Admin Law Reviewer

ADMIN - Carlota Camille Umali

1

I. HISTORICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Pangasinan v.

Public Service

Commission

1940

[business of transporting passengers]

With growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of

governmental regulation and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is

a constantly growing tendency toward the delegation of greater powers by the

legislature and toward approval of the practice by the court.

Meralco v.

Pasay

Transportation

Co.

1932

[An act asked the members of SC to sit as board of arbitrators]

The SC cannot be and should not be required to exercise any power or to perform any

trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with the administering of

judicial functions.

Noblejas v.

Teehankee 1968

[An act declared commissioner of Land Reg as entitled to same privileges as CFI judge]

If Congress had really intended to include in the general grant of privilege of a

commissioner the same kind as to that of judge of CFI to be investigated by the SC, then

such grant is unconstitutional because it would violate the fundamental doctrine of

separation of powers by charging the court with administrative function over executive

officials.

Garcia v.

Macaraig 1971

[judge was appointed to a CFI but was not able to perform his duty due to unavailability

of funds/lack of sala and was appointed instead by SOJ to assist him]

Supreme Court looks with disfavor at practice of detailing a judge of CFI at DOJ,

performing non-judicial functions. The line between what a judge may do and he may

not do in collaborating or working with other offices or officers under the department of

the government must always be kept clear and jealousy observed, lest the separation of

powers would be gradually eroded by practices motivated by good intentions.

In Re:

designation of

Judge

Manzano

1988

[creation of Provincial/City Committee on Justice]

Members of the SC and other courts shall not be designated t any agency performing

quasi-judicial or administrative functions. Membership of a judge in a provincial

committee which discharges administrative functions will be a violation of the

Constitution. (Sec. 12, Art. 8, 1987 Constitution)

Puyat v. De

Guzman 1982

[assemblyman appeared as counsel under cloak of “intervention” or “appearing in his

own behalf” by buying shares in the company he sought to appear in behalf of]

An assemblyman cannot indirectly fail to follow the Constitutional prohibition not to

appear as counsel before an administrative tribunal like SEC by buying nominal shares

after his appearance therein was contested. Indirect appearance as counsel before an

administrative body is a circumvention of the Constitutional prohibition.

II. CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

Congressional Oversight Power

Macalintal

v.

Comelec

2003

[Joint Congressional Oversight Committee with power to revise/review the IRR of COMELEC]

The Act which grants such power is void and unconstitutional. Power of oversight embraces

all activities undertaken by the Congress to enhance its understanding of and influence over

the implementation of legislation it has enacted. Oversight concerns post-enactment

measures undertaken by Congress:

a. Monitor bureaucratic compliance

b. Determine WON agencies are properly administered

c. Eliminate executive waste and dishonesty

d. Prevent executive usurpation of legislative authority

e. Assess executive conformity

Categories:

Scrutiny – lesser intensity and continuity of attention to administrative operations, primary

purpose is to determine economy and efficiency of operations [appropriation and

confirmation]

Investigation – more intensive digging of facts, inquiries in aid of legislation [contempt]

Supervision – continuing and informed awareness on the part of the congressional

committee regarding executive operations in a given administrative area [legislative veto

power of the President]

The power of oversight has been held to be intrinsic in the grant of legislative power itself

and integral to the checks and balance inherent in a democratic system of government.


2

Absence of Revisory Power

Concerned

Officials of

MWSS v.

Vasquez

1995

[Ombudsman assume jurisdiction over MWSS’ bidding for 2 projects]

Ombudsman jurisdiction encompasses all kinds of mal/mis/nonfeasance that have

been committed by any officer or employee. However, the Office of the Ombudsman in

issuing the challenged orders has not directly assumed jurisdiction over, but likewise,

preempted the exercise of discretion by the board of trustees of MWSS. The order of

the Ombudsman is more of an undue interference in the adjudicative responsibility of

the MWSS Board of Trustees rather than a mere directive requiring the proper

observance of and compliance with the law. Courts will not interfere in matters which

are addressed to the sound discretion of the government agencies entrusted with the

regulation of activities under the special technical knowledge and training of such

agencies.

Cases covered by the Investigatory power

Lastimosa v.

Vasquez 1995

[Ombudsman called on the Provincial Prosecutor to assist in the prosecution of an

attempted rape case filed by a nurse against the Mayor]

The power to investigate and prosecute include the investigation and prosecution of

any crime committed by a public official regardless of whether the acts or omissions

complained of are related to or connected with or arise from the performance of his

duty. The ombudsman may utilize the personnel of his office and/or designate or

deputize any fiscal, state prosecutor or lawyer in the government service to act as

special investigator or prosecutor. Those designated or deputized to assist him shall

be under his supervision and control. Even if the PI had been given over to the

Provincial Prosecutor to conduct, his determination of the nature of the offense to be

charged would still be subject to the approval of the Ombudsman.

BIR v.

