Admin - Complete Long

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive,if you have faith.
Matthew 21:22
In UNION, There is STRENGTH
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW: ALLIED POLITICAL LAW ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
DISCUSSED BY ATTY. DB LARGO
2015 - 2016
AUGUST 1, 2015
Okay, first thing in the study of administrative law, it is a
relatively new area in political law. Not really new in the
sense because it existed in the 1990s but simply because
its a relatively new development compared to all the other
fields in political law. The reason for this is the ever-growing
complexities in the human activities. For example, we didnt
have telephones in the past so there was no need of a
specialized agency to deal with the telecommunication.
Activities are getting complicated and the brains of our
lawmakers are still the same :p What Im saying is, truly,
Congress will now be confronted with so many human
activities that would be subjected to regulation.
What I have seen in this is that Congress is really confronted
with a lot of human activities that are to be subject to human
regulation. Congress will not have the time and expertise to
deal with these. Its better to delegate the regulation of these
activities.
The need is expediency, the solution is delegation of
powers.
It is delegated to agencies under the executive department
kay wala namay naa sa ubos sa congress. Thats why we
call this the doctrine of Subordinate Legislation.
Agencies in the executive department are clothed with
powers to issue rules and regulations implementing the
statutes passed by the congress. Thats why this function
cannot be called Legislative, nor can it be called Judicial. It
can only be Quasi-Legislative or Quasi-Judicial.
Otherwise, if they exercise legislative or judicial power, that
will violate the doctrine of separation of powers.
Admin Law deals legality/correct manner in which rights may
be interfered with. So we talk about remedies because each
time a right is interefered by the regulation, we would like to
know the remedies.
Also, since it is regulatory, expect the powers of admin
agencies are for purposes of promoting General Welfare.
One of the most stable laws in Political Law is Administrative
Law. Very seldom nga dunay changes. Kanang very
dynamic kaau, kanang Consti of course, especially on the
Bill of Rights aspect. Not really abrupt or totally different ang
ruling pero evolving or developing. Admin
law, not so
much.
So lets take a look at the usual questions in the Bar Exams
so that you will have a glimpse of how Admin Law is asked.
USUAL BAR EXAM QUESTIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE

LAW:
1. Explain the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies. Give at least three exceptions to its
application. (2000)
2. Should the motion to dismiss on the ground of failure
to exhaust administrative remedies be granted?
(2004)
3. Distinguish the doctrine of primary jurisdiction from
the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies. (1996)
DBL: Karon pa ko kanotice nga every four

years ni mugawas na question about prior
exhaustion of administrative remedies
1996, 2000 and then 2004. So perhaps
2016 mugawas na pud ni .
4. Does the failure to exhaust administrative remedies
before filing a case in court oust said court of
jurisdiction to hear the case? (1996)
5. As lawyer of Jose, what steps, if any, would you take
to protect his rights? (1991)
6. Give the two (2) requisites for the judicial review of
administrative decisions/actions, that is, when is an
administrative action ripe for judicial review? (2001;
1998)
7. Are GOCCs within the scope and meaning of the
Government of the Philippines? (1997)
8. When the President abolished certain offices in the
government, it was questioned for being an
encroachment of legislative powers and therefore
void. Is the contention valid? (2003)
DBL: This is about the authority of the President to
abolish offices. So we will be talking about creation,
abolition, reorganization later on.
9. The harbour pilots then filed a suit to have the new
MARINA
rules
and
regulations
declared
unconstitutional for having been issued without due
process. Decide the case. (2000)
DBL: As Ive said, administrative agencies
also exercise quasi-judicial functions so
there are rules and regulations issued as
well.
10. The Secretary of the Department of Transportation
reversed a decision of the LTFRB. The Office of the
President set aside the decision of the Secretary. A
case was filed in the Court of Appeals on Certiorari
questioning the decision of the Office of the
President on the ground that it has no jurisdiction
over the case in the absence of any law providing for
an appeal from the DOTC to the Office of the
President. Will the case prosper? (2011)
11. When is an administrative rule that fixes rates valid?
(2010; 2011)
DBL: There are several kinds of rules, some
are rate-fixing while others are non-rate
fixing. They are treated differently.
12. The Secretary of Agriculture issued a regulation
imposing the penalty of imprisonment for ten days.
Is the regulation valid? (2011)
13. Which one of the following theories does not support
valid delegation of authority by Congress to an
administrative agency? (2010)
14. Substantial evidence in administrative proceedings
mean _____? (2010)
15. Under the Administrative Code, which of the
following does not come under the definition of a
rule? (2010)
16. Under the Administrative Code, adjudication
means ______. (2010)
What is substantial evidence in administrative proceeding?
refer to admin code daw
What are the major areas In admin law?
Powers
Organization - who has authority to create agencies
Delegation
Take note of delegatus non-protest delegari
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW: ATTY. DB LARGO| BATCH 2016 | 1
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive,if you have faith. Matthew 21:22
Congress has been delegated with the power to legislate. It
is actually the people who have the original power to
legislate. But because of our representative democracy we
delegate the power to our representatives- the lawmakers.
To make sure there is no disturbance with the doctrine of
separation of powers. As a rule, legislative delegation is
prohibited.
But there are exceptions:
1.
Delegation to admin agencies
2.
Delegation to the president

-tariff and import quotas
-emergency power
law may be enforced (Easternshipping lines Inc.

v. POEA)
The ascertainment of the latter subject is a prerogative of the
legislature. This prerogative cannot be abdicated or
surrendered by the legislature to the delegate.
Q: How do you apply this to specific examples?
When you say what the law is, that means policy, right? For
example, what is our policy on same sex marriage? Its not
permitted. So when you say, what is the law on a particular
matter, then its for Congress to decide. So Congress indeed
laid down the policy on that. That our marriage, at least in
our jurisdiction, is limited to a man and a woman.
Q: What else? What is our policy on possession of
marijuana?
3.
Delegation to local government units
A: Illegal.
4.
Delegation to the People
5.
People
Pp vs Maceren GR No. 32166 October 18, 1977 (Favorite

illustration on the matter)
The reasons for the delegation to the Administrative

Agencies is the growing complexities of modern
society--necessitted the delegation of legislaive powers. So
that the problems, the complicated ones, will be dealth with
with more expertise and dispatch than can be expected from
the legislators or courts of justice. Basically, tanan conduct is
to be govened by law and since to be govern by
law--supposedly by congress, but congress will not have the
time and expertise to deal with all of this so we have
delicate.
So the essential question here, therefore, is since it is an
exception to the rule on non-delegationdelegation should
be carefully done by congress.
The idea is, for delegation to be valid, there should still be
something in legislative power that is not delegated totally to
the delegate. Thats why probably the question here
iswhat aspect of legislation cannot be delegated?
Because the idea is, congress shouldnt be abdication its
legislative power which meansin delegation of legislative
power, it cab only delegate a part of that power and not the
entire or totality of the legislative power.
So, what can and cannot be delegated? Tests for Validity
of Delegation:
1. Completeness Test
2. Sufficient Standard Test
Reason for the tests: is to ensure that there is no total
abdication legislative power, precisely.
SC: the congress cannot delegate what the law is but can
only delegate HOW the law can be implemented. what
does this mean? What cannot be delegated is to the on the ?.
Legislation involves discretion. And therefore, discretion
here covers--discretion as to what the law is and another
discretion as to how the law shall be implemented.
So, what do we mean onwhat the law is-- something that
cannot be delegated, otherwise , it is a violation now of the
non-delegation of legislative power SUBSTANTIVE
CONTENTS OF THE LAW.
legislative discretion as to the substantive
contents of the law cannot be delegated. What can
be delegated is the discretion to determine how the
There was this law. The law prohibited fishing that uses
noxious or poisonous substance. Mao na ang law. Of course
kay ang atong lawmakers dili man fishermen, they will not
have, not only the time but the expertise to determine
specifically what kinds or forms of fishing use poisonous or
obnoxious substances. So asa mana gi delegate ang
determination? To the Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources. So indeed the law as crafted, you listen ha. Ni
ingon ang law, fishing that uses obnoxious and poisonous
substance prohibited. Of course the specific forms of fishing
to be determined by the national agency, the expect. So
karon ang Secretary, in the Implementing Rule, enumerated
specifically forms of fishing that involve the use of obnoxious
or poisonous substance. Of course the use of cyanide, the
use of unsa pa na kinsai criminal diri nga nag illegal fishing?
Daghan mana ways dba? Incidentally, the Implementing
Rules included electro fishing. Unsa manang electro fishing?
Kita ka anang magdala ug baterry na fully charged dad-on
sa lawod unya positive negative tusnob didto sa dagat, ai
sus, kirig isda, lutaw, sayon ra kaayo pagdakop. Maceren
was prosecuted for electro fishing kay naa man sa
Implementing Rules na illegal ang electrofishing.
Defense: How can Maceren be punished under an
Implementing Rule that expands the statute which it seeks to
implement? Because it states, obnoxious and poisonous
substance but electro fishing does not use obnoxious or
poisonous substance but electricity. Substance diay na?
sakto sad.
Prosecution: let us interpret the law not by the letter that
killeth but the spirit that giveth life.
Counter: under our system, the court is only allowed to
interpret the law and where it is clear, to apply it. The court
shouldnt legislate. In situations where laws are imperfectly
crafted, and the implementing agencies try to perfect the law,
then you apply the law that an implementing rule cannot
expand, modify or set aside the statute that it seeks to
implement. The remedy if the law is imperfect is not for the
implementing agency to correct it, not also the court can
perfect an imperfect law. The remedy is curative law
amendment.
SC in Maceren: if the law intended to prohibit electro fishing,
then the law should have specified it. They should have
stated there that other forms of fishing that would endanger
marine life The term substance as used in the law does
not include electro fishing. So when the Secretary included
in the list of prohibited forms of fishing the electro fishing, the
Secretary therefore decided what the law is on the matter.
That is a violation of the delegation.
So, if given this kind of problem on delegation, you just have
to understand if there is a total abdication of power in this
case. You just have to ask, What has been delegated? Is it
the power to decide the policy of the particular subject or
not?
AUGUST 7, 2015
Ok we were talking about the 2 Kinds of Discretion in so far
as lawmaking is concerned. We learned that Congress
possesses the discretion on what the law is and the
discretion on how the law shall be implemented. Well, of
course in any political power, the power involves discretion.
You learned that these 2 kinds or forms of discretion, only
the discretion on how the law shall be implemented can be
delegated. But the discretion on what the law is should
remain in the Congress or the legislature. That is very
important because you want to maintain the observance of
the Doctrine of Separation of Powers which is of course,
operating our system of government and if we are to make
sure that democracy prevails.
Our concern also is how to make sure, in the process of
delegation, only the how to implement the law is delegated
and the discretion as to what the law is, remains with the
Congress. You learned from Judge Sincgo that we follow 2
tests.
2 Tests
1. Completeness Test 2. Sufficient Standard Test Sir: If you want to go the US because you want to seek for a
greener pasture. You are a lawyer in California, but you have
properties in the Philippines, you want to probably dispose of
your properties. But since you are leaving very soon, you
cannot just wait of course until all your properties are
disposed of. You need to authorize someone to do it for you.
Of course, you want to make sure that the exercise of this
responsibility is in accordance with your wishes. And so you
are to draft a special power of attorney authorizing Mr.
Generale, how do you draft a SPA so that to make sure that
the delegate will not be a running riot(?). The authorization
given to the delegate will be cannonized(?) within bunks(?)
to keep it from overflowing. (Sorry, this statement is not
familiar).
Emboy: Di madunggan jud. But there was a mention of
subject matter.
Sir: Ok. So the subject of the authorization which is the
disposition of your properties. So this does not include taking
care of your gf for example who might be left behind. It
shouldnt be included in the subject matter. What else?
Hmmm. Who will be exercising the authority. Bryta jud aning
Emboy ^_^. What else? Manner of disposing, that it should
only sell, donation not included. The amount.
Sir: what if the minimum amount is 10 million but James will
sell it for 10 million but payable in 10 yrs?
Student: inaudible
Sir: payment, cash ba nga payment. In fact the form of
payment must also be specified. You might want to receive
in the form of dollars because you want it to be deposited
right away in your new dollar account. What else?
Student: inaudible
Under the completeness test, the law must be complete in all
its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such
that when it reaches the delegate the only thing it will do is
enforce it. No more discretion as to important and material
aspect of the subject matter.
Of course you have the sufficient standard test, there must
be adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to mop out
the boundaries of the delegates authority. These tests are
intended to prevent a total transference of legislative
authority to the delegate.
Sources of administrative law
-
study of admin law involves the study of

