ADMIN DOCTRINES

QUASI-LEGISLATIVE

Carino vs Commission

Does the Commission on Human Rights possess adjudicatory powers?

No. The CHR was not meant to be another court or quasi-judicial agency in the country. The most that may
be conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative power is that it may investigate - for example,
receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards claimed human rights violations involving civil and
political rights.

What is the difference of fact-finding from adjudication?

Fact-finding is the function of receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy. It is
not a judicial function. To be considered adjudication, the act of receiving evidence and making factual
conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority from the law to determine or decide
authoritatively, finally and definitively the controversy, subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be
provided by law.

Investigate vs Adjudicate
Investigate means to examine, explore, inquire or delve or probe into, research on or study. The purpose of
investigation is to discover, to find out, to learn or obtain information. Nowhere included or intimated is the
notion of settling, deciding or resolving a controversy involved in the facts inquired into by application of the
law to the facts established by the inquiry. Legally, investigation means an administrative function that does
not require hearing for the discovery of facts concerning a certain matter.

Adjudication means to adjudge, arbitrate, judge, decide, determine, resolve, rule on or settle. In a legal
sense, to adjudicate means to settle in the exercise of judicial authority or to determine finally. It implies a
judicial determination of a fact and the entry of judgment.

Evangelista vs Jarencio

Administrative agencies may be authorized to make investigations in proceedings for the sole purpose of
obtaining information on which future action of a legislative or judicial nature may be taken.

Administrative agencies may issue administrative subpoenas in the course of investigations whether or not
adjudication is involved and whether or not probable cause is shown.

What are the requisites for the validity of an administrative subpoena?

It is within the authority of the agency
The demand is not too indefinite; and
The information is reasonably relevant.

While the privilege against self-incrimination extends to administrative investigations, any unnecessary
extension thereof in an investigation whose purpose is only to discover facts as a basis of future action would
be unwise. However, a respondent may contest any attempt in the investigation that will tend to disregard his
privilege against self-incrimination.

Larin vs Executive Secretary

Does the President have the power to discipline presidential appointees?
Yes. A presidential appointee comes under the direct disciplining authority of the President, in line with the
principle that the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint conferred to the President by Sec 16,
Art VII of the Constitution.

However, just because the President exercises the power of removal over presidential appointees doesnt
mean that he has authority to remove him at will. A career service officer enjoys security of tenure under the
Administrative Code and the Constitution. Under the Civil Service Decree, career service officers and
employees who enjoy security of tenure may be removed only for causes enumerated in the law.

Does the President have the power to reorganize administrative agencies?

Yes. Sec 48 of RA 7645 authorizes the President to scale down, phase out or abolish the activities of
departments, bureaus, offices and agencies which are no longer essential in the delivery of public services.
Sec 20, Book III of EO 292 outlines that the President has residual powers provided for under law not
specifically enumerated in the AC. But while the President has the power to reorganize, such power is not
unlimited - there is a requirement that it must be done in good faith.

Pantrangco vs Board of Transportation

Does the BOT have authority to decide on an issue based on extraneous facts?
Yes. As a fact-finding body, the BOTs decisions may be based not only on evidence presented by the
parties but also from its field agents and inspectors as well as its own observations and investigations. It
may also be guided by public need and convenience in deciding cases before it.

Masangcay vs COMELEC

What are the duties and powers of COMELEC as stated in this case?
The COMELEC has the duty to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections and the
power to try, hear and decide any controversy that may be submitted to it in connection with the elections. As
an administrative body, it cannot be classified as a court of justice within the meaning of the Constitution.
Nevertheless, it may exercise quasi-judicial functions insofar as controversies that by express provision of
law come under its jurisdiction.

Does COMELEC have the power to punish someone for contempt in the exercise of their ministerial
functions?
No. When the COMELEC exercises a ministerial function it cannot exercise the power to punish for contempt
because such power is inherently judicial in nature.

What is the nature of the power to punish for contempt?

The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and its existence is essential to the preservation of
order in judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments, orders and mandates of courts, and
consequently, in the administration of justice. It has been regarded as a necessary incident and attribute of
courts.

RATIO: An administrative agency has no inherent powers, although implied powers may sometimes be
spoken of as inherent. Thus, the absence of any provision to punish for contempt which has always been
regarded as a necessary incident and attribute of the courts, its exercise by administrative bodies has been
invariably limited to making effective the power to elicit testimony. And the exercise of that power by an
administrative body in furtherance of its administrative function has been held invalid.
Negros Oriental Cooperative vs Sangguniang Panglungsod of Dumaguete

What is the nature of the contempt power of the Legislative Branch?

The contempt power of the Legislative Branch of government is sui generis. Their contempt powers attach
not to their discharge of legislative powers per se but to the character of the legislature as one of the three
independent and coordinate branches of government.