Ombudsman 2002

[Ombudsman asked BIR appear before him with the case dockets of the companies

alleged to have been granted anomalous tax refund]

There is no requirement of a pending action before the Ombudsman could wield its

investigative power. The Ombudsman could resort to its investigative prerogative on

its own or upon complaint filed in any form or any manner. Even if the complaint is

verbal, written, unsigned or unverified, the Ombudsman could, on its own, initiate the

investigation. The power to investigate and to prosecute which was granted by law to

the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified.

Office of

Ombudsman v.

ENOC

2002

[Ombudsman wants to assume jurisdiction over malversation case falling with

jurisdiction of regular courts]

The Ombudsman has power to prosecute not only graft cases within jurisdiction of

Sandiganbayan but also those cognizable by the regular courts. Its power pertains to

any act or omission of any public officer or employee when such act or omission

appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. The law does not make a

distinction between cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and those cognizable by

regular courts.

Not covered by power to investigate

Fuentes v.

Ombudsman 2001

[Ombudsman recommended that a judge be charged before the Sandiganbayan with

violation of RA 3019 and with an admin charge before the SC for conduct unbecoming

of a judge ]

The Ombudsman may not initiate or investigate a criminal/admin complaint before his

office against a judge pursuant to his power to investigate public officer. The

Ombudsman must indorse the case to SC for appropriate action. It is the SC that is

tasked to oversee the judges and court personnel and take proper administrative

action against them if they commit any violation of the laws of the land.

Ledesma v. CA 2005

Estarija v.

Ranada 2006

Office of

Ombudsman v.

Masing

2008


3

III. POWER AND FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE

AGENCY

A. Legislative Function

1. Non delegation doctrine

Rule: Congress may delegate to another branch of

Government the power to fill in the details in the

execution, enforcement or administration of law

Required:

1. Clear Policy – whether the statute was

complete in all its terms and provisions

when it left the hands of the legislature so

that nothing was left to the judgment of any

other appointee or delegate of the

legislature

2. Fixed standard – must lay down the rule or

definite standard by which the administrative

officer or board may be guided in the

exercise of the discretionary powers

delegated to it

- Standard may be expressed or

implied from the policy and purpose of the

law considered as a whole

Examples:

Undue delegation

1. Probation Act – provincial boards are to

determine WON law shall apply to them or

not at all [People v. Vera]

2. Act 2868 (penalizing monopoly and

hoarding of rice etc.) – authorize the

Governor General to issue proclamation

fixing the price of rice and to make the

sale of it a crime [US v. Ang Tang Ho]

3. Several EOs creating 33 municipalities –

not enunciate any policy to be carried out

or implemented; Creation of municipalities

was an exercise of a purely legislative

function [Pelaez v. Auditor General]

4. Act 2307 (gives authority to Board of

Public Utility Commissioners to require

detailed reports) – everything was left to

the judgment and discretion of the Board

[Compania Gen. de Tabaccos v. Board of

Public Utility Commission]

5. RA 6735/Comelec resolution 2300 on

people’s initiative to amend the

constitution – failed to satisfy the

requirements; system of initiative in the

Constitution is not self-executory and there’s

a need for passage of a statute; RA 6735

only gives people the power to initiate

amendment in laws/ordinances/resolutions

but not to amend the constitution [Santiago

v. Comelec]

6. EOs prohibiting transportation of

petroleum interstate – no standard

provided for as to the determination of

what production is permitted [Panama

Refining v. Ryan]

- Cardozo’s dissenting: there’s

standard = natural resources limitation

7. EO 566 on expanding CHED’s jurisdiction

to cover review centers – these are not

programs of higher learning on which CHED

has originally has jurisdiction [Review center

association v. Ermita]

8. Live Poultry Code – Congress not permitted

to abdicate or to transfer to others the

essential legislative functions with which it is

vested but it may leave to certain

instrumentalities the making of subordinate

rules within the prescribed limit and the

determination of facts; but it must lay down

the policies and establish the standards [ALA

Schecter v. US]

9. General Township Assistance Program –

personal standards cannot be used to

determine whether to terminate welfare

assistance, written standards and

regulations should be established [White v.

Roughton]

Valid delegation

1. Reflector Law – public safety is the prime

consideration/legislative objective [Edu v.

Ericta]

2. Letter of Instruction requiring motor

vehicle owners to use a warning device –

issued in the exercise of the State’s police

power intended to promote public safety

[Agustin v. Edu]

3. BP 130 empowering Minister of Labor to

assume jurisdiction over labor dispute –

not on its face unconstitutional but should

be exercised in accordance with the

constitutional mandate of protection to

labor [FTWU v. Minister of Labor]

4. EO 546 authorizing NTC to fix rates – the

only standard which the legislature is

required to prescribe for the guidance of

the admin authority is that the rate be

reasonable and just, in the absence of

such standard as to reasonableness, it may

be implied [Philcomsat v. Alcuaz]

5. EO 429/RA 6734 joining/reorganizing the

provinces – power to merge admin

regions is similar to adjusting of

boundaries which is administrative in

nature as opposed to creation of

municipalities which is a legislative matter

[Chiongbian v. Orbos]