organization. Powers of agencies and their
relationships with one another. We can see that of
course in the constitution; in particular; the power of
the president, the relationship of the president and
the cabinet secretaries.
Then we also have constitutionally created agencies
also, the comelec, coa, civil service commission,
ombudsman, what else?
Student: commission on human rights

Sir: constitutionally mandated to be created but it is not
the constitution that creates it. what else?
-
statute creating admin bodies; the admin code and

admin code of 1917 (because it has not been really
repealed by the admin code of 1987 and we have
the Mecano Case to illustrate that.
- Case laws of course; jurisprudence
- Rules and regulations of admin agencies even
decisions or orders of admin agencies exercising
quasi-judicial powers
All these constitute a body of rules affecting administrative
law.
Mecano vs COA and indicated also in the DOJ opinion
no. 73 series of 1991
The old code is not repealed by the 1987 admin code
because the 1987 admin code does not contain an express
repeal and so if there is no express repeal, there can only
possibly be an implied repeal but as you know its not favored
under our statutory construction, so only when there is clear
inconsistency that the court will declare that the law have
been effectively repealed.
So when a government official or government employee in
this case, Mecano, wanted to enforce certain monetary
privileges that he was enjoying under the old admin code,
the COA denied the request for reimbursement or payment
of some monetary benefits on the ground that the admin
code of 1917 has already been repealed by the 1987 admin
code.
SC said no, thats not really is the case, in fact there is
already a DOJ Opinion no. 73 by then DOJ Secretary
Franklin Drilon, that the old code was not actually expressly
repealed by the new code.
PROBLEM
Under Art. 567 of the Revised Administrative Code, the
contract of lease that the civil aeronautics administration
(CAA) will enter into must be executed by the president of
the Philippines, by an officer duly designated by the
president or by an officer authorized by law. But in RA 776
( the law creating CAA), it is the administrator of the CAA
that is given the power to administer CAAs property.
Who should execute the contract of lease involving CAAs
properties?
Problem:
Under Art. 567 of the Revised Administrative Code, a
contract of lease that the Civil Aeronautics Administration
(CAA) will enter into must be executed: (1) by the President
of the Philippines, or (2) by an officer duly designated by him
or (3) by an officer expressly vested by law. Under R.A. 776
(the law creating the CAA) however, it is the Administrator of
the CAA that is given the power to administer CAAs
property. Who should execute the contract of lease involving
the CAAs property?
As you know the problem contemplates of a situation where
there is a conflict between the Revised Administrative Code
of 1997 and another law. You know your statutory
construction. First rule is we determine the nature of the laws
involved. The rule is if one is a general law and the other is a
special law, the dates of effectivity of these laws are
irrelevant. The special law prevails over the general law. But
if both laws partake of the same nature, whether general law
or special law, so that is when we consider which came first.
The law that came later usually sets aside or repeals,
impliedly or expressly, or modifies the earlier law.
Is the Revised Administrative Code of 1997 a special law
or a general law? It is a general law as held in the case of
Leveriza vs IAC. Special laws prevail over the
Administrative Code. The law creating the CAA was
declared a special law and therefore prevailed over the
Administrative Code.
Just for academic purpose, please recall the two kinds of
administration in Administrative Law. One deals with the
internal aspect of administration and therefore dealing
with personnel matters. This is in the area of Law on Public
Officers (i.e. appointment, transfer, promotion, demotion,
etc.). External administration refers to the relationship
between administrative authorities and the exercise of
functions of administrative agencies affecting private rights
and so remedies are important in the study of Administrative
Law.
Internal Administration considers the legal aspects

of public administration as a going concern. (personal
matters=law of public officers)
External Administration refers to the legal relations
between the administrative authorities and private
interests or the public. (administrative law proper)
You were asked to read in the outline the important terms in

the study of Administrative Law (i.e. departments, bureaus,
office, instrumentality, chartered institution, GOCC, etc.).
You must be able to know these terms.
IMPORTANT TERMS:
1. DEPARTMENT executive department created by law;
2. BUREAU principal subdivision of a Department [Sec. 2
(8)];
3. OFFICE functional office of a Bureau including
regional office; position held with functions defined by
law [Sec.2 (9)];
4. INSTRUMENTALITY agency of the National
Government not integrated with the Departmental
framework vested with special functions, with corporate
powers, special funds, enjoying operational autonomy,
including regulatory agencies, chartered institutions and

GOCCs. (Sec. 2)
5. CHARTERED INSTITUTIONS under a special charter,
with specific constitutional objective.
6. GOCC - agency organized as a stock or non-stock
corporation, vested with functions relating to public
needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature,
and owned by the government directly or indirectly
through its instrumentality either wholly or to the extent
of at least 51% of the capital stock in the case of stock
corporation.
Bureaus are also established in the Code.
A Bureau is any principal subdivision of a department.
Office is a functional office of a bureau including regional
office. Office may also refer to a position. So when you say
public office, you are referring for example to Department of
Finance. But if you speak of a position - office of the Mayor that is also a public office.
Instrumentality on the other hand is an agency of the
National Government not integrated with the Departmental
framework.
What is that integrated with the departmental framework?
We refer to the departments, bureaus, and offices. Those
are agencies within or integrated within the departmental
framework.
Chartered Institutions are those with a special charter but
with specific constitutional objective. State colleges and
universities for example are chartered institutions because
they are established for the purpose of accomplishing the
constitutional mandate to give or grant quality and affordable
or free education.
Government-owned and controlled corporations are
agencies established either stock or non-stock corporations,
vested with functions relating to public needs and for stock
corporations, at least 51% of the capital stock. It's not
majority, it's 51% + 1 but it is 51%.
The capital stock need not be owned directly. It could still be
owned indirectly through another instrumentality. It is
possible that corporations can be owners of stocks of
another corporations. So either directly or through its
subsidiaries.
When you speak of a department? Where you say within the
departmental framework, you are referring to the
departments, bureaus, and offices.
Why is this important? This is important because of your
control power of the President. Under Section 17 of Article 7,
the President has control over departments, bureaus, and
offices. Meaning it is only up to agencies within the
department framework that this power of control can be
exercised. For all other agencies, it is within the power of
control of the President?
Scope of Agency of Government
Various units of government, including:
1. Department
o Bureau
o Office
2. Instrumentality (NOT integrated in Dept.
o regulatory agencies
o chartered institutions
o GOCCs performing governmental function
o public corporations
3. LGUs when performing governmental function
Under the power of control of the President?

