NOTES IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

1. ​Quasi-legislative Power versus Quasi-Judicial Power

Quasi-legislative power, is the
● exercise​ of delegated legislative power,
● involving ​no discretion​ as to what the law shall be,
● but merely the ​authority to fix the details on the execution and
enforcement of a policy, set out in the law itself.

Quasi-judicial power is
● the power of 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.
● It partakes the nature of judicial power , but is exercised by a person
other than a judge.

The following are its distinctions:

1. Quasi-legislative power(QLP) operates on the future, while quasi-judicial power

(QJP) operates based on past facts.
2. QLP has general application, QJP applies only to parties in dispute.
3. Issuances pursuant to the exercise of QLP may be assailed in court without
subscribing to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, while
issuances pursuant to the exercise of QJP may, as a rule, only be challenged in
court with prior exhaustion of administrative remedies.
4. A valid exercise of QLP does not require prior notice and hearing ( except when
the law requires it), while a valid exercise of QJP requires prior notice and
hearing.
5. An issuance pursuant to the exercise of QLP may be assailed in court through an
ordinary action, while an issuance pursuant to the exercise if QJ function is
appealed to the CA via petition for review under Rule 43.

2​. What are the limitations in the exercise of quasi-legislative Power?

1. It must be within the ​limits​ of the powers granted to administrative agencies.

2. Cannot make rules and regulations which are ​inconsistent​ with the provisions of
the Constitution or statute.
3. It cannot ​defeat​ the purpose of the statute
4. May not ​A​mend, Alter, Modify, Supplant, Enlarge, or Limit the terms of the
statute.
5. A rule or regulation must be ​uniform ​in operation, Reasonable and not unfair or
Discriminatory

3​. May administrative agencies promulgate rules providing penal sanctions?

Yes. Administrative agencies may promulgate rules and regulations with penal sanctions provided the
following requisites are complied with:
 1. The law must declare the act punishable
2. The law must define the penalty
3. The rules must be published in the Official Gazette (GR No. 159149 dated June 26,
2006)

4. ​ Do administrative constructions afforded great respect by the court?

Contemporaneous construction is the interpretation or construction placed upon the
statute by an executive or administrative officer called upon to execute or administer the
statute.

Constructions of administrative officers are not binding upon the Courts. Such interpretations
of administrative officers, however are given great weight and respect in the interpretation of
ambiguous provisions of the law unless such construction is clearly shown to be in sharp
contrast with the governing law of the state.

5. What is the nature of administrative proceedings?

Administrative Proceedings are summary in nature. The technical rules of procedure

and of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity are not controlling in administrative
proceedings to free administrative boards and agencies from the compulsion of technical
rules and for speedy disposition of cases.

6. ​ oes the due process clause include the right to be assisted by counsel during
D
administrative inquiry?

No. The right to counsel is not indispensable to due process unless required by the
Constitution or the law.There is nothing in the Constitution that says that a party in a non-criminal
proceeding is entitled to be represented by counsel and that, without such representation, he shall not
be bound by such proceedings.

The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a
real opportunity to be heard. In administrative proceedings, such as in the case at bar, procedural due
process simply means the opportunity to explain one’s side or the opportunity to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. "To be heard" does not mean only verbal
arguments in court; one may be heard also thru pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either
through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process. The
assistance of lawyers, while desirable, is not indispensable.

In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to explain ones
side. One may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also, and perhaps even much more
creditably as it is more practicable than oral arguments, through pleadings. An actual hearing is not
always an indispensable aspect of due process. As long as a party was given the opportunity to
defend his interests in due course, he cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this
opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due process. Moreover, this constitutional mandate is
deemed satisfied if a person is granted an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. ​(Pizza Hut/Progressive Development Corporation v. NLRC, 322 Phil. 579)

7. ​ What is exhaustion of administrative remedies?

 The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies means that when an adequate remedy is
available within the Executive Department, a litigant must first exhaust this remedy before he can
resort to courts. The purpose of the doctrine is to enable administrative agencies to correct
themselves if they have committed an error.