4

6. RA 9337 giving the President stand-by

authority to increase the VAT rate –

simply a delegation of ascertainment of

facts upon which the enforcement and

administration of the increased rate is

contingent [Abakada v. Executive

Secretary]

- Congress does not abdicate its

functions or unduly delegate power

when it describes what job must be

done, who must do it and what the

scope of authority is

7. Trade Expansion Act – only allows the

President to control the importation of oil

by imposing quotas and not by having

license fees; legislative history is taken

into account [Federal Energy

Administration v. Al Gonquin]

Other cases of allowed delegation:

1. To local authorities

2. To administrative agencies

3. To agencies in US territories

4. To people at large

5. To those whom the constitution itself

delegates such power (ie to the president:

tariff/emergency powers)

Qualified political agency – heads of departments

are alter ego of the President, their acts are

presumed to be acts of the President until

repudiated

2. Permissible Delegation

a. Ascertainment of Fact

Rules:

[Panama Refining v. Ryan]

Constitution has never denied the Congress the

necessary resources of flexibility and

practicability which will enable it to perform its

function in laying down policies and establishing

standards , while leaving to selected

instrumentalities the making of subordinate

rules within prescribed limits and the

determination of facts to which the policy as

declared by the legislature is to apply

[Lovina v. Moreno]

Delegation by Congress to executive or

administrative agencies of functions of judicial

or quasi-judicial functions is incidental to the

exercise of such agencies of their executive or

administrative powers.

b. Filling in of details

Rule:

[Allegre v. Collector of Customs]

The authority to fill in details in carrying out the law

is not legislative power and may thus be validly

delegated to administrative agencies.

c. Administrative Rule making

[See Admin code book 7]

1. Limits on Rule making power

Rules

Limited to the specific purpose provided in the

law

Enacted for the sole purpose of implementing

the law and carrying out its legislative policy

Must be within the scope of statutory authority

granted by the legislature

Must conform with the provisions of the enabling

law

It cannot amend/modify/dismantle the act of

Congress

It must not override but must remain consistent

and in harmony with the law they seek to apply

and implement

Examples:

Inconsistent

1. Tobacco Inspection Regulations limiting the

exportation into US of Phil cigars to those

manufactured exclusively by certain provinces is

beyond the authority of the Commissioner of

Internal Revenue which is only to establish rules

in classifying/marking/packing said cigars.

[Olsen v. Aldenese]

2. Memorandum Order by the Insular collector of

Customs which provides that decisions shall be

subject to review of the Insular Collector –

lawmakers did not deem it necessary to provide

for supervisory authority or power of revision on

unappealed seizure cases

3. Electro fishing not punished in the Fisheries law

which only penalizes the use of obnoxious and

poisonous substance

4. CSC rules which prohibits persons 57yrs old and

above from entering into government service

without its approval is entirely a creation of CSC

and is unauthorized. It was not provided for in

RA 2260 which establishes the CSC.

5. Interpretation made by the Commissioner that

EO 141 had not been intended to include some

tax liabilities is not in accordance with the said

law which is explicit and clear. The law could’ve


5

simply provided for an exclusionary clause if

that’s what is intended.

6. Administrative Circular by DAR has no basis in

allowing the opening of trust accounts because

the law is very specific that the deposit must be

made only in cash or in LBP cash bonds.

7. NTC is a collegial body which requires a majority

vote of the 3 members and not just of the

chairman to decide a case. Rules providing

otherwise is on its face null and void even if it

has resulted in institutionalization of the one-

man rule.

8. Power given to Philcoa is not a roving

commission but one to be exercised in the

context of the regulatory structure.

9. National ID system redefines the parameters of

some basic rights of the citizens as well as the

line between administrative and legislative

powers. Regulations are not substitutes to

general policy making of Congress.

10. Changing of prescription period

11. Removing the “or” in “and/or”

12. Changing the reglementary period for appeal

2. Publication and Effectivity

Requirement for effectivitiy:

1. Filing with the UP Law center 3 copies

2. Publication

Effectivity: General Rule: 15 days from date of filing

Exceptions:

1. A different date is fixed by law

2. In cases of imminent danger to public health,

safety and welfare

a. statement to that effect accompanies the rule

b. appropriate measures to make the rule known

to persons who may be affected

Duty of UP Law Center

1. Publish a quarter bulletin

2. Keep an up-to-date codification

Exception: Cumbersome, expensive or expedient

Must be published:

1. Prescribes a penalty

2. All laws/statutes including those of local

application and private laws

3. Presidential decrees and executive orders

4. Administrative rules and regulations if their

purpose is to enforce or implement existing

law pursuant to valid legislation

5. Administrative circulars issued to enforce or

implement an existing law and affects rights

of certain people

6. Charter of cities

7. Monetary Board circulars if they are not

meant simply to fill in the details of the

Central Bank Act

8. Implementing Rules and Regulations

No need for publication

1. Interpretative regulations which are internal

in nature

2. Letters of instructions issued by admin

superiors concerning rules and guidelines to

be followed by subordinates

3. Municipal ordinances – governed by LGC

4. Instructions by department heads on case

studies

Other Rules:

Publication of laws is material for the purpose of

determining their effectivity, ONLY IF the

statutes themselves do not so provide.