You cannot immediately conclude that if it is an
administrative body created by Congress, it is already
beyond the control power of the President because it is
possible that the Congress or the law has stipulated that
even if it is created by Congress, it is still within the control
power of the President.
Relationships are primarily governed by the laws creating
them, so do not immediately jump to the provisions on
supervision, control, attachment etc.
In absence of specific provision on relationship, thats when
you apply the varying relationship depending on what
agency is involved (supervision, control, attachment etc.)
It is possible that an agency created by Congress, and not
by the Administrative Code, after the 1987 Constitution right
away they will implement the Administrative Code.
(Aktibista si Sir, gibato ang Abellana sa una)
Administrative Code is meant to implement the 1987
Constitution. Why is it important? Because all this
departments were created at one time under the
Administrative Code. All other agencies created after the
Administrative Code will have to be created by law.
Important is for you to know that the new agencies will have
to be created by law. So you want to know if it is within the
control power of the president. Rule of thumb is check the
law. If wala, adto siya nimo itag sa instrumentality kay not
integrated in the department.
Then of course, Local Government Units, when performing
governmental functions, will be considered as agents of the
government.
Boy Scout of the Philippines case. We go to the dissent of
Justice Carpio. He mentioned of three important
consequences or effects if an entity is considered as a
government instrumentality. Pursuant to Section 2(1), Article
IX-D of the Constitution, an instrumentality of the
government will therefore be subject to COA's pre-audit and
not to post-audit. Meaning, audit first before release of funds.
Post-audit, check ang mga vouchers, etc., kung in
accordance ba with the requirements of the law.
My observation is that there are agencies, before payment,
icheck sa ang contracts and vouchers if sakto ba ang pricing
and all those things if they comply with the procedure. Ang
post-audit, dili siya pre-condition. COA has not been
consistent here kay under-manned ang COA. There was a
time where it issued a circular where even if it was
authorized to conduct pre-audit, wa na lang sila nagpre-audit.
Pila ra gud tawon ang personnel sa COA. But without
prejudice to selective or random pre-audit.
Effects if entity is considered government instrumentality

(J. Carpios Opinion in BSP vs. COA)
1. Pursuant to Sec. 2(1), Art. IX-D, it will be subject to COAs
pre-audit and NOT post-audit;
2. It will be subject ot the Government Procurement
Reform Act or RA 9184;
Meaning, acquisition and disposition of assets
should be in accordance with the law on
Procurement.
3. Its officers and employees will be considered government
personnel who are
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
subject to Civil Service Laws;

covered by the GSIS;
subject to the Salary Standardization Law;
required to file SALN;
under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman;
For GOCCs, they must have a special
charter before the Ombudsman may acquire
jurisdiction over them.
(f) subject to the control of the President (? - Sir. Largo)

Not all instrumentalities are subject, for me,
especially those outside the Departmental
framework.
BAR 2003
The President abolished the office of the Presidential
Spokesman in Malacanang Palace and a long standing
bureau under the DILG The employees of both offices
assailed the action of the president for being an
encroachment of legislative powers and thereby void. Was
the contention of the employees correct? Explain
MABALOT vs DOTC
President has the continuing authority to reorganize
under the General Appropriations Act (GAA). Even if such
authority is a pro-forma provision in every GAA, it is still
Congress saying and recognizing that the President has
such power.
Reorganization may include the abolition of an office or it
may not. An example of reorganization not involving an
abolition of office is the changing/reducing of staffing pattern
from 50 employees down to 30, with the number of offices
remaining constant at 5. In other words, instead of having 10
employees per office, there would now only be 6 in each
office. That would still be a valid reorganization. In the
process, you are reorganizing your office because there are
functions in the office that must exist and must be
discharged but you need to put these functions of the 2
offices for example that will have to be abolished to the
existing offices. So in a way you are reorganizing. So
reorganizing may include but does not necessarily include
but may include abolition of office.
BAR 2003
The President abolished the office of the Presidential
Spokesman in Malacanang Palace and a long stranding
bureau under the DILG The employees of both offices
assailed the action of the president for being an
encroachment of legislative powers and thereby void. Was
the contention of the employees correct? Explain
I think in the problem, the issue is about the authority. Later
on lets say thats one of the things that should be
considered whether abolition was made in good faith. But
the question is whether one effecting abolition has the
authority to do so. Your basis is the continuing offices of the
President and your basis is not the administrative code but
the general appropriations act. The other basis, Mabalot vs
DOTC Section 20 of the Administrative Code, the residual
power of the President - if this power is not vested in
Congress or in any other then this can be exercised by the
President but we are not saying that it is not vested. The
general power to abolish is vested in Congress especially for
offices created by it. But the specific power to abolish a
specific office, you need to check the law because if the law
does not give it to Congress or any office for that matter,
then under the residual power of the President, the President
can do that. Then of course you add the fact that the offices
are within the departmental framework. Office of the
presidential spokes man is within Office of the President
proper (OPT) then of course you have the Bureau under a
department (dilg, dof, bureau of customs, of internal revenue,
mga regional offices bir region 7 so all within the
departmental framework) you add control power, residual
power and continuing authority of the President to
reorganize if question is whether the President can abolish
the office. Yes the president can abolish an office pursuant
to its power to reorganize if the office pertains to the
departmental framework. Otherwise if it is outside the
departmental framework, we need to check the law whether
or not the president is granted the power because in the
absence of express grant of the law, we apply the general
rule, the power to create includes the power to abolish and
since an agency is created by congress, then it should be
abolished by congress.
PROBLEM:
The president issued WO No. 1 creating the Phil. Truth
Commission. IT is a special body under the Office of the
President Proper tasked to investigate reported cases of
graft and corruption allegedly committed during the previous
administration and to recommend to the proper body the
prosecution of cases.. The PTC shall accomplish its mission
on or before Dec. 21, 2012.
Was PTC a valid agency?
Answer: BIRAOGO vs.
COMMISSION OF 2010
THE
PHILIPPINE
TRUTH
Valid not because of the power to reorganize but pursuant to

another power.
Biraogo is an important case. Earlier, its power to abolish
which is very easy. If its reorganization, you can justify it. But
this one, the power to create an office in Biraogo, gi narrow
down ug maayo ang permissible creation of agency by the
President and we will see the scope later on.
Now this is important because in the past, as illustrated in
Larin vs. Executive Secretary and even in the case of Banda,
the President may actually create an office, of course in
some case you may say pursuant to reorganization power in
the department. Meaning, kung mag create and President
ug office basta naa lang sa iyang department, okay na
pursuant to reorganization because anyway, that department
is within the control of the President. That had been the
thinking.
Until Biraogo narrowed down the scope. The power to create
a new office, meaning not existing office, is not anymore a
power of the President under control power but it may be
justified as long as it is:
1. An Ad Hoc office
2. It pertains to the so-called faithful execution clause.
In other words, the President can create an Ad hoc office,

not permanent, pursuant to the faithful execution clause. For
example, in relation to the power of the President to conduct
investigation and because it is an executive function (the
power to investigate), then through the faithful execution
clause to make sure that laws are faithfully executed, then it
may create an Ad Hoc office only for that. Meaning, the
President cannot anymore justify the creation of a
permanent office under control power. So the Larin vs.
Executive Secretary is no longer applicable. Im still waiting
for recent cases that would really put a stamp of legitimacy
to this new thinking of the court because sometimes, cases
are decided not so much on the legal provisions but
sometimes, on how the facts struck the judges. In
Philosophy of Law, its called Legal Realism. So if you find a
case that is not so in accordance with the precedence, the
best way to check its legitimacy is to see if there are other
cases affirming it.
Next Question:
AO No. 36 of the President directed all departments of the
national government to establish their respective regional
offices in the CAR. DOTC Secretary C issued Memo Order
No. 96-735 which directed the LTFRB Chairman to effect
the transfer of regional function of that office to the
DOTC-CAR Regional Office pending the creation of a
regular Regional LTFRB.
Was the Memorandum validly issued?
So of course ang mga tapulan mureklamo because
additional functions and responsibilities and ang taga
DOTC-CAR, mag LTFRB sa sila for the meantime because
they did not add personnel so they complained. Okay ra unta
to kuno kung nay double pay. :P Was the Memorandum
validly issued? From which case was this taken?
This was taken from the Mabalot case.
What you have here is actually is a situation where the
Secretary who effected the reorganization. Transfer of one
function to another office. Pwede diay na? If reorganization
is effected, it could be that an office may be created.
Makacreate diay ang secretary? Problema man gani ta
makacreate ba ang president, ang secretary nasad?
This is a classic question on who can create an office?.
Answer:
1. Constitution
2. Law
3. By authority of law
Kini, by authority of law ni? Yes, by authority of law! And
then you add alter-ego. So by authority of law and alter-ego.
In Mabalot case, SC looked for statutes granting the
president the power to reorganize. So mao tong General
appropriations Act, continuing authority, residual powers,
power of control(kay within the departmental framework).
Then you add the rule that dili diay required that the
president himself should exercise the power he has. Under
the alter-ego doctrine, the president may ALLOW THE
SECRETARY TO DO THAT FOR HIM. This can be done
thru issuing the Executive Order. He issued EO 36 in this
case. Ingun ang president all departments of the national
government must establish regional offices, tuman sad ang
secretary. That was therefore pursuant to the authority of the
president. It was by authority of law.
This brings us to the issues on Creation, Reorganization and
Abolition. Basic factors to consider:
1. Who has the authority to create office/agency?
2. What constitutes reorganization or abolition?
3. If
theres
proper
authority,
how
should
reorganization or abolition be done?
4. What would be the effect/effects of reorganization or
abolition to the persons affected?
If you are able to answer these questions, ok na.
Other examples of by authority of law aside from Mabalot:
Viola vs. Alunan III- no less than sec. 493 of the LGC
allows the board of directors of the liga to create an office
PROBLEM
The Career Executive Service Board (CESB) was created
through Presidential Decree No. 1. It is an attached agency
to the Civil Service Commission. The CSC abolished the
CESB. Under the Revised Administrative Code, the CSC
has the power and authority to effect changes in its
organizational structure as the need arises. Is the abolition
valid?
*Student answers (inaudible)
This is actually the case of Eugenio vs. CSC (1995)
Eugenio vs. Civil Service Commission (G.R. No. 115863
March 31, 1995)
It cannot be disputed, therefore, that as the CESB was
created by law, it can only be abolished by the legislature.
This follows an unbroken stream of rulings that the creation
and abolition of public offices is primarily a legislative
function. As aptly summed up in AM JUR 2d on Public
Officers and
Employees, 5 viz:
Except for such offices as are created by the Constitution,
the creation of public offices is primarily a legislative function.
In so far as the legislative power in this respect is not
restricted by constitutional provisions, it is supreme, and the
legislature may decide for itself what offices are suitable,
necessary, or convenient. When in the exigencies of
government it is necessary to create and define duties, the
legislative department has the discretion to determine
whether additional offices shall be created, or whether these
duties shall be attached to and become ex-officio duties of
existing offices. An office created by the legislature is wholly
within the power of that body, and it may prescribe the mode
of filling the office and the powers and duties of the
incumbent, and if it sees fit, abolish the office.
In the petition at bench, the legislature has not enacted any
law authorizing the abolition of the CESB.xxx Respondent
Commission, however, invokes Section 17, Chapter 3,
Subtitle A. Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987
as the source of its power to abolish the CESB.
But as well pointed out by petitioner and the Solicitor
General, Section 17 must be read together with Section 16
of the said Code which enumerates the offices under the
respondent Commission.
As read together, the inescapable conclusion is that
respondent Commission's power to reorganize is limited to
offices under its control as enumerated in Section 16, supra.
From its inception, the CESB was intended to be an
autonomous entity, albeit administratively attached to

