and its
non-observance will as a rule
invalidate the administrative
proceedings. Persons are entitled
to be notified of any pending case
affecting their interests so that,
if they are minded, they may
claim the right to appear therein
and present their side or refute
the position of opposing parties.
Nevertheless, there are instances
when notice and hearing can
validly be omitted. Among the
justifications for such omissions
are the urgency of immediate
action (which does not preclude
the enjoyment of the right at a
later time without prejudice to
the person affected) and the fact
that the right had previously
been offered but not claimed.
1. Administrative Due
Process
While administrative
determinations of contested case

C. Administrative Appeals
and review
Unless otherwise provided by law
or executive order, an appeal
from a final decision of the
administrative agency may be
taken to the department head,
whose decision may further be
brought to the regular courts of
justice, in accordance with the
procedure specified by law.
D. Enforcement of Decision
In the absence of any statute
providing for the enforcement of
an administrative determination,
the same cannot be enforced
except possibly by appeal to the
force of public opinion.
Usually, however, the
administrative body is allowed
certain sanctions that it may
impose directly for the
enforcement of its own decisions,
i.e. revocation of or refusal to
renew licenses, destruction of
unlawful articles, summary
closure of stores, refusal to grant
clearances, issuance of cease and
desist orders, detention and
deportation of aliens, and
imposition of fines.
Significantly, many administrative
bodies, such as the SEC and the
NLRC, have been vested with
authority to grant provisional
reliefs, such as writs of
preliminary attachment or

record and disclosed to the

parties;
f. the court must act on its
or their own independent
consideration of the law and
facts of controversy, and
not simply accept the views of a
subordinate in arriving at a
decision;
g. the court should
render its decision in such a
manner that the parties to the
proceeding can know the
various issues involved, and the
reasons for the decisions
rendered
It is basic to due process that the
tribunal considering the
administrative question be
impartial, to ensure a fair
decision.
The law does not require another
notice and hearing for a review of
the decision of the board.
In M.F. Violago Oiler Tank Trucks
vs. NLRC, there was no denial of
due process where the
petitioners received notice of the
scheduled investigation the day
before said date of the hearing or
investigation but failed to present
evidence. On the other hand,
there was clearly such a denial
where it appears that a decision
rendered against a person who
was not a party to or even
notified of the proceedings taken
before a labor arbiter.

and binding effect of a final

judgment within the purview of
the doctrine of res judicata.

injunction, intended to ensure

the enforcement of their
adjudications.

This principle is, however, not

applicable to all administrative
proceedings, such proceedings
that are non-litigious and
summary in nature without
regard to legal technicalities
obtaining in courts of law.

It is established that
administrative agencies who have
not been conferred the power to
enforce their quasi-judicial
decisions may invoke court action
for the purpose.
E. Res Judicata

Chapter 6
Judicial Review
General Rules
An administrative decision may
be appealed to the courts of
justice only if the Constitution or
the law permits it or if the
question to be reviewed is a
question of law.
However, jurisprudence is replete
with cases where the Supreme
Court has applied the exceptions
rather than the rule.
In the case of the constitutional
commission, i.e., the Commission
on Elections, the Commission on
Audit, and the Civil Service
Commission, it is provided that
any decision order or ruling of
each Commission may be
brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari by the aggrieved party

The general rule is that an

administrative decision is not
considered res judicata so as to
preclude its subsequent
reconsideration or revocation.
Decisions of the previous
incumbents of the administrative
body may be modified or
reversed by their successors in
the exercise of their own powers
of adjudication.
Where the administrative
decision has been affirmed by a
court decision, the doctrine of res
judicata is applicable. The effect
of res judicata attaches to the
judgment of the reviewing court
rather than to the administrative
judgment.
This rule has however been
modified in this jurisdiction.
It is now well-settled in our
jurisprudence that the decisions
and orders of administrative
agencies, rendered pursuant to
their quasi-judicial authority,
have upon their finality, the force

15 days from notice of such

award, order or ruling, copies
being served on all interested
parties.
The Administrative Code
generally provides that an appeal
from an agency decision shall be
perfected by filing with the
agency within 15 days from
receipt of a copy thereof a notice
of appeal, and with the reviewing
court a petition for review of the
order. Copies of the petition shall
be served upon the agency and
all parties of record.
The petition shall contain a
concise statement of the issues
involved and the grounds relied
upon for the review, and shall be
accompanied with a true copy of
the order appealed from,
together with copies of such
material portions of the records
as are referred to therein and
other supporting papers.
The Supreme Court instructed
certain universally accepted
axioms governing judicial review
through the extraordinary actions
of certiorari or prohibition of
determinations of administrative
officers or agencies:
First, before said actions may be
entertained, it must be shown
that all the administrative
remedies prescribed by law or
ordinance have been exhausted;
and,

within 30 days from receipt of a

copy thereof.
On the basis of Sec. 16 of the
Interim Rules and Guideline
implementing Sec. 9 (3) of BP
Blg. 129, the Court of Appeals
may review final decisions,
orders, awards or resolutions or
regional trial courts and of all
quasi-judicial bodies, except the
Commission on Elections, the
Commission on Audit, the
Sandiganbayan, and decisions
issued under the Labor Code of
the Philippines and by the
Central Board of Assessment
Appeals.
Other appeals are prescribed by
special laws, such as RA No.
1125, providing for appeal to the
Court of Tax Appeals of any
decision rendered by the
Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, the Commissioner of
Customs, or any provincial or city
board of assessment appeals.
Methods of review
The methods of judicial review
are prescribed by the
Constitution, statutes or the
Rules of the Court. These
methods may be specific or
general.
It is provided in RA No. 5434 that
an appeal from a final award,
order or decisions of the Patent
Office shall be taken by filing with
said body and with the Court of
Appeals a notice of appeal within

Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies
Under the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative
remedies, an administrative
decision must first be
appealed to the
administrative superior up to
the highest level before it
may be elevated to a court of
justice for review.
A. Reasons
(1)
The administrative
superiors, if given the
opportunity, can correct the
errors committed by their
subordinates;
(2)
Courts should as
much as possible refrain
from disturbing the findings
of administrative bodies in
deference to the doctrine of
separation of powers;
(3)
On practical grounds,
it is best that the courts
should not be saddled with
the review of administrative
cases;
(4)
Judicial review of
administrative cases is
usually effected through
the special civil actions of
certiorari, mandamus and
prohibition, which are
available only if there is no
other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy.

Second, that the administrative

decision may properly be
annulled or set aside only upon a
clear showing that the
administrative official or tribunal
has acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction, or with a grave
abuse of discretion.
Doctrine of Primary
Jurisdiction or Prior Resort
There are two doctrines that
must be considered in
connection with the judicial
review of administrative
decisions:(1) doctrine of primary
jurisdiction or prior resort; and
(2) the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies.
The doctrine of primary
jurisdiction simply calls for
the determination of
administrative questions,
which ordinarily questions of
fact, by administrative
agencies rather courts of
justice.
If the case is such that its
determination requires the
expertise, specialized skills and
knowledge of the proper
administrative bodies because
technical matters or intricate
questions of facts are involved,
then relief must first be obtained
in an administrative proceeding
before a remedy will be supplied
by the courts even though the
matter is within the proper
jurisdiction of the court

the cabinet member has to be

appealed first to the President
before it may be brought to a
court of justice. Jurisprudence
on this matter is rather
indecisive.
In the early case of demaisip vs.
Court of Appeals, the Court held
that appeal to the President was
not necessary because the
Cabinet member was after all his
alter ego and, under the doctrine
of qualified political agency, the
acts of the secretary were the
acts of the President.
This view was abandoned in Calo
vs. Fuertes, where it was held
that appeal to the President was
the final step in the
administrative process and
therefore a condition precedent
to appeal to the courts.
In Bartulata vs. Peralta,
however, the court reinstated the
Demaisip doctrine, again on the
basis of alter ego justification.
Tan vs. Director of Forestry,
thereafter revived Calo andagain
required appeal to the President
as a prerequisite to an appeal of
a Cabinet member's decision to
the courts of Justice.
D. Effect of Noncompliance
The failure to exhaust
administrative remedies does not
affect the jurisdiction of the court
and merely results in the lack of

B. Exceptions
(1)
When the question
raised is purely legal
(question of law is
involved);
(2)
When the
administrative body is
estoppel;
(3)
When the act
complained of is patently
illegal;
(4)
When there is urgent
need for judicial
intervention;
(5)
When the claim
involved is small;
(6)
When irreparable
damage will be suffered;
(7)
When there is no
other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy;
(8)
When strong public
interest is involved;
(9)
When the subject of
the controversy is private
land;
(10)
In quo warranto
proceedings
C. Appeal to the
President
Of special interest is the question
of whether or not a decision of

initially by lower courts and more

so by an administrative body.

a cause of action which may be

invoked in a motion to dismiss.

A. Questions of fact

If this ground to dismiss the

court action is not properly or
reasonably invoked, the court
may proceed to hear the case.

Even if allowed to review

administrative decisions on
questions of fact, courts of justice
generally defer to such decisions
and will decline to disturb them
except only where there is a clear
showing of arbitrariness or grave
abuse of discretion.
The Supreme Court ruled in Osias
Academy vs. DOLE that
findings of administrative
agencies which have acquired
expertise because their
jurisdiction is confined to
specific matters are generally
accorded not only respect but
finality.
B. Questions of Law
Administrative bodies may be
allowed to resolve questions of
law in the exercise of their quasijudicial function as an incident of
their primary power of regulation.
However as a rule, it is only the
judicial tribunal that can
interpret and decide the
question of law with finality.

As previously noted, the court

has the discretion to require the
observance of the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative
remedies and may, if it sees fit,
dispense with it and proceed with
the disposition of the case.
Questions Reviewable
Two kinds of questions are
reviewable by the courts of
justice, to wit: the question of
fact and the question of law.
On the question of fact, review of
the administrative decision lies in
the discretion of the legislature,
which may or may not permit it
as it sees fit.
But when it comes to the
question of law, the
administrative decision may be
appealed to the courts of justice
independently of legislative
permission or even against
legislative prohibition. The
reason is that the judiciary
cannot be deprived of its inherent
power to review all decisions on
questions of law, whether made