Publication is indispensable but legislature in its

discretion provide that the 15-day period be

shortened or extended

Publication must be in full.

Invalid, defective and unenforceable for lack of

proper publication and filing in ONAR

Publication is a condition sine qua non before

statutes, rules or regulations can take effect

Strict compliance cannot be annulled by mere

allegation that the parties were notified of the

existing of the Implementing rules

3. Penal Regulations

Rules:

must first be published to be effective

Cannot be delegated by Congress to an

executive official the power to declare what

acts should constitute a criminal offense

4. Interpretative Rules

Rules:

A regulations that is merely an interpretation

of the statute when once determined to have

been erroneous becomes a nullity

A rule which is a mere advice to the people of

amendments of the law does not require

presidential approval and publication for

effectivity

Interpretation only: renders an opinion or

gives a statement of policy

Interpretations of the law is at best merely

advisory for the courts are the final

interpreter of what the law means

‐ May be disturbed or set aside by the

courts if there is error of law, abuse

of power, lack of jurisdiction or

grave abuse of discretion clearly

conflicting with either the letter or

the spirit of the legislative

enactment


6

5. Examples of Rule making in Various

Agencies

regulation must be germane to the object and

purpose of the law

necessary to carry out the provisions of the law

justified by sound principles of organization

which requires that those at the top be able to

concentrate their attention upon the larger and

more important questions of policy

statute may vest original jurisdiction in an admin

agency over certain disputes and controversies

falling within the agency’s special expertise (ie

HLURB)

Supervisory, regulatory and disciplinary power

would be meaningless if it did not carry with it

the power to penalize

Example:

1. Forestry administration orders

2. RA 877 IRR providing for inspection of

nursing schools

3. Revised Rule of practice in Phil Patent Office

authorizing the director to delegate the

cases to any ranking official to hear the

proceedings (but decision still made by the

director)

4. CSC Rule limiting the extension for

compulsory retirees to 1 year

5. POEA has the power and authority to fix and

promulgate rates affecting death and

workmen’s compensation of Filipino seamen

working in ocean-going vessels

6. MTRCB cannot suspend television

personalities only the show

d. Fixing of rates, wages and prices

Required:

1. Proposed rates be published in a newspaper

of general circulation at least 2 weeks before

first hearing

2. Public Hearing

Rule: Potestas delegate non delegari potest [what

has been delegated cannot be delegated]

Basis:

1. ethical principle that: A delegated power

constitute a right and a duty to be

performed by the delegate through

instrumentality of his own judgment and not

through the intervening mind of another

2. Rate making or fixing is not an easy task. It is

a delicate and sensitive government function

that requires dexterity of judgment and

sound discretion with settled goal of arriving

at a just and reasonable rate acceptable of

both the public utility and the public.

[Vigan Electric v. PSC]

If rate applies to one entity = QUASI-JUDICIAL

Determine only WON it is reasonable

Notice and hearing required

If rate applies to all = QUASI-LEGISLATIVE

Notice and hearing generally not required

But admin code already requires it, so notice

and hearing required for all proposed rates

Notes:

1. Public service commission CANNOT delegate the

power to fix rates to public service providers

(like PNR). It first has to determine WON the rates

are just and reasonable before approving it.

2. LTFRB also CANNOT delegate rate fixing power

to bus operators

3. Legal presumption that the fixed rates are

reasonable. Fixing of rates, unless there’ss

abuse of discretion, will not be interfered by the

courts.

4. Temporary rates are not exempt from procedural

requirements

5. Power to fix rates must be authorized by a

statute

What constitute a reasonable rate:

1. Original cost

2. Cost of reproduction

3. Outstanding capitalization

4. Present value

Just rate = founded on conditions which are fair and

reasonable both to the owner and the public

Exercise of:

1. Administrative/executive/legislative –

notice and hearing not required

‐ Acts are general and prospective

2. Judicial or quasi-judicial – notice and

hearing required

Acts are particular and immediate

e. Licensing function

General Rule: no license may be withdrawn,

suspended, revoked or annulled without notice

and hearing

Exceptions:

1. Willful violation of pertinent laws, rules and

regulations

2. Public security, health or safety requires

Other Rules:

1. If notice and hearing is required = follow rules

in contested cases

2. When timely/sufficiently applied of renewal,

existing license shall not expire until

application shall have been determined


7

3. It is in the nature of a special privilege. It is

not in any way vested, permanent or

absolute. Hence, it is ALWAYS REVOCABLE.