respondent Commission. xxxx The essential autonomous
character of the CESB is not negated by its attachment to
respondent Commission. By said attachment, CESB was not
made to fall within the control of respondent Commission.
Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the purpose of
attaching one functionally inter-related government agency
to another is to attain "policy and program coordination
(Section 38(3), Chapter 7, Book IV, RAC).
DBL: What are the two kinds of staffing pattern in
administrative law?
1. Line Agency
2. Attached Agency
Truly, the Civil Service Commission has the power to
reorganize so it has also the power to abolish offices.
However, there were offices enumerated that are under the
organizational structure of the CSC and apparently, the
CESB is not one of those because those offices were in the
line staffing pattern of the CSC. (1) Since CESB is an
attached agency, its not among those agencies under
the control of the CSC. (2) The Supreme Court added
that this is an agency created by law thus it should only
be abolished by law.
So all these things creation, reorganization and abolition
are primarily legislative functions especially creation plus
abolition. Agencies created by law can only be abolished
by Congress. If its create by the Constitution, of course, you
have to amend or revise the Constitution. Conversely, where
one is authorized by law to create then it can also abolish
like the Civil Service Commission. It is authorized to create.
Likewise, it is authorized to abolish. But you have to check
the intent of Congress. If its not one of those offices that the
CSC can abolish then it (power to abolish) should pertain to
Congress.
Going back to the Biraogo case, this is the summary of
what the Supreme Court said:
Yes, the power to create is still subsumed in the power to
reorganize. But now for the first time, limited by the Supreme
Court to already existing offices within the Office of the
President Proper (OPT). So in effect, reading section 31, title
3 of the admin code: the president can only create an office
within an already existing office if it involves internal
reorganization within the OPT. office of the president proper,
wai problem, this time transferring function of a unit or
agency
So ang examiner, kong mag himo xa problem involving the
power of the president to create office, dapat specific xa asa
gekan na nga office or function. if kana nga function kay new,
not within the OPT, it shouldnt be allowed.
This modifies/narrows down the power of the president that
the power to reorganize includes the power to create office
in the department. The president is empowered to effect
organizational changes including the creation of offices
within the department or agency concerned.
Ang
understanding before was this is pursuant to the control
power of the president. Not anymore! The president may
create only an ad hoc office if this is an entirely new office.
Not under the control power but under the faithful execution
clause involving the power to investigate.
Continuing authority of the president can best be seen in the
general appropriations act. Ok na imong answer if
reorganize lang, ayaw na I apil ang power of control kong
involving creation of new office.ok? faithful execution clause
na.
Not unless that office is a newly created office and performs
functions within the OPT.
PROBLEM
X, an LLB graduate, was appointed as deputy register of
deeds of region 7. Executive Order 649 restructured the land
registration commission to the national land title and deeds
registration administration and regionalized the offices of the
registrar. All positions of the NRC were abolished and new
positions were created. The positions of deputy register of
deeds of region 7 requires that the holder thereof must be a
lawyer. May X validly claim that he should remain as deputy
register of deeds of region 7?
In National Land Titles and Deeds Registration
Administration v. Civil Service Commission (1993), the
SC said: [I]f the newly created office has substantially new,
different or additional functions, duties or powers, so that it
may be said in fact to create an office different from the one
abolished, even though it embraces all or some of the duties
of the old office it will be considered as an abolition of one
office and the creation of a new or different one. The same is
true if one office is abolished and its duties, for reasons of
economy are given to an existing officer or office.
Later on we will talk aboutthat after a valid abolition,
whether the affected employee can claim security of tenure
and; we will see how to respond to that kind of question.
The problem is shown because we will be talking about the
conditions or requisites for the valid reorganization, which
would include abolition of office. Wala may question kung
mag.reorganize kung walay office gi.abolish, no one will be
affected. So, nothing will move the employees to bring the
matter to the court kay di man sila ma.affected. Most cases
kanang reorganization na may abolition because some
employees who were affected will be aggrieved and they will
go to court. So we need to know whether the reorganization
or to be specific, abolition for example, is valid? And you
know, and its basic, you need to check:
1. Whether the authority effecting the abolition is
authorized by law;
2. Whether it is done in goodfaith*?
*Reorganization is done in goodfaith-- if it is either for the
purpose of economy or efficiency.
So, what happen in the case of Crisostomo v. CA?
Before we even talk aboutwhether there was a valid
abolition and therefore, to determine the validity of the
particular process; we first have to consider in the first place
if there was abolition. Kay di man ka mag.determine kung
valid ang abolition if in the first place there was no abolition,
diba?
So, what happen in the case of Crisostomo v. CA?
Kini si Crisostomo kuan ni siya, feeling congressman ba-diver, ginahatud sa ilaha, sugo-sugoon pero under the
payroll of Philippine College of Commerce State College.
Nya mga materials kipang.purchase pang.ayo sa balay ay
ihapit, kuan, common modus sa mga government officials.
Kuno wala ka.stock.an sa construction materials, adto lang
sad aw sa ilaha. Mao ni, si Crisostomo, gi.kiha ug violation of
the Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; na preventively
suspended. Kani siya (Crisostomo) by the way is the
president of the Philippine College of Commerce. During the
pendency of the cases, administrative and criminal, against
Crisostomo; President Marcos changed the status of the
Philippine College of Commerce into Polytechnic University
of the Philippines, P.D. 1341. And under P.D. 1341, simple
ra pagka.craftgi.change ra ang status sa Philippine
College of Commerce into Polytechnic University of the
Philippines. Kay na preventively suspended man si

Crisostomo, someone else was appointed in an acting
capacitya certain Mateo. Ingkod siya (Mateo), acting pa,
later on, gi.reappoint as acting and then, eventually naa nay
fixed term sa PD 1341 increasing the status of Philippine
College of Commerce into Polytechnic University of the
Philippines6 years na ang term of office. Why is that
relevant? Because eventually, na acquitted, na dismiss ang
mga cases against Crisostomo. Kani, balik nako run sa ako
eskwelahan. Pagbalik niya sa eskwelahan kay sosyal na
manfrom Philippine College of Commerce to Polytechnic
University of the Philippines. Oy that time, Mateo was also
given a permanent appointment under the new law na may
fixed term na 6 years. Ingon siya hawa dira. Ma reinstate
nako. Argument of the state was? Kuan kanang unsa man
naai abolition o wala? Ni ingon ang kuan gi abolish naman
na imong office na usab na gud na. Philippine College of
Commerce unya na Polytechnic University of the Philippines
wala na kay balikan. What did the Supreme Court say? Kana
diayng abolition class, similar to your manner of interpreting
laws whether gi repeal ba or wala dapat specific ang
Congress, specific ang law.
The lawmaking authority specifically declares that the office
had been abolished. In fact if you have read this case, naai
mga example ang Supreme Court na aw dili SC, State na
kani sila mao ni ang, aw no no si Crisostomo na mao ni ang
mga instances where there is abolition. Naa jud example
didto na the office of is here by abolished etc. but these
terms were not present in the law changing the status of
Philippines College of Commerce to PUP. Therefore
according to the SC there was no abolition. Pwede pa gyud
unta mubalik si Crisostomo. Wala lang kabalik because
akong to the SC na change na sad ang term. Naa nai fixed
term. Unya kanang pag fix sa term it has nothing to do with
the school kay nag fix mana sa term of office nya ni lapse na
ang six years. So di na siya kabalik pud assuming na entitled
siya ato na term, ni lapse na, mao na moot and academic.
WHEN IS THERE ABOLITION?
P.D. 1341 did not abolish, but only changed, the former
Philippine College of Commerce into what is now the
Polytechnic University of the Philippines. What took place
was a change in academic status of the educational
institution, not in its corporate life.
When the purpose is to abolish a department or an
office or an organization and to replace it with another one,
the lawmaking authority says so.
[Crisostomo v. CA]
EXAMPLES OF ABOLITION IN BAD FAITH
Larin v. Executive Secretary:
For Political Reasons and purposely to defeat

security of tenure (ni gawas na na sa bar exam
many times)
Involves a mere change of nomenclature of
positions, or where the agency has created
additional office performing the same functions as
the one already abolished
Claim of economy is belied by the existence of
ample funds (Sakto to ug kwarta but trying to kuno
reduce the personnel.)
NOT OBSERVING SECS. 2 & 3 OF R.A. 6656 (Civil
Service Law)
NOTE: if after reorganization, a new position/office
is created, the one to be considered and preferred in
filling-up the newly created position is the officer
removed as a result of reorganization. (Sec. 4, R.A.
6656)
next-in-rank rule, therefore is not applicable in