8. ​Does non-compliance with the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedy affects

jurisdiction?
​No, the failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing case in court does not oust the
court of jurisdiction to hear the case.
As held in Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, the failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not
affect the jurisdiction of the court but results in the lack of cause of action which is ground for a motion
to dismiss, because a condition precedent that must be satisfied before action can be filed was not
fulfilled. However, if no motion to dismiss is filed on this ground, there is deemed to be a waiver.

9. ​What are the requisites for a valid delegation of quasi-legislative or rule making power
a. ​Completeness test - the statute is complete in itself, setting forth the policy to be
executed by the agency
b. ​Sufficiency standard test - ​said statutes fixes a standard, mapping out the
boundaries of the agency’s authority to which it must conform

10. Motion to dismiss grounded on non-exhaustion of administrative remedy

a. Exception: purely question of law

However, it must be clarified that the aforementioned doctrine is not absolute as it is

subject to certain exceptions; one of which is when the question involved is purely
legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice.

There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a
certain state of facts, and not as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts. Said
question at best could be resolved tentatively by the administrative authorities. The
final decision on the matter rests not with them but with the courts of justice.
Exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply, because nothing of an
administrative nature is to be or can be done. The issue does not require technical
knowledge and experience but one that would involve the interpretation and
application of law.

However, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not absolute

as it admits of the following exceptions: (DPPEI - AUNPR - URQM)

(1) when there is a violation of ​due process​;

(2) when the issue involved is ​purely a legal question;
(3) when the administrative action is ​patently illegal amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction;
(4) when there is ​estoppel​ on the part of the administrative agency concerned;
(5) when there is ​irreparable injury;
(6) when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an ​alter ego of
the President bears the implied and assumed approval of the latter;
 (7) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be
unreasonable​;
(8) when it would amount to a ​nullification​ of a claim;
(9) when the subject matter is a ​private land​ in land case proceedings;
(10) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate ​remedy​, and
(11) when there are circumstances indicating the ​urgency of judicial intervention,
and unreasonable delay would greatly prejudice the complainant;
(12) where no administrative​ review​ is provided by law;
(13) where the rule of ​qualified political agency​ applies and
(14) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been
rendered ​moot​. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., Ltd. v. G.G.
Sportswear Mfg. Corp., 523 Phil. 245, 253-254 (2006), citing Province of
Zamboanga Del Norte v. Court of Appeals, 396 Phil. 709, 718-719 (2000).
Emphasis supplied

11. Can the court motu proprio raise the issue of primary jurisdiction?
Yes. The court may motu proprio raise the issue of primary jurisdiction and its invocation cannot be
waived by the failure of the parties to argue it, as the doctrine exists for the proper distribution of power
between judicial and administrative bodies and not for the convenience of the parties. In such case, the
court may (1) Suspend the judicial process pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for
its review or (2) If the parties would not be unfairly disadvantaged, dismiss the case without prejudice.

Instance when public office may be considered as a property

A public office is not property within the sense of the constitutional guarantee of due process of law for it
is a public trust or agency. When the dispute concerns ones constitutional right to security of tenure,
however, public office is deemed analogous to property in a limited sense; hence, the right to due process
could rightfully be invoked

Exhaustion of administrative remedies vs Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction and the doctrine of administrative remedies both deal with the
proper relationships between the courts and administrative agencies. The doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies applies where a claim is cognizable in the first instance by an administrative
agency alone. Judicial interference is withheld until the administrative process has been completed. The
doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies where a case is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the court and
an administrative agency but the determination of the case requires the technical expertise of the
administrative agency. In such a case, though the matter is within the jurisdiction of the court, it must yield
to the jurisdiction of the administrative agency.

What is administrative law?

● The branch of public law which ​fixes​ the organization of the government
● And determines the ​competence​ of administrative authorities who executes the law
● And indicates to the individual, ​remedies​ for violation of his right

What is an administrative body?