4. Absence of expiry date does not make it

perpetual

B. Judicial Function

a. Power to issue subpoena, declare contempt

General:

Required:

1. Any contested case

2. Upon request of any party

3. Before or during hearing

4. Showing of general relevance

What:

1. Attendance of witness

2. Production of books, documents, papers

other pertinent data

Remedy in case of disobedience:

1. Invoke aid of RTC that has jurisdiction

2. Punish contumacy or refusal as

contempt

Specific: SEC under supervision of Office of President

1. Issue subpoena duces tecum

2. Summon witnesses

3. Order search and seizure in appropriate cases

Other rules for supoenas:

1. May issue subpoenas in course of

investigation WON adjudication is involved

and WON probable cause is shown

2. Purpose is to discover evidence and not to

prove pending charge

3. Investigative power is inutile if the agency

exercising such power cannot require the

parties to produce the documents needed in

the investigation

3 tests of validity of a subpoena

1. Within authority of the agency

2. Demand is not too indefinite

3. Information is reasonable relevant

Contempt power

Power to punish for contempt is inherent in all

courts; its existence is essential in preservation

of order in judicial proceedings and to the

enforcement of judgments, orders and mandates

of courts and consequently, in the administration

of justice

Rule: exercised as an incident of quasi-judicial

function

Exception:

1. cannot be used in connection with ministerial

duties

2. party availing of a judicial remedy

3. judge for taking cognizance of the case

b. Warrants of arrest, Administrative searches

Required:

1. Probable cause

2. Determined personally by a judge

3. After examination under oath and affirmation

of complainant and witnesses he may

produce

4. Particularly describing the place, person and

things

Other rules:

1. Arrest of foreigners for deportation is valid

only when there’s already an order of

deportation

2. President’s power to conduct an investigation

leading to deportation does not imply the

authority to order an arrest

3. Arrest to carry out a final decision of

deportation is valid but if only for purpose of

investigation, it is not valid.

4. SOLE may not issue a search or arrest warrant

5. Search warrant may be applied for if entry to

a private residence is refused. This also

applies for commercial structures.

Exceptions:

1. Arrest is based upon probable cause after 3

months of surveillance. Even if not valid

upon inception, made valid upon filing of

formal charge.

2. Already released: petition for habeas corpus

is rendered moot and academic when a

person is released unless there are restraints

attached to his release which precludes

freedom of action

3. Not extend to deportation cases: only

required:

a. Specific charge against the alien

b. Fair hearing

c. With assistance of counsel

c. Imposition of Fines and Penalties

When valid: Within the competency of Congress to

impose appropriate obligations and sanction

their enfrocement

1. Not criminal penalty

2. CAB for erring airlines: not a criminal

prosecution but only an administrative

penalty

3. Violation of an admin regulation is made a

crime:

Required:

a. Violation is made a crime by

delegating statute itself

b. Penalty for such violation is provided

in the statute itself


8

When not valid:

1. CIR for unfair labor practice – should be with

the regular courts

2. Fixing penalties for criminal offense – cannot

be delegated to subordinate authority

3. Breach of contractual obligation and tort

liability – Courts of justice not the PSC

C. Judicial determination of Sufficiency of

Standard

1. Interest of law and order

Government has both on reason and authority

the right to exercise sovereign police power in

the promotion of general welfare and public

interest

EX: relocation of Mangyans in Mindoro

2. Public interest

Intention and purpose of the law: to protect the

public against speculative schemes which habe

no more basis than so many feet of blue sky and

against fly by night companies

EX: Insular treasurer in cancelling permits of

certain companies

3. Justice, equity and substantial merits of

the case

EX: CIR in determining the wages of an individual

employee

4. Moral, educational, amusing

The terms of the statute get precision from the

sense and experience of men and these become

certain and useful guides in determining what is

educational, moral and amusing.

The exact specification of the instances of their

application would be impossible as the attempt

would be futile.

EX: propagandist films

5. Sacrilegious

No definite meaning – hence an invalid standard

Sacrilegious – violation or profanation of

anything sacred, no religion

Sacrilegious test may raise substantial questions

under the 1st

amendment’s guaranty of

separation of Church and State

6. Adequate and efficient instruction

Legislature could validly rely on educational

experience and training of those in charge of the

DECS to ascertain and formulate minimum

requirements of adequate instruction as basis of

government recognition of private schools

7. Reasonableness as an implied standard

The rule of reasonableness inheres in every law

and the action of those charged with its

enforcement must in the nature of things be

subject to the test of reasonableness

Consider the nature and context of the subject

matter. Flexibility is required to make the laws

applicable to different situations and cases such

as changing conditions in the market.

8. To promote efficiency, economy and

efficiency

EX: delegating reorganization powers

9. Maintain monetary stability, promote rising

level of production and real income

EX: Charter of monetary board

Held to be sufficiently concrete and definite


9

IV. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

A. Administrative Code

B. In Rule making, price wage or rate fixing

C. In adjudication of cases

1. Rules of Procedure

2. Due Process

a. Cardinal Rights

[Ang Tibay v. CIR]

1. Right to a hearing

2. Tribunal must consider the evidence

presented

3. Decision must be supported by evidence

4. Evidence must be substantial

5. Transparency – evidence to be considered

must be those presented at the hearing or

on record

6. CIR must act on its own independent

consideration of law and facts

7. Decision must be rendered such that the

parties know the issues involved and reasons

for the decision

Other rules:

1. If the law provides for procedure applicable,

that is the DP requirement which must be

complied with.