filling up newly created positions after a
reorganization.
Then apart from that, your Civil Service Law, Section 2, also
enumerate certain badges of bad faith. Indicia of bad faith.
This is now in Kapisanan Ng Mga Kawani Ng ERB vs
Barin.
SEC. 2, CIVIL SERVICE LAW
Sec. 2. (Evidence of Bad Faith):
(a) Where there is a significant increase in the number
of positions in the new staffing pattern of the
department or agency concerned; (For purposes of
economy ni daghan na nuon ang employees)
(b) Where an officer is abolished and other performing
substantially the same functions is created; (Kana
balik2 na sa bar exam.)
(c) Where incumbents are replaced by those less
qualified in terms of status of appointment,
performance and merit;
(d) Where there is a reclassification of offices in the
department or agency concerned and the
reclassified offices perform substantially the same
function as the original officers;
(e) Where the removal violates the order of separation
provided is Section 3 hereof.
(See: Kapisanan Ng Mga Kawani Ng ERB v. Barin [1997])
SEC. 3, CIVIL SERVICE LAW
Sec. 3. In the separation of personnel pursuant to
reorganization, the following order of removal shall be
followed:
(a) Casual employees with less than five (5) years of
government service;
(b) Casual employees with five (5) years or more of
government service;
(c) Employees holding temporary appointments; and
(d) Employees holding permanent appointments:
Provided, That those in the same category as
enumerated above, who are least qualified in terms
of performance and merit shall be laid first, length of
service notwithstanding.
We have the cases of Larin vs Executive Secretary and
Kapisanan Ng Mga Kawani Ng ERB vs Barin different
conclusions ang sa SC. Can you distinguish one from the
other?
Q: What office was abolished in Larin Vs Exec Sec? An
office in the BIR. What office? It was replaced by? And
whats the difference in the function(s) of the abolished office
and the newly created office? Walai difference. Substantially
the same. So ruling of the court invalid.
LARIN V. EXEC. SECRETARY, DISTINGUISHED FROM
KAPISANAN NG MGA KAWANI NG ERB V. BARIN
In Larin v. Executive Secretary (1997), the subject E.O.
provided that:
1.1.2 The Intelligence and investigation Office and the
Inspection Service are abolished. An Intelligence and
Investigation Service is hereby created to absorb the same
functions of the abolished office and service
SC ruled that the abolition was invalid.
In Kapisanan Ng Mga Kawani Ng ERB v. Barin (2007), the
SC ruled:
the overlap in the functions of the ERB and of the ERC
does not mean that there is no valid abolition of the ERB.
The ERC has new and expanded functions which are
intended to meet the specific needs of a deregulated power

industry.
In Kapisanan Ng Mga Kawani Ng ERB v. Barin (2007), ERB
was abolished and replaced with ERC. Whats the difference?
The same functions? Yes. But why is it declared valid by SC
(as compared to Larin case)?
There is a new and expanded functions. So if there is a
new and expanded function, pwede na? Because, that
probably is proof of the objective of the reorganization which
is to be more efficient. But if you say the same functions, wa
ka nag-add or expand, it is not efficiency. So, the idea of
efficiency should be established as well. (take note of the
distinctions of these 2 cases- Larin and Kapisanan)
LARIN
V.
EXEC.
SECRETARY,
DISTINGUISHED FROM KAPISANAN NG
MGA KAWANI NG ERB V. BARIN
In Larin v. Executive Secretary (1997), the
subject E.O. provided that:
1.1.2 The Intelligence and investigation
Office and the Inspection Service are
abolished. An Intelligence and Investigation
Service is hereby created to absorb the
same functions of the abolished office and
service
SC ruled that the abolition was invalid.
In Kapisanan Ng Mga Kawani Ng ERB v.
Barin (2007), the SC ruled:
the overlap in the functions of the ERB
and of the ERC does not mean that there is
no valid abolition of the ERB. The ERC has
new and expanded functions which are
intended to meet the specific needs of a
deregulated power industry.
In National Land Titles and Deeds
Registration Administration v. Civil
Service Commission (1993), the SC said:
[I]f the newly created office has
substantially new, different or additional
functions, duties or powers, so that it may
be said in fact to create an office different
from the one abolished, even though it
embraces all or some of the duties of the old
office it will be considered as an abolition of
one office and the creation of a new or
different one. The same is true if one office
is abolished and its duties, for reasons of
economy are given to an existing officer or
office.
Basic Issue in Reorganization
Abolition Of Offices
and
May a public officer validly claim

violation of security of tenure if an
office is abolished as a result of
reorganization?
It depends upon the validity of the abolition.
If it is a valid abolition, so there is no office to speak of, one
cannot claim security of tenure. Security of tenure claim
presupposes that there is the office. This is without prejudice
to your right to receive you right to separation pay, etc.
(from previous batch transcript) if it is invalid (that is, without
authority or with authority but done in bad faith), there is
violation of the security of tenure.
collegiate body, judicial power as well. It we tall about the SC.

But if we say executive power, the power is not vested in a
department, or an agency or a body. It is vested in a single
person, the President himself. The only way that this can be
practice and observe is to simply call anyone else - agency
or person, as adjuncts of the President. Mao ra na.
Consequently therefore, any act of the alter ego will be

AUGUST 8, 2015
considered presumptively the act of the President unless
PRESIDENTS POWER OVER ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES revoked or reprobated. Different of course if we are talking
about the Executive Sec. performing an act under the
Note of the following concepts:
authority of the President because the idea therein is that
is already the act of the President. You dont presumed it as
alter-ego doctrine
act of the President. Its already the act of the Pres. So when
qualified political agency doctrine
the Exec. Sec. signs with the annotation under the authority
single executive
of the President, that is the act of the Pres. But for all other
acts not under the authority of the Pres., they are simply
control
presumed to be the acts of the Pres.until revoked or
supervision
reprobated by the Pres.himself.
control and supervision
administrative relationships of supervision and control
So whats the important of all of these? Do you remember
administrative supervision
your Doctrine of Prior Exhaustion of Admin Remedies? That
attachment
before you go to your regular court, you should exhaust all
admin remedies to its completion.
This is relevant in Admin Law because, most,if not all,
except of course, Constitutional Agencies, admin agencies
belong to executive branch. Of course, those admin
agencies created by the Constitution, dont - COMELEC,
COA and CSC exist independently from the executive
branch. It is important therefore to study the extent of the
power of the president over admin agencies.
Here, take note of the abovementioned doctrines and you
should be able to explain it.
ALTER EGO DOCTRINE, QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY,
SINGLE EXECUTIVE
In general, since the act of the Secretary is

presumptively the act of the President, one need
not bring the case to the Office of the President
under qualified political agency doctrine.
They refer to one and the same thing. Whats the basis for
adopting the principle of alter ego, qualified political agency?
So duha na, (1) you should avail of all admin remedies; and
(2) you should complete the admin remedies. Lain man sad
imu gi avail but wala nimu gi complete then you go to the
court right away. So you allow the admin agencies to
complete also the process.
One notable exception......
So lahi nang executive secretary lahi sad nang secretary in
other words.
So whats the important consequence of all these? You
remember the Doctrine of Prior Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies?
That before you go to the regular court, you should exhaust
all administrative remedies to its completion. So duha na,
you should avail of all administrative remedies, second you
should complete the administrative remedies. Lain man sad
imung gi avail pero wala nimu gi complete, then you go to
court right away. So you allow the administrative agency to
complete also the process. Okay? Is that clear? So you avail
of all, exhaust all, complete all before you go to court.
Whats the rule by the way? When you say alter ego doctrine,
what?
One notable exception is when the Doctrine of Qualified

Political Agency applies.
Well, there are 2 reasons there:
Which means where there is this decision of the secretary,

you can go to the regular court even if you have not raised
the matter to the office of the president because the act of
the secretary maybe treated as the act of the president.
1. By reason of necessity, the President of course cannot

perform all the acts personally and therefore, most often
than not, the President will perform these functions through
the instrumentality of other individuals or officers, the only
exception is that when the law requires that the same must
be performed personally (by the President).
There is a need therefore to delegate in a way these
powers. But why do we say that anyone else who is tasked
to perform the function of the President should only be
considered alter ego? Mao bitaw na nga the Chief Executive
is a misnomer. There should not be the term Chief Executive
because thre is only one eecutive under the principle of
single executive.
Our basis of course, is no less than the Constitution.
Executive power shall be vested in the President of the
Philippines. Unlike legislative power, it is vested in a
HOWEVER, where the particular agencys rules provide for

a mode of appeal to the office of the president, then by
provision of law you should exhaust all your remedies all the
way up to the office of the president. so you dont apply
qualified political agency, after the decision of the secretary
supposedly president naman nah, you can go to court. But
where the administrative rule requires the aggrieved party to
go all the way up to the president, even if the president will
tell you soon eh di wow, okay lang you still go up to the
president. (imagine we will have a president that will say eh
di wow)
What are the examples for this?
1. director of lands decisions approved by the
secretary of agricultural and natural resources, by
rule they have to go up to the office of the president
2. HLURBs decisions, they also have to go up to the
office of the president
So that depends of course on the particular admin agency
involved but in the bar exam, usually mugawas nga example
kanang decision of director of lands; kanang mga application
of purchase of lands that have been declared as already
alienable and disposable and converted into an agricultural
land, pwede ka mu apply by purchase, then it will be decided
by director of lands, the law requires you to go all the way up
to the president before you go to court.
Question: May the Executive Secretary acting by the
authority of the president reverse a decision of director of
lands that have been affirmed by the secretary of agricultural
and natural resources?
Answer: control, power of the president.
Lacson vs Magallanes case
It cannot be argued that the president cannot undo the act of
his department secretary. Thats the consequence of the
secretary being considered as mere alter ego, the president
can undo but we will take a look at the limitations of this.
2nd Question:Congress passed the Fisheries Code and
specifically empowered the Secretary of Agriculture to issue
rules and regulations affecting prohibited forms of fishing
such as trawl fishing. May the President issue an Executive
Order banning trawl fishing? This means that the Secretary
was empowered but it is the President that implements, can
this be done?
In Araneta vs. Gatmaitan case (1957), the SC ruled that
since the Secretary of Agriculture was empowered to
regulate or ban fishing by trawl, the President, in the
exercise of his Control Power, can take over from him such
authority and issue the Executive Order to exercise it.
Thats the consequence of the Control Power of the
President. This leads to a discussion on the Control Power
of the President. We say that the Control Power of the
President refers to the agencies within the departmental
framework. Do not think that the power of control of the
President extends to all agencies of the government. The
control power extends only to the DEPARTMENTS,
BUREAUS and OFFICES. It can extend to other agencies
outside of the departmental framework if so stipulated or
provided in the law itself, meaning as Congress wishes.
I made mention of an example where it was created by law
but meant to be under the Presidents control and this is the
National Police Commission, for example.
Problem:
The Safeguard Measure Act (RA 8800) states: The
Secretary (DTI) shall apply a general safeguard measure
upon a positive final determination of the (Tariff)
Commission that a product is being imported in the country
in increased quantities, whether absolute or relative to the
domestic production, as to be a substantial cause of serious
injury or threat thereof to the domestic industry; however, in
the case of non-agricultural products, the Secretary shall first
establish that the application of such safeguard measures
will be in the public interest.
May the Secretary, nonetheless, impose import quotas
despite a negative finding by the Tariff Commission?
Case in point: Southern Cross vs. Cement Manufacturers