● Organ of the government, other than the court and legislature,
● Which affects the rights of private parties, either through adjudication or rule-making
How an administrative agencies created?
They are created either by:
● Constitutional provision
● Legislative enactment
● Authority of law

Exceptions to the requirement of Publication

The following need not be published?
● Internal regulations
● Interpretative regulations
● Letter of instructions

What are the conditions for the proper exercise of quasi-judicial power?
1. Jurisdiction must be properly acquired by the administrative body
2. Due must be observed in the conduct of the proceeding?

What is the effect of non-observance of notice and hearing in an administrative proceeding?

It will invalidate the proceeding. It amounts to failure to acquire jurisdiction.

Does administrative due process always entail notice and hearing prior to the deprivation of a
right?
No. a hearing may occur after the deprivation. What the law prohibits is not the absence of
previous notice but the absolute absence thereof and the lack of opportunity to be heard.
Thus, it has been held in one case, that a procedural irregularity previously inflicted upon the
petitioners through premature issuance of a decision without prior notice and hearing, may be remedied
by giving such petitioner the right to participate in the hearing of the Motion for reconsideration.

What are the cardinal requirements of due process in administrative proceeding?

1. The right to a hearing which includes the right to present one’s case and submit evidence in
support thereof
2. The tribunal must examine the evidence presented
3. The decision must be supported by evidence
4. The evidence must be substantial
5. The decision must be based on evidence presented in the hearing or at least contained in the
record and disclosed to the parties affected
6. The tribunal must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the case in
arriving at a decision
7. The decision must be presented in such a manner that the parties may now the various issues
involved and the reason for such decision

Quantum of proof required in administrative proceeding?

Substantial evidence - such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.

What is administrative appeal?

Review by a higher agency of the decisions rendered by an administrative agency, commenced
by petition of interested party.
Applicability of the doctrine of res judicata

The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, and not to the exercise of
administrative powers. Administrative powers here refer to those purely administrative in nature, as
opposed to administrative proceedings that take on a quasi-judicial character.

In administrative law, a quasi-judicial proceeding involves (a) taking and evaluating evidence; (b)
determining facts based upon the evidence presented; and (c) rendering an order or decision supported
by the facts proved. The exercise of quasi-judicial functions involves a determination, with respect to the
matter in controversy, of what the law is; what the legal rights and obligations of the contending parties
are; and based thereon and the facts obtaining, the adjudication of the respective rights and obligations of
the parties.

The Court has laid down the test for determining whether an administrative body is exercising judicial or
merely investigatory functions: adjudication signifies the exercise of the power and authority to adjudicate
upon the rights and obligations of the parties. Hence, if the only purpose of an investigation is to evaluate
the evidence submitted to an agency based on the facts and circumstances presented to it, and if the
agency is not authorized to make a final pronouncement affecting the parties, then there is an absence of
judicial discretion and judgment.

Requisites of Judicial Review

1. Principle of finality of administrative action - administrative action must have been completed
2. Principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies - administrative remedies must have been
exhausted

Findings of Fact of quasi-judicial agencies

Generally accorded respect and even finality by the Court, if supported by substantial evidence,
in recognition of their expertise on the specific matters under their jurisdiction.

Distinctions between an administrative body and court

1. AB is generally a large organization, staffed by men who are deemed to become experts in their
particular field, C is presided by one or more judge learned of law
2. AB performs variety of functions, C performs one function which is judicial
3. AB often proceeds w/out being bound by technical rules, C are governed by technical rules in
arriving at decisions

Distinctions between Legislative and quasi-legislative powers

1. L involves the discretion to determine what the law is, QL involves the discretion of how the law
shall be enforced
2. L power cannot be delegated, QL power may be delegated

Requisites for validity of administrative rules and regulations

1. Issued under authority of law
2. Within the scope and purview of the law
3. Reasonable
4. Publication in the official gazette or in newspaper of general circulation