2. Includes right to cross examine witnesses:

oral testimony may be taken into account

only when it is complete (when witness is

cross-examined)

3. Cannot review own decision

4. Entitled to copy of decision but not of the

investigation report

5. Failure to be heard because of non

appearance in hearing is NOT denial of DP

6. Submission of position papers = adequate

7. Trial type proceeding is not required

8. Active participation in the hearing cured

procedural infirmity = WAIVER

9. Technical rules may be applied if it will result

in justice and fairness in the resolution of

the case

b. Notice and hearing

Rule: While admin agencies are not required to

follow the technical rules, they are also not

allowed to disregard the basic demands of due

process

When Required:

1. When property is seized by the BOC and the

owner wanted to prove that the property

falls under the exception

2. Reasonable notice before the hearing is

required, otherwise party is deprived of DP

3. Termination of employment cases

4. Making the head personally liable for any

claim of terminated employees

When not required:

1. When decision is based on an undisputed fact

(cancellation of passport)

2. When making a decision which is purely

discretionary (extension of stay of aliens)

3. When urgent emergency measures are needed

(discharge of pollutants)

c. Form of and promulgation of

judgment

General Rule: must state the fact and the law on

which the decision is based

Exception:

1. if it is substantially discussed by lower

tribunal and the reviewing court fully agrees

with such findings

Rules:

1. There should be independent assessment of

the facts and the law to inform party of the

bases of the sanctions

2. Decision should be made by the agency on

which the law vests such power but the

hearing may be delegated to another

3. Date of voting v. date of writing of the

decision = date of voting must be within 1

year period

4. Notice of reversal may be sent even after 1

year from the date of promulgation

Date of agency action = date when decision was

made and not the writing of the decisions

Operative date is the date when the resolution

was voted/adopted by the board regardless of

the date the decision was prepared, written and

signed.

General Rule: may be decided by divisions

Exception: if the law expressly requires that it is to

be decided en banc


10

3. Jurisdiction

When jurisdiction is acquired:

1. Explicitly conferred by the law

2. Necessary implication

No Jurisdiction (should be with regular courts

unless otherwise provided)

1. Director of Patents on validity of contracts

and specific performance

2. Board of powers and waterworks on

conditions of lease

3. Commissioner of Internal revenue to enforce

a tax that was already repealed

4. CHR to adjudicate and to cite for contempt

5. CAB to issue permit even before completion

of the applicant’s and oppositor’s evidence

6. ERB for non rate fixing functions (now with

the Department of Energy)

7. ERB for determination WON a party is guilty of

overcharging

8. SEC over homeowners association (now with

HLURB)

Has jurisdiction:

1. Deportation cases:

a. Order of the President after due

investigation

b. Commissioner of immigration

upon recommendation of the

board

2. Collector of customs over seizure and

forfeiture cases

3. CHR for fact finding or investigation

4. LLDA for cease and desist orders

5. HLURB for unsound real estate business

practice and all questions regarding

subdivisions and condominiums including

enforcement of contractual rights arising

therefrom

6. HLURB for cases against developers even if

under receivership

7. CSC for GOCCs with original charter (can be

appealed to CA)

8. LA (then NLRC > CA) over 3rd

party claims

incident to a labor dispute

9. COA in determining WON disbursements are

proper and disallow if illegal

Doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction

Courts will not and cannot determine a

controversy where the issues for resolution

demand the exercise of sound administrative

discretion requiring the special knowledge,

experience and services of the administrative

tribunal to determine technical and intricate

maters of facts

4. Administrative and Judicial Proceeding

arising from the same facts

Rule: Filing of one action (criminal) is not legally

inconsistent with the other (administrative) and

the prosecution of the former does not entail a

waiver of action due for the latter

If there’s any conflict it is purely physical (ie

time and place at which things will have to be

done)

Reason:

1. matters material in admin case is not

necessarily material in criminal case

2. quantum of proof is different

Other rules:

1. Director of Patents is not bound by findings

at criminal case

2. RTC cannot order backwages in the event of

acquittal of an accused who is also charged

in admin proceeding

3. Admin proceeding may proceed independent

of the criminal proceeding

5. Rules of evidence

Substantial evidence – relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind would accept as adequate to

support a conclusion

Other rules:

1. Ocular inspection is merely auxiliary remedy

and may be resorted to only when the court

finds it necessary to reach an enlightened

determination of the case

2. Survey may be conducted to verify truth

between conflicting claims but not to

supplant actual trial

3. SC is not required to review the proof de novo

4. Conclusion may not be based on an

investigation conducted without due process

5. Strict rules of evidence does not bind

agencies exercising a quasi-legislative

function and not quasi-judicial functions

6. Finding of guilt of admin agency if supported

by substantial evidence will be sustained by

the court


11

V. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE

DECISIONS

A. Factors Affecting Finality of Administrative

Decisions

Rule: Judicial review only if authorized by Congress

Factors

1. Δ - Type of problem involved

2. Δ - History of the statue in question

3. × - declared final and executory after lapse of

certain period to appeal

4. × - public interest requires that proceedings

not be altered

5. - abuse of discretion or excess of authority

6. - question of law

7. - clearly appears that the decision is wrong

Interference is allowed:

1. Beyond his statutory authority

2. Exercised unconstitutional powers

3. Acted arbitrarily and without regard to his

duty or with GAD

4. Vitiated by fraud, imposition or mistake

5. Did not comply with mandatory provision of

law

6. Corrupt, arbitrary and capricious

7. Lack of jurisdiction

Other rules:

1. Policy choice – court respect the

interpretation by the agency when Congress

expressly delegated the agency to interpret

certain provisions

2. Period to appeal is not only mandatory but

also a jurisdictional requirement

B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Doctrine: recourse through court action cannot

prosper until after all such administrative

remedies would have first been exhausted

Rule: Courts will not interfere where the law

delineated the procedure by which administrative

appeal or remedy could be effected, the same

should be followed before recourse to judicial

action can be initiated

Basis:

1. Legal – law prescribes legal remedies

2. Practical – opportunity to correct the errors,

incur less expense, comity, convenience,

unclog dockets

Note:

1. MTD must be filed, otherwise waived

2. Dismissible on the ground of lack of COA

3. Applicable only to agencies’ exercise of its

quasi-judicial functions

4. If Quasi-legislative – go directly to court

(check for ripeness)

Exceptions:

1. Purely legal question

2. Urgency

3. Unreasonable or oppressive

4. Administrative remedy is only permissive or

voluntary

5. Great irreparable damage

6. Limited time

7. Estoppel – not invoked at the proper time

8. Patently illegal amounting to LOJ

9. Claim involved is small

10. No other plain, speedy and adequate remedy

11. Strong public interest

12. Subject of controversy is a private land

13. Quo warranto proceeding

14. Violation of due process

15. Qualified political agency - Respondent is a

secretary acting as alter ego of the President

16. To require exhaustion would be

unreasonable

17. Amount to nullification of the claim

18. No administrative review is provided for in

the law

19. Issue of exhaustion is rendered moot

20. Official indifference

21. Quasi-legislative action

22. Action for damages/purely civil action

C. Primary jurisdiction or Preliminary Resort

Doctrine: Claim is originally cognizable in the courts

but has been placed within the special

competence of an administrative body. The

courts yield their authority but are not ousted of

such authority

Purpose: for the judge to know WON to yield its

concurrent jurisdiction and to deprive another

body of its jurisdiction

Required:

1. Concurrence of jurisdiction

2. Question or issue requires technical expertise

of the agency

3. Legislative intent on the matter is to have

uniformity in rulings

4. Agency is performing a quasi-judicial action

When allowed:

1. Purely legal and not technical

2. Prejudicial question – only suspend the

proceedings

Improper application:

1. One case is civil and the other is an

administrative proceeding (no concurrence

of jurisdiction)

2. There’s exclusive jurisdiction and not

concurrent


12

D. Standing to challenge

Nature: a threshold issue

A procedural technicality which SC may in

exercise of its discretion may set aside

Injury-in-fact test: injury must not only be

speculative but imminent

Zone of interest test: WON the interest sought to be

protected by the complainant is arguably in the

zone of interest to be protected or regulated by

the statute or constitutional guarantee in

question

Rule:

Must have personal and substantial interest in

the case such that he has sustained or will

sustain direct injury as a result of its

enforcement

Must be the one injured and injury is

consequence of the action of respondent

With standing:

1. Matter of transcendental importance

2. Intergenerational responsibility

3. Consumers (KMU) on complaints re fare hikes

4. Taxpayer – involve disbursement of tax

money

5. Owners - expropriation

No standing

1. Not in the enumeration specified in the law

2. Taxpayer – inaction of COMELEC to call a

special election

3. Generalized grievance

4. If not a constitutional issue

Required:

1. Injury-in-fact

a. Concrete and particularized

b. Actual or imminent and not

conjectural or hypothetical

2. Causal connection - fairly traceable to the

challenged action and not a result of an

independent action of some 3rd

party not before

the court

3. Likely (not just speculatively) that the injury will

be redressed by favorable decision

Burden of proof: party invoking jurisdiction

E. Ripeness

Ripeness – deals with rulemaking or policymaking

EAR – quasi-judicial action

2 fold aspect:

1. Fitness of issues for judicial decision

2. Hardship to the parties of withholding court

consideration

Fitness:

1. Parties agree that the issue tendered is purely

legal one

2. Agency action is final

Agency action – includes any rule defined as an

agency statement of general or particular

applicability and future effect designed to

implement law or policy

Rationale: prevent courts, through avoidance of

premature adjudication, from entangling

themselves in abstract disagreements over

admin policies and also to protect the agencies

from judicial interference until an admin decision

has been formalized and its effects felt in

concrete way

General considerations:

1. WON there is congressional intent negative

judicial review

2. Possibility of courts entangling themselves in

abstract disagreements over admin policies

due to premature adjudication

3. Fitness of issues and hardship to parties of

withholding court consideration


13

VI. MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

A. Laws

B. Certiorari

Function: set aside judgment and final order as null

and void

Required:

1. GAD

2. Performance of adjudicative and not

ministerial function

3. No plain, speedy and adequate remedy in

ordinary course of law

When allowed:

1. Judicial review of decisions of NLRC

2. GAD – arbitrary, despotic manner

3. Error in jurisdiction not judgment

When not allowed:

1. Appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive

and not alternative and successive

2. Error of judgment

3. Findings of fact of an administrative agency

must be respected so long as they are

supported by substantial evidence

4. No abuse or improvident exercise of

discretion

C. Prohibition

Function: bar an action

Preventive remedy to restrain the doing of an

act about to be done

Required:

1. GAD

2. Performance of both QJ and ministerial

functions


When allowed:

1. When evidence submitted is conclusive

2. No other remedy is available

[Chua Hiong v. Deportation Board]

General Rule: present evidence to support defense

of citizenship in the deportation proceeding

Exception: (immediate judicial relief afforded)

1. GAD

2. Absolute or substantial evidence to prove

citizenship

3. Sound discretion of a competent court in

proper proceeding

D. Mandamus

Function: compel performance of an act enjoined by

law or abstain from an act

Required:

1. Ministerial not discretionary

2. Petitioner must have clear legal right to the

relief


in ordinary course of law

When not allowed:

1. Secretary to confirm the passing of medical

examiners

2. Issuance of a visa

3. Review decision of pension board

4. Determination of correctness of tax

assessment

When allowed:

1. Become ministerial because certain facts are

established

2. Clear legal right

E. Declaratory Relief

Function: provide adjudication of the legal right,

duties, or status of respective parties

Required:

1. Justifiable controversy

2. Persons with adverse interests

3. Petitioner must have legal interest in the

controversy

4. Ripe for judicial determination

5. Before there has been breach

When not allowed:

1. Declare citizenship

2. Liability of taxpayer for payment of tax

F. Habeas Corpus

Function: release detained person

When allowed:

1. Released but there are restraints attached

When not allowed:

1. Already released – moot

2. Too long a detention (reasonable time

depends on the circumstances)

3. Deportation cases – when judiciary believes

that there is substantial evidence supporting

claim of citizenship


14

G. Injunction as provisional remedy

Function: to maintain status quo till the end of the

case

Lose = dissolved

Win = permanent

Nature: an ancillary remedy

Rules:

1. Issued against inferior not with same rank

2. Must have jurisdiction

When not allowed:

1. CFI to SEC (only SC)

When allowed:

1. CTA to collector of internal revenue

2. Extreme urgency

3. Right is clear

4. Consideration of inconvenience is clearly on

his favor

5. Willful invasion of the right

6. Injury is continuing one

7. Effect of mandatory injunction would not

create a new relationship but only re-

establish a pre-existing relationship which

was arbitrarily interrupted

VII. EXTENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

A. The law-fact distinction

Where circumstantial evidence had to be

introduced – the conclusion drawn from the facts

is a conclusion of law which the courts may

review

Presumption of performance of duties legally

and in accordance with the rules and regulations

because this was his regular obligation.

Non-controversion of a fact that a person is

missing is an admission of that fact, but not of

fact of actual death which is a conclusion of law

B. Question of law

QOF – conclusive if supported by substantial

evidence taken as a whole

Erroneous conclusions even if affirmed by the

Secretary are subject to judicial review

Decision made pursuant to an administrative

order granted in excess of authority is void

QOL – interpretation of articles of incorporation

QOL – WON accident arose of out or in course of

employment

C. Question of fact

Court sometimes needs to go over the evidence

to determine substantiality and credibility

Only question of law and not rulings on the

weight of evidence are reviewable

Substantial evidence is sufficient, not conclusive

evidence

Findings of fact of NLRC is accorded great

respect particularly if they coincide with those of

the LA when supported by substantial evidence

D. Question of discretion

Rule: court will not substitute its judgment

Exception:

1. Without reasonable support in the evidence

2. Rendered against law

3. Issued without jurisdiction

4. Serious violation of law

5. Fraud

6. Personal malice

7. Wanton opression


15

VIII. ENFORCEMENT OF AGENCY ACTION

A. Res Judicata; Finality of judgment

Required:

1. Final judgment

2. Rendered by court having jurisdiction

3. Judgment on the merits

4. Between 1st

and the 2nd

a. Identity of parties

b. Identity of subject matter

c. Identity of COA

Not invoked:

1. Labor proceedings

2. Different COA: admin v. civil

B. Writ of Execution; mandamus

Not allowed

1. WOE - By regional office of DOLE

2. Injunction by CFI to NLRC

3. Mandamus by CFI to LA

Allowed:

1. Court to Commanding general to give full

payment under WCA

2. CSC to enforce and order execution of its

decision

3. Execution must conform with the dispositive

part of the decision

Admin Law Reviewer

Documents

Transcript of Admin Law Reviewer