ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Describe the Administrative Code of 1987.

Held:The Code is a general law and “incorporates in a unified document the

major structural, functional and procedural principles of governance (Third
Whereas Clause, Administrative Code of 1987) and “embodies changes in
administrative structures and procedures designed to serve the people.”
(Fourth Whereas Clause, Administrative Code of 1987) The Code is divided
into seven (7) books.These books contain provisions on the organization,
powers and general administration of departments, bureaus and offices
under the executive branch, the organization and functions of the
Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional bodies, the rules on the
national government budget, as well as guidelines for the exercise by
administrative agencies of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers.The
Code covers both the internal administration, i.e., internal organization,
personnel and recruitment, supervision and discipline, and the effects of the
functions performed by administrative officials on private individuals or
parties outside government.(Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23,
1998 [Puno])

What is Administrative Power?

Held:Administrative power is concerned with the work of applying policies

and enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental organs.It
enables the President to fix a uniform standard of administrative efficiency
and check the official conduct of his agents.To this end, he can issue
administrative orders, rules and regulations.(Ople v. Torres, G.R. No.
127685, July 23, 1998 [Puno])

What is an Administrative Order?

Held:An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which

relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of government.It
must be in harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of
implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy. (Ople v.
Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998 [Puno])

Does the petition for annulment of proclamation of a candidate merely

involve the exercise by the COMELEC of its administrative power to review,
revise and reverse the actions of the board of canvassers and, therefore,
justifies non-observance of procedural due process, or does it involve the
exercise of the COMELEC’s quasi-judicial function?

Held:Taking cognizance of private respondent’s petitions for annulment of

petitioner’s proclamation, COMELEC was not merely performing an
administrative function.The administrative powers of the COMELEC include
the power to determine the number and location of polling places, appoint
election officials and inspectors, conduct registration of voters, deputize law
enforcement agencies and governmental instrumentalities to ensure free,
orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections, register political parties,
organizations or coalition, accredit citizen’s arms of the Commission,
prosecute election offenses, and recommend to the President the removal of
or imposition of any other disciplinary action upon any officer or employee it
has deputized for violation or disregard of its directive, order or decision.In
addition, the Commission also has direct control and supervision over all
personnel involved in the conduct of election.However, the resolution of the
adverse claims of private respondent and petitioner as regards the existence
of a manifest error in the questioned certificate of canvass requires the
COMELEC to act as an arbiter.It behooves the Commission to hear both
parties to determine the veracity of their allegations and to decide whether
the alleged error is a manifest error.Hence, the resolution of this issue calls
for the exercise by the COMELEC of its quasi-judicial power.It has been said
that where a power rests in judgment or discretion, so that it is of judicial
nature or character, but does not involve the exercise of functions of a judge,
or is conferred upon an officer other than a judicial officer, it is deemed quasi-
judicial. The COMELEC therefore, acting as quasi-judicial tribunal, cannot
ignore the requirements of procedural due process in resolving the petitions
filed by private respondent. (Federico S. Sandoval v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
133842, Jan. 26, 2000 [Puno])

Quasi legislative powers

• While it is fundamental that an administrative agency has only such powers

as are expressly granted to it by law, it is likewise a settled rule that an
administrative agency has also such powers as are necessary implied in the
exercise of its express powers. ( LLDA vs. CA)

• The orders of the Bureau of Agriculture, while they may possibly said to
have the force of law, are statues and particularly not penal statues and
violation of such orders is not a penal offense unless the statue itself makes a
violation thereof a violation and penalizes it. (US vs. Panlilio)

• An act not punished by a law cannot be held as a penal offense by an

administrative order.Regulation of administrative bodies should be germane
to the objects and purposes of the law (People vs. Maceren)

• Only the legislature can alter the jurisdiction of the courts. If done by
executive orders, it would be an excess of powers delegated by congress.
(UST vs. Board of Tax Appeals)

• Power of regulation and rule making, even if vested upon administrative

agencies, are still subject to the statutory requirement of due process. Note:
rate fixing in exercise of quasi-legislative powers, only publication is required.
When it is in the exercise of quasi-judicial powers, since it applies only to a
particular entity, hearing is neaded. (PHILCOMSAT vs. Alcuaz)

• Regulations internal in nature need not be published but otherwise

publication is still needed. (Tanada vs. Tuvera) • Ifan agency is vested
powers and such agency is under the office of the President, an EO pursuant
to such granted power is valid. (Araneta vs. Gatmaitan)

Quasi-Judicial powers

• When an administrative body is conferred with quasi-judicial powers all

subject matter pertaining to its specialization are deemed to be included
within the jurisdiction of said administrative body. Split jurisdiction is not
favored. ( Tejeda vs. Homestead Property Co.) Requisites of quasi-judicial
powers: 1. jurisdiction 2.due process i.e. notice and hearing

• authority to receive evidence and make factual conclusions must be

accompanied by the authority of the applying law. (Carino vs. CHR)

• power to investigate does not necessarily mean the power to decide on the
merit. Quasi judicial powers are; a) to hear cases b) to decide based on the
merits Administrative proceedings:

• Where the statute does not require ant particular method of procedure to
be followed by an administrative agency, the agency may adopt any
reasonable method to carry out its functions. The courts cannot determine a
controversy involving questions which is within the jurisdiction of the
administrative tribunal where the question demands the exercise of sound
administrative discretion. (Provident Tree Farms vs. Batario)

• Guide for administrative proceeding (Ang Tibay vs. CIR) 1.right of the
parties to present case 2.tribunal must consider evidence presented
3.decision must be substantially supported 4.evidence must be substantial
(relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion) 5.decision must be rendered on the evidence presented
6.tribunal must act independently on the law and facts of the controversy
7.decision must be in a manner that issues are known as well as reasons for
such decision

• administrative bodies are not bound by technical rules on procedure, but

substantive requirements of due process must be observed. This includes
also the right to counsel. ( Salaw vs. NLRC)

• Requirements of due process are satisfied by the opportunity to submit

position papers by the parties. What the law abhors is not the absence of
previous notice but rather the absolute lack ofopportunity to ventilate a
party’s side. (PNOC- Energy Dev. Co. vs. NLRC)

• Judicial review does not include questioning the sufficiency of evidence

because the agency is said to be an expert on the subject. Judicial review is
limited to the determination of grave abuse of discretion.

• Additional evidence will not cure an error of lack of notice and due process.
(Lawrence vs. NLRC)
• Procedure must follow the natural sequence of notice , hearing and
judgment. (Lawrence case)

• In absence of a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, the courts

cannot interfere with the findings of an administrative agency.

Specific Powers:

• Power to cite of contempt is inherent to the courts. Such power is available

to administrative bodies if the law provides for such power.

Even if there is no penalty for contempt, it may be filed under the Rules of
Court.
Way/language of the law, which contempt may be cited;
-“as contempt of court”
-“body may summary punish violation of orders as contempt” plus penalty
-if penalty is provided in the contempt clause, “triable by the proper court”

• Power to summon is attached in the power to take testimony or evidence.

Such must be provided by law. This cannot be impliedly delegated. It should
be vested by law to the administrative body.

• Power to investigate is not necessarily power to take testimonies.

• Power to impose fines criminal in nature must be resorted into the courts.

Administrative rules and regulations, although has the force of a law, are not
laws. A penalty for violating such rules is void.

Conditions where an administrative rule can prescribe a penalty:

1.if the law itself prescribes a penalty

2.if the law considers violation of the rule punishable

• Civil fines may be imposed in order to preserve the integrity and function of
administrative agencies against wanton disregard of regulation.

Civil Fines- serves as a reminder

• The administrative act of deportation, although not criminal in nature, is so

harsh it should be treated as one in terms of compliance with due process.
The administrative body should also first conduct a preliminary investigation
to determine sufficient cause. Private intervention should also not be allowed.
(Lao Gi vs. CA)

Administrative decisions:

• In administrative review, a reviewing official should not be the same one

who originally decided on the case. Otherwise there would be no real review
of the decision. (Zambales Chormite vs. CA)

• Bar on amending final and executory decisions apply also to quasi judicial
bodies to avoid endless litigation. ( Mendiola vs. CSC)

• Writs of executions from administrative decisions may be applied to the

proper courts but the administrative body cannot issue such writ.
(Divinagracia vs. CFI)

Generally, administrative bodies can execute their decisions unless proven

otherwise

• Automatic review of an administrative agency is not allowed if there is first

another agency which should hear the appeal.

• Jurisdiction is vested by law and is not lost nor be legally transferred by

voluntary surrender in favor of a body not vested by law with such
jurisdiction. (GSIS vs. CSC)

Exhaustion of administrative remedies:

• Primary jurisdiction- an administrative body vested with a special

jurisdiction should be first resorted to. Further administrative remedies are
not provided by law.

• Failure to exhaust administrative remedies will not affect jurisdiction of the

courts but will deprive the complainant of a cause of action which is a ground
to dismiss. If not invoked at the proper time, its shall be deemed waived.
(Soto vs. Jareno)

• Exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies:

1.estoppel on the party invoking the doctrine

2.when the administrative act is patently illegal amounting to lack of

jurisdiction.

3.unreasonable delay or official action that will irretrievably prejudice the

complainant.

4. partial execution

5.when the question involved is purely legal.

• Poverty is a ground for exempting one from exhausting administrative

remedies. (Sabello vs. Dept. of Education)

• When administrative appeals are not provided by law, resort to the courts is
allowed.
Judicial Review:

• Finding of facts by administrative agencies must be respected as long as

they are supported by substantial evidence and judicial review should be
invoked if there is a grave abuse of discretion. (Timbancaya vs. Vicente)

• What can be considered by the court; 1. decision of the agency2. all

records considered

• Even acts of the Office of the President may be review by the RTC upon the
principle of separation of powers (Lupangco vs. CA)

• Direct appeal to the CA of administrative decisions must be provided by

law. Otherwise, such review shall be concurrent with the RTC. (Board of
Commissioners vs. De la Rosa)

Rights for judicial review:

1.decision must be final, based on the merits

2.exhaust administrative remedies