Can local legislative bodies also exercise the legislative power of contempt possessed by Congress?
No. Since the power of contempt exercised by the legislative branch springs from their character as one of
the independent branches of government, local legislative bodies cant claim to possess it for the same
reasons as the national legislature does. There is no provision in the 1973 Constitution or the Local
Government Code that grants local legislative bodies the power to subpoena witnesses and the power to
punish non-members for contempt.

Without an express grant from the Constitution and the law, the only possible justification for the issuance of
a subpoena and the punishment of non-members for contempt would be for the power to be said to be
deemed implied in the statutory grant of delegated legislative power, which as previously stated was not so
implied.

Bedol vs COMELEC

COMELEC has the power to conduct investigations as an adjunct to its constitutional duty to enforce and
administer all elections laws by virtue of Art IX of the Constitution.
According to Loong vs COMELEC, the provision was intended to give COMELEC all the necessary and
incidental powers in order to achieve the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and
credible elections.

What are the powers conferred by the Constitution to the COMELEC?

Quasi-judicial - the power to resolve controversies arising from the enforcement of election laws, and to
be the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies; and of all contests relating to the elections,
returns and qualifications
Quasi-legislative - the issuance of rules and regulations to implement the election laws and to exercise
such legislative functions as may be expressly delegated by Congress
Administrative - enforcement and administration of election laws; COMELEC is authorized to issue rules
and regulations to implement the provisions of the Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code

What is quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power?

The power of the administrative agency to adjudicate the rights of persons before it. It is the power to hear
and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with
the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law.

When does an administrative body exercise its quasi-judicial power?

An administrative body exercises quasi-judicial power when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is
executive or administrative in nature. Such must be incidental to or reasonably necessary for the
performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it.

The exercise of judicial functions is to determine what the law is, and what the legal rights of parties are, with
respect to a matter in controversy. Whenever an officer is clothed with that authority, and undertakes to
determine those questions, he acts judicially. [Santiago, Jr. vs Bautista]
Can the COMELEC initiate indirect contempt proceedings motu proprio?
Yes. Since the Omnibus Election Code and COMELECs Rules of Procedure have provisions providing for
the punishment of contempt, these provisions are broad enough to allow the initiation of indirect contempt
proceedings by COMELEC motu proprio.

Lumiqued vs Exevea

Is the right to counsel an imperative in administrative inquiry?

No. The right to counsel, which cannot be waived unless the waiver is in writing and in the presence of
counsel, is a right afforded a suspect or an accused during CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION. It is not an
absolute right and may thus be invoked or rejected in a criminal proceeding, and with more reason, in an
administrative inquiry.

In an administrative proceeding, the official being complained of is not accused of any crime. The
investigation conducted is for the purpose of determining if the official may be held administratively liable
under the law for the complaints filed against him.

In an administrative proceeding, a respondent has the option of engaging the services of counsel or not - this
is clear from the provisions of Sec 32, Art VII of RA 2260 and Sec 39(2), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rues
Implementing the Admin Code. The right to counsel is NOT IMPERATIVE in administrative investigations
since such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary
measures against erring public officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of
government services.

What is the essence of due process in administrative proceedings?

In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to explain ones side.

One may be heard not only by verbal presentation but also (and perhaps more creditably since it is more
practicable than oral argument) through pleadings.

Is hearing indispensable in due process?

No, hearing is not always an indispensable aspect in due process, especially in administrative proceedings.
As long as the party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot be said to
have been denied due process of law.

This constitutional mandate is deemed satisfied is a person is also granted the opportunity to seek
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.

When is the due process requirement deemed satisfied?

When the parties are given opportunity to be heard (through pleadings or verbal presentation) and when the
person is granted the opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.

Remolona vs Civil Service

Can a civil service employee be dismissed from government service for an offense not work-related or not
connected with the performance of his official duty?
Yes. Dishonesty is considered a grave offense punishable by dismissal for the first offense under Sec 23,
Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of EO 292. In order to warrant dismissal, the dishonesty need
not be committed in the course of the performance of duties by the person charge. The Government cannot
tolerate in its service a dishonest official, even if he performs his duties correctly and well.

Are extrajudicial confessions during administrative investigations made without the assistance of counsel
invalid?
No. The right to counsel under Sec 12 of the Bill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect in a criminal case
under custodial investigation. Therefore, the exclusionary rule under Sec 12(2) of the Bill of Rights applies
only to admissions made in a criminal investigation, but not to those made in an administrative investigation.

While such investigations may be akin to criminal proceedings, under existing laws, a party in an
administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and
the respondents capacity to represent himself, and no duty rests on such body to furnish the person being
investigated with counsel.

The right to counsel is not always imperative in administrative investigations because such inquiries are
conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measure against erring public
officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service.

As such, the hearing conducted by the investigating authority is not part of a criminal prosecution.