(2005)
SOUTHERN CROSS CEMENT CORPORATION vs.
CEMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 158540. August 3, 2005
The Secretary wanted to impose import quotas to particular
kind of cement (Portland grey). There was negative finding
by the Tariff Commission.
This is the executive branch making its own determination of
facts. It shouldn't be subjected to control by any other
agency. And this power pertains to the President, only the
President can undo or control the decision of the Secretary.
There are delegated authorities of the President that may be
limited by Congress, especially by the very nature of that
power, it had been a delegated authority.
President's control over departments may still be limited by
Congress even if the President will say do it. Even control
power should observe law. If Congress has wish that there
should first be a positive finding of threat to domestic
industry, that is the only time that the Secretary of the DTI
can impose measures. Since that is the law, even the
President is under the law.
SOUTHERN CROSS V. CEMENT MANUFACTURERS
(2005) * Note however that the Presidents Control Power
over departments may still be limited by Congress in matters
which the President exercises delegated authority only,
such as the fixing of tariffs rate (because in this case tariff
rate fixing is essentially legislative because it involves
taxation power.) * Hence, it cannot be argued that an
executive department (DTI) cannot be bound by the decision
of a commission (Tariff Commission) which is created by law.
In any case, Congress will shall prevail. * Here in Southern
Cross case, the Safeguard Measures Act (R.A. 8800)
expressly provides that it is only upon a positive finding of
threat or danger to domestic industry that safeguard
measures (import quotas, etc.) may be adopted by the
Secretary. The SMA states: The Secretary shall apply a
general safeguard measure upon a positive final
determination of [Tariff ] Commission that a product is being
imported into the country in increased quantities, whether
absolute or relative to the domestic production, as to be a
substantial cause of serious injury or threat thereof to the
domestic industry; however, it the case of non-agricultural
products, the Secretary shall first establish that the
application of such safeguard measures will be in the public
interest.
We go to Beja
BEJA V. COURT OF APPEALS
Issue: Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) was attached to
Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC).
Over personnel matters, does DOTC Secretary have
jurisdiction over PPA?
Not part of the control mechanism are attached agencies.
Ruling: As to management of personnel an attached
agency is generally free from departmental control and
interference. (Necessarily so because interfering with
personnel matter is not necessary in achieving policy and
program coordination which is the essence of the
relationship of attachment.) [See: Sec. 38, Ch. 7, Book IV]
Different administrative relationships
ATTACHMENT (3) Attachment (a) The refers to the lateral
relationship between the department or its equivalent and
the attached agency or corporation for purposes of policy
and program coordination. The coordination may be
accomplished by having the department represented in the
governing board of the attached agency or corporation,
either as chairman or as a member, with or without voting
rights, if this is permitted by the charter, having the attached
corporation or agency comply with a system of periodic
reporting which shall reflect the progress of programs and
projects: and having the department or its equivalent provide
general policies through its representative in the board,
which shall serve as the framework for the internal policies of
the attached corporation or agency;
There are ways wish this can be accomplished. For GOCCs
for example, Section 42 2nd paragraph (Chapter 9)
In order to fully protect the interests of the government in
government-owned or controlled corporations, at least
one-third (1/3) of the members of the Boards of such
corporations should either be a Secretary, or Undersecretary,
or Assistant Secretary. What else?
Having the attached corporation or agency comply with the
system of periodic reporting. And then having the
department or its equivalent provide general policies to its
representative in the board.
May the Court reverse the decision of the President in
relation to the decision of a subordinate?
CONTROL POWER OF PRESIDENT IS STILL SUBJECT
TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
Montes v. Civil Service Board of Appeals:
Presidents Decision on appeal from decisions
of administrative agency may still be reviewed by the
courts (judicial review). The legality of his acts may still be
subject to judicial review, not because he is inferior to courts,
but because he is still inferior to law.
Even Control Power is not above the law.[Note: Under the
1997 Revised Rules of Court, decisions of the OP are
reviewable by the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 (Petition
for Review) on either questions of fact, of law, or mixed
questions of facts and law]
PROBLEM
XYZ Transit applied for an increase in bus fares for the
route Moon Municipality of Sun City invoking increased in
fuel expenses and updated fare rates in the route that is
served only by XYZ Transit. The LTFRB denied its
application. XYZ elevated the decision to the DOTC
Secretary who reversed the decision of the LTFRB and
granted XYZs application. The Secretarys decision became
final and executory. The President, however, reversed and
set aside the decision of the Secretary invoking his power of
control over his subordinates.
QUALIFY THE KIND OF ACT/ NATURE OF DECISION
SUBJECT OF REVIEW
The act of a subordinate could be in the
performance or form of of a quasi-legislative function, of
administrative function, of enforcement or of quasijudicial
function.
IF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION (not administrative case,
no case is pending), can be reversed anytime. Only decision,
as to implementing or executing a law. This could never

become final. Ex: the manner of implementing the law.
IF QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION, there are rules of
procedure that provides for remedies for those who are
aggrieved (appeal, period to file appeal)
The Rules of procedure will be the remedy of those
aggrieved with the decision. Appeal and then there's a
period of time also. Mu-vary na kay d man Rules of Court
ang mu-apply, ang Rules of Procedure na.
Labor law for example. In illegal dismissal cases, there is a
specific provision on when to appeal. After the lapse of the
period to appeal, it becomes final and executory. There's no
way the President, even by the invocation of control power,
can reverse that. The president's power of control does not
apply reviewing, modifying or setting aside the decision of a
subordinate exercising quasi-judicial power, after the
decision has become final pursuant to law or rules.
May the President discipline and in effect remove from office
subordinates in the executive departments?
Again, in relation to power of control, only those appointed
by him. So we need to know who appointed the person now
being removed by the president. That's a good approach. Do
not think that control power extends even up to the person of
the subordinate, not necessarily. While the power of control
can undo acts of even those appointed by someone else,
(basta naa lang sa executive department, because the
exercise of the power here is on the act), if it is about
removal of the person, then that affects the person and no
longer the act, and we go by the rule as to who appointed the
person.
Because according to Angco vs. Castillo, the power of
control of the President may extend to power to investigate,
suspend, and remove officers who belong to the executive
department if they are presidential appointees or do not
belong to the classified service. So if you belong to the Civil
Service for example, then you will be governed by Civil
Service Law. The appointing authority has the power to
remove. Like in Angco vs Castillo, naa man sa Department
of Finance, so within the departmental framework, so within
the power of control. But incidentally, under the law, as in
this case, this involved a collector of customs, who by the
way is to be appointed by the Secretary of Finance. So the
President cannot remove, and the Collector of Customs by
specific provision of law, cannot also be considered as
belonging to the classified service. Siguro because of trust
and confidence or confidentiality of this position in relation to
the Secretary.
We go to Administrative Relationships.
Section 38, Chapter 7, Book 4.
(1) Supervision and Control.Supervision and control shall
include authority to act directly whenever a specific function
is entrusted by law or regulation to a subordinate; direct the
performance of duty; restrain the commission of acts; review,
approve, reverse or modify acts and decisions of
subordinate officials or units; determine priorities in the
execution of plans and programs; and prescribe standards,
guidelines, plans and programs. Unless a different meaning
is explicitly provided in the specific law governing the
relationship of particular agencies, the word control shall
encompass supervision and control as defined in this
paragraph.
You need to know the extent of the power of the supervisor
over the subordinate in this relation of supervision and
control.
CHAPTER 7
Administrative Relationships
SECTION
38.
Definition
of
Administrative
Relationships.Unless otherwise expressly stated in the
Code or in other laws defining the special relationships of
particular agencies, administrative relationships shall be
categorized and defined as follows:
(1) Supervision and Control.Supervision and
control shall include authority to act directly
whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or
regulation to a subordinate; direct the performance
of duty; restrain the commission of acts; review,
approve, reverse or modify acts and decisions of
subordinate officials or units; determine priorities in
the execution of plans and programs; and prescribe
standards, guidelines, plans and programs. Unless
a different meaning is explicitly provided in the
specific law governing the relationship of particular
agencies, the word control shall encompass
supervision and control as defined in this paragraph.
An example of a relationship that is
governed by supervision and control is that
of the President or the Secretary in relation
to a Bureau. So you have a Department
Secretary (Secretary of Finance) and the
Commissioner
(Kim
Henares,
Commissioner of the BIR). Since governed
by supervision and control, the Secretary of
the Department of Finance can exercise
authority to act, direct the peformance of a
duty, restrain, review, approve, reverse,
modify the acts, determine the priorities or
prescribe standards for the acts of the
Commissioner.
(2) Administrative Supervision.(a) Administrative
supervision which shall govern the administrative
relationship between a department or its equivalent
and regulatory agencies or other agencies as may
be provided by law, shall be limited to the authority
of the department or its equivalent to generally
oversee the operations of such agencies and to
insure that they are managed effectively, efficiently
and economically but without interference with
day-to-day activities; or require the submission of
reports and cause the conduct of management audit,
performance evaluation and inspection to determine
compliance with policies, standards and guidelines
of the department; to take such action as may be
necessary for the proper performance of official
functions, including rectification of violations, abuses
and other forms of maladministration; and to review
and pass upon budget proposals of such agencies
but may not increase or add to them;
(b) Such authority shall not, however,
extend to: (1) appointments and other
personnel actions in accordance with the
decentralization of personnel functions
under the Code, except when appeal is
made from an action of the appointing
authority, in which case the appeal shall be
initially sent to the department or its
equivalent, subject to appeal in accordance
with law; (2) contracts entered into by the
agency in the pursuit of its objectives, the
review of which and other procedures
related thereto shall be governed by
appropriate laws, rules and regulations; and
(3) the power to review, reverse, revise, or
modify the decisions of regulatory agencies

in the exercise of their regulatory or
quasi-judicial functions; and
(c) Unless a different meaning is explicitly
provided in the specific law governing the
relationship of particular agencies, the word
supervision
shall
encompass
administrative supervision as defined in this
paragraph.
An example of Administrative
Supervision is the Secretary and
Regulatory Agency. Like the
Secretary of DOTC and the LTFRB
as a regulatory agency of the DOTC.
This means that the Department
Secretary
can
oversee
the
operations of such agency, require
the submission of reports, review
and pass upon budget proposals.
But take note of letter (b) for this is
the limitation of the administrative
supervision power. Such limitation
explains why the decision of the
NLRC
cannot
be
reviewed,
reversed, revised or modified by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment
because the latter merely has
administrative supervision over the
former. Instead of the Secretary, the
decisions of the NLRC are elevated
to the Court of Appeals via Rule 65
and then to the Supreme Court.
(3) Attachment.(a) This refers to the lateral
relationship between the department or its
equivalent and the attached agency or corporation
for purposes of policy and program coordination.
The coordination may be accomplished by having
the department represented in the governing board
of the attached agency or corporation, either as
chairman or as a member, with or without voting
rights, if this is permitted by the charter; having the
attached corporation or agency comply with a
system of periodic reporting which shall reflect the
progress of programs and projects; and having the
department or its equivalent provide general policies
through its representative in the board, which shall
serve as the framework for the internal policies of
the attached corporation or agency;
(b) Matters of day-to-day administration or
all those pertaining to internal operations
shall be left to the discretion or judgment of
the executive officer of the agency or
corporation. In the event that the Secretary
and the head of the board or the attached
agency or corporation strongly disagree on
the interpretation and application of policies,
and the Secretary is unable to resolve the
disagreement, he shall bring the matter to
the President for resolution and direction;
(c) Government-owned or controlled
corporations attached to a department shall
submit to the Secretary concerned their
audited financial statements within sixty (60)
days after the close of the fiscal year; and
(d) Pending submission of the required
financial statements, the corporation shall
continue to operate on the basis of the
preceding years budget until the financial
statements shall have been submitted.
Should any government-owned or controlled
corporation incur an operating deficit at the
close of its fiscal year, it shall be subject to
administrative supervision of the department;
and the corporations operating and capital
budget shall be subject to the departments
examination, review, modification and
approval.
FUNDAMENTAL
POWERS
OF
ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCIES
1. QUASI-LEGISLATIVE
Power to legislate includes the plenary
power to determine what the law is. This
discretion cannot be delegated. Only the
latter discretion which is how the law is to be
implemented may be delegated.
Other terms for this powes is subordinate
legislation or rule-making power.
2. QUASI-JUDICIAL
3. IMPLIED POWERS
and of course your quasi judicial power. It is quasi-judicial
because the exercise of the power is similar to judicial
functions because this involves receiving of evidence,
determination of evidence, application of law and facts and
then decision in the same way that judges receive decision.
But it cannot be judicial because otherwise we disturb the
separation of powers doctrine so we can only call it
quasi-judicial. So to give teeth to the idea that it can only be
quasi-judicial, can never be judicial then we say that the
decisions of quasi judicial bodies are never final. Its not
possible to have a quasi judicial bodies decision not
appealable or reviewable or not appealable but at least
reviewable by Rule 65, so even if decision of quasi judicial
bodies under the rules promulgated by that quasi judicial
body that its decision is no longer appealable, that is still
reviewable under Rule 65 grave abuse of discretion.
Therefore any interpretation of law can only be initial in this
administrative bodies. The final interpretation of law will
always have to be by the court of law. So there are reasons
why it has to be so in the implementation of administrative
rules, there will be conflicts and in the process to address the
controversy, the administration will have to interpret the law.
So in the process it has to exercise quasi-judicial functions.
PROBLEM:
XYZ Company, a public utility company applied for
upward adjustment of its rates before the LTFRB.
Pending the petition, the LTFRB, without previous
hearing, granted a general nationwide provisional
increase of rates in an Order dated June 20, 2013 (First
Order). LTFRB then required XYZ and Oppositors to
present evidence within a period of fifteen (15) days
after which the application shall be submitted for
resolution. The LTFRB denied XYZs application in an
order dated August 30, 2013 (Second Order).
What functions of an administrative agency were
exercised in this case?
Why will this matter? You know of course why this is very
important here. Given a problem, your first task would be to
characterize carefully the functioning involved. Whether
quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial.
So how do you tell whether the function involved is
quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative?
44-49 (but ang problem from 41 pa dn wla na answer but I
started transcribing from 44)
(1) First Order: QL function.The Order is applicable to the
general in public whereas
(2) Second Order: QJ function. The Order is applicable only
to the parties of the case. It requires prior notice and hearing.
Note CIR vs CA - notice and hearing
So we look at the function involved, if the exercise of the
power applies to the public in general, it doesnt have to be
nation wide. What is meant by Quasi Legislative is that it is
applicable to the public and not to a particular individual we

call the litigant in a case.
Quasi-judicial similar to courts. You have specific parties and
distinction is binding only to the parties. Whereas in the rule
making power, it binds the public assuming the procedure for
implementation or issuance of the rule had been complied
with.
In Quasi-legislative, we talk about issue on whether notice
and hearing will be required in the issuance of quasi
legislation. Will you require notice and hearing?
If you mean notice in the form of an order sent to a
party and then there will be hearing conducted
similar to a judicial proceeding, then we distinguish
between quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative. But
publication likewise is notice. (sir still looking for
another answer)
If you think of publication as notice then thats post issuance.
You publish after the issuance. In a quasi judicial decision,
you notify before you decide. So we need to distinguish
between publication and notice and hearing.
Its important for you to distinguish between quasi
legislative and quasi judicial in so far as notice and hearing
is concerned. But with being quasi legislative, you also
have to distinguish between different rules. Rules that do not
involve rate fixing and those that involve rate fixing. So
you must be careful if its quasi legislative because there
could be additional requirements if it involves rate - fixing.
Rule:
1. If involves rate fixing = publication in the
newspaper and then public hearing (this is not like
the hearing wherein theres an applicant and an
oppositor then the submission of evidence and etc.
Its just a public hearing for rate fixing. In fact, the
publication is required to be done days before the
public hearing.)
The landmark case for notice and hearing is CIR vs. CA.
BAR (2000)
The Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) issued new
rules and regulations governing pilotage services and fees
and the conduct of pilots in Philippine ports. This is done
without notice, hearing nor consultation with harbor pilots or
their associations whose rights and activities are to be
substantially affected. The harbor pilots then filed suit to
have the new MARINA rules and regulations declared
unconstitutional for having been issued without due process.
Decide the case.
Answer: Its Quasi Legislative but rate fixing because it
involves fees.
Quasi-legislative but, rate-fixing? But theres also conduct of
pilots diba?
Whats important here is that this is an application of CIR vs.
CA that generally, no notice an hearing required for
Quasi-Legislative Rules. Exception would be:
1. Required by law(wa nay lalis ana)
2. It ADDS BURDEN to those affected. This is an
important doctrine.
Its only fair that those who are affected/burdened should
first be heard. Thats CIR vs. CA
So we DISTINGUISH(nasad) between Quasi-Legislative(QL)
and Quasi-Judicial(QJ) because of these issues.
Other difference between the two is that you apply the
Doctrine of Prior Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies.
You dont apply this principle when the rule involved is
Quasi-Legislative. So if you want to declare the rules issued
by the admin agency to be invalid, you can go to court right
away. Ayaw ka-confuse ana.
Basin ma-ilad ka sa Examiner nga theres this issuance of
the rules and niana siya ug unfair, unreasonable and other
grounds then niadto dayon ka ug court then motion to
dismiss for failure to bring the matter to a higher agency(so
bale exhaustion of admin remedies). But the thing there is
that theres really no such remedy because we are talking
about here of QUASI-LEGISLATIVE power. The rule as
Illegal, thats a Question of Law. The proper remedy is to go
directly to the court.
Another important rule: Quasi-Judicial decisions are brought
to CA generally, some to SC, on pure questions of law. Our
fundamental rule here is that decisions of Quasi-Judicial
Bodies are treated like decisions of Regional Trial Courts. So
co-equal with the RTC.
I said generally because it is not applicable to all cases.
DARAB cases for example. The decision of DARAB is under
Quasi-Judicial, but they are brought to the RTC! This is by
specific provision. The law says that the decision of DARAB
will have to be brought to the Special Agrarian Court, which
is a Regional Trial Court. So law na mismo niingun.
So kaning Administrative Law, foundational siya so naay
mga basic rules. But when you practice law later on, unya na
nang mga precepts and general rules, read the law first. And
in the absence of a provision of law then apply your general
rules e.g. co-equality, quasi-judicial, etc. If you are asked of
the proper remedies then you study the law first. Ayaw
pagyawyaw na we will sue blah blah blah nya diae to wrong.
Implied Powers
Implied from express powers, such as the power to
promulgate rules of procedure by a QJ body
(Doctrine of Necessary Implication).
DBL: Here we apply the doctrine of necessary implication.
Powers may have been exercised that are not specifically
spelled out in the law so we need to know if whether the
administrative agency can do that. So I have here this
problem that I usually ask my students in Admin. Law
PROBLEM (with answers)
The Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) of the DENR was
created in order to regulate and adjudicate pollution cases.
A. May the PAB issue rules of procedure?
DBL: Do you need to check the law creating the PAB if it
specifically provides therein that the agency has the power
to promulgate rules of procedure? Is that your approach?
The power to issue rules of procedure is necessary for the
effective exercise of adjudication powers. Take note that it
says regulate and adjudicate pollution cases. It makes no
sense if you will require Congress to specifically grant the
power to issue rules of procedure when it already granted
the power to adjudicate. So by necessary implication.
B. May the PAB divide itself into several divisions even
if the law does not provide for such power?
DBL: Its a board so its a collegial body. So wala pa
nagprovide ang law nga maghimo sila ug division. Ganahan
lang sila nga murag Court of Appeals nga mudecide ug case
by division nya mucome up sila what cases are to be
decided by division and by en banc. So it can be done. As
pronounced in Realty Exchange Venture Corporation vs.
Sendino (G.R. No. 109703 July 5, 1994)
Rules of procedure of administrative bodies should be
liberally construed in order to enable it to effectively exercise
its functions.
It doesnt have to be expressly provided for by law. Hence,
even if the law does not expressly provide for it, a
quasi-judicial body may divide itself into several divisions
and assign to it the power conferred upon the body.
C. May the PAB issue a Cease and Desist Order even
if the law is silent on whether the PAB has this power?
DBL: Again, this is implied from its regulatory function. You
have the case of Laguna Lake Development Authority vs.
CA (G.R. No. 110120 March 16, 1994). The Supreme Court
said
While the law does not expressly grant the Pollution

Adjudication Board (PAB) the power to issue a cease and
desist order, the power is however implied in the express
power to regulate and adjudicate pollution cases, without
which the PAB becomes toothless.
D. May the PAB issue a writ of execution if the law does
not even mention about this power?
DBL: Necessarily, it doesnt make sense if you give an
agency adjudicatory powers but it cannot execute its own
decision. Thats your GSIS vs. Civil Service Commission
(G.R. No. 96938 October 15, 1991) case
The grant to a tribunal or agency of adjudicatory power, or
authority to hear and adjudge cases, should normally and
logically be deemed to include the grant of authority to
enforce or execute the judgment it thus renders, unless the
law otherwise provides.
The caveat here: do not over extend the powers of
necessary implication. As stated in its name necessary,
there are certain powers that cannot be implied by the
express powers. It cannot be had that the implied power is
greater than the express powers. Why caveat? In can be
implied PERO its not the necessary implication. So the
doctrine of necessary implication does not authorize the
exercise of powers greater than those powers expressly
given.
For example:
Power given
Does not carry with it
Power
regulate
to
Does not include the

power to prohibit
Power
to
investigate (to
ascertain facts)
Does not include the

power to adjudicate
(ascertain
facts+
apply the applicable
laws to the facts +
come
up
with
conclusion)
So, what important provisions should be found in the

law to make this work, para complete siya?
The body who will be tasked to issue the
implementing rules
Definition of: vehicles, tenure, holderunsa man?
Date of registration, date of purchase; what is the
definition of public highway?
FROM OLD TRANSCRPIT
Determine what penalties
Determine what vehicles are covered
How to determine the age of the vehicle (when to
start counting the 10 years)
How do you make sure that the implementing rules will be
valid?
Take the case of Pp v. Echegarayon the matter of the
manual for the execution. What went wrong there? From
electrocution, gi.usab sa law, lethal injection na. The law,
death penalty law, grants the secretary of justice the power
to implement thatsentencing by lethal injection. So, unsa
gi.himo sa secretary of justice? The secretary of justice
directed the director of Bureau of Corrections to prepare a
manual. Proper ba to? Yes? Dili ba to violation of the
principle on Protestas Delegata non Delegare Protestwhat
has been delegated cannot be further delegated? Of course,
it was not further delegated according to the Supreme Court.
Why was it not further delegated? Because the Bureau of
Correction is still part of the DOJ, its a unit functional of the
DOJ. But what went wrong? Unsay problema pag.authorize
sa director of the Bureau of Correction sa creation of the
manual? The director of the Bureau of Correction was
authorized to prepare the manual for the specific effective
implementation-execution of the lethal injection but the
manual however, was not subject to approval or
conformation by the secretary. So that was therefore, a grant
of unbridled discretion. Okay ang mag.himo kag manual but
make sure that there was no total transference/ total
abdication of a power already delegated. Okay, dapat may
control ka. We will be talking up two cases about this
laterKMU and the America Tobacco cases. It is
therefore important, again, to go back to the Completeness
Test and the Sufficient Standard Test.
So, when is the law considered complete? It is complete if it
is able to identify:
the subject matter to be delegated;
who will do it; and
how the delegate will do it (scope of authority).
COMPLETENESS TEST
When is a law complete for purposes of
delegation?
It must identify:
1.The SUBJECT MATTER to be delegated
2.WHO will do it
3.HOW the delegate will do it (SCOPE OF
AUTHORITY)
SUFFICIENT STANDARD TEST
It should define the legislative policy. Indicate the
circumstances under which the legislative command
is to be effected. Actually, the Sufficient Standand
Test is simply an assurance that if for example,
Completeness Test is not that perfect, at least you
have the Sufficient Standand Test. Thats an
assurance that there is no total abdication.
EXAMPLES OF SUFFICIENT STANDARD:
fair and equitable employment practices (POEA
case) Remember POEA? If you are an overseas
worker diba naai proforma nga employment contract
sa POEA. There was a dispute on some benefits. So
ang question lang enforceability of the contract. And
there was a question na its an invalid delegation of
the power to the POEA why the POEA was given
the general power to determine the terms of the
employment contract involving overseas workers.
SC said dili baya because there was a sufficient
standard. The POEA could come up with a ready
made or proforma contract but it should be based on
fair and equitable employment practices. So that
saved the proforma contract of the POEA.
public safety (EDU VS ERECTA) Ang Director sa
Transportation gi question nga siya lang mag decide
sa early warning device. Wala nakabutang sa law
how the early warning device will look like. The
reflector law did not specifically describe the early
warning device (EWD). But the Director simply
decided na dapat reflectorized nga yellow, pwede
pud red, violet, pwede dako na triangle naai specific
size, etc. Unsa mai nag guide sa Director in coming
up with the design of the EWD? Design, color,
appearance. Unsa mai sufficient standard in the
reflector law? PUBLIC SAFETY. Dba? Thats
enough.
justice and equity
public convenience and welfare
simplicity, economy and efficiency
NOTE: However, the standard should not allow
unbridled discretion (ex. may see fit)
YNOC vs IAC (Constitutional Law Case; Carabao Case)
There are twin cases involving carabaos. US vs Toribio and
Ynoc vs IAC. In US vs Toribio, prohibiting the slaughter of
carabaos but are still fit for agricultural purposes and unfit for
human consumption. Following that is your Ynoc vs IAC, it
prohibited the transportation of carabeef from one province
to another. And problema kay ang Chairman of the National

Meat Inspection Commission, gi authorize sa law na katong
confiscated na mga carabeef, how to dispose of it ang
gibutang sa law: as the Chairman may see fit. Pwede niya
kaunon, pwede niya ibaligya. Wa gyud. It was not canalized
within banks to keep it from overflowing.
DOCTRINE OF POTESTAS DELEGATA NON DELEGARI
POTEST
What had already been delegated cannot be
delegated any further
KMU v. Garcia:
- Public Service Commission allowed bus
operators to fix fare rates, is that okay?
Okay na dba? Delegated power to the
Public Service Commission.
American Tobacco v. Director of Patents:
- What has been delegated was only the
discretion to ascertain facts but did not
include the discretion to decide on
application for patents.
DOCTRINE OF POTESTAS DELEGATA NON
DELEGARI POTEST
What had already been delegated cannot be
delegated any further
DOCTRINE OF POTESTAS DELEGATA
NON DELEGARI POTEST
KMU v. Garcia:
- Public Service Commission
allowed bus operators to fix fare
rates;
American Tobacco v. Director of Patents:
- What has been delegated was
only the discretion to ascertain facts
but did not include the discretion to
decide on application for patents.
In KMU vs. Garcia, Congress allowed Public Service
Commission to fix fare rates, this is the first delegation
(Delegated power to the public service commission). But the
Public Service Commission, when it issued the rules on the
matter, it said ok, kani nga routa, 10 pesos for example, but
the bus operators can actually impose additional on the
basis of the distance. So it relegate to the bus operators.
According to the SC, it is delegating a power that had
already been delegated by Congress to the Public Service
Commission.
American Tobacco v. Director of Patents. The patent law, so
Congress, authorized the Director of Patents to determine
the patentability of the application. So, what did the Director
of Patent do? He relegated to the hearing officers ang
hearing, but the power of the hearing officers was limited
only to the ascertainment of facts. The Director of Patents
still decided on the patentability of application, unlike in
People vs. Echegaray, where the manual was not subject to
approval or affirmation of the Secretary of Justice. So there
was no delegation of delegated power (in Director of Patent
case).
AUGUST 12, 2015
KINDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
Legislative (Rule-making)
Interpretative
Internal
Lets go to Kinds of Administrative Regulations

How to distinguish one from the other:
On the basis of, requirement of publication.
So basically, the rules that are interpretative, do not require
publication. Later on we will relate this to the case of CIR vs.
CA where it was argued that the Revenue Regulation issued
by the BIR Commissioner, was only meant to interpret the
provision of the NIRC although it did, in a way make the
interpretation, it resulted however, to an increase in the
burden of those affected by the supposed interpretative rule.
The SC in that case still required at least, not publication as
in it should be published in the newspaper, but at least prior
notice and hearing.
why a publication is required - that is part of DUE

PROCESS.
REQUISITES FOR VALIDITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATIONS
1. AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS
2. WITHIN THE SCOPE OF AUTHORITY (NOT
ULTRA VIRES)
3. IN
ACCORDANCE
WITH
PRESCRIBED
PROCEDURE
4. FAIR AND REASONABLE
(Dagan v. Philippine Racing Commission)
SIGNIFICANCE OF DISTINCTION
Interpretation of rules does not, as a general

rule, require publication, in order to comply with
administrative due process. Also, rules are
generally
binding
on
courts,
unlike
interpretations of rules which are at best
advisory subject always to judicial
interpretation.
So as to the matter of publication, interpretative rules dont

have to be published. And these interpretative rules may be
given weight in a way but only not conclusive upon the
courts. So this was the ruling by the court in Eslao v. COA
(1994)
Eslao v. COA (1994)
The Supreme Court ruled that:
administrative regulations and policies enacted by
administrative bodies to interpret the law have the force
of law and are entitled to great respect.
Interpretative rules are given weight but never conclusive.

Never been a ruling of the court that interpretative rules
issued by the admin agencies are conclusive upon the court.
And as you know, precisely, their functions are quasi either
legislative or judicial. In this case, the court will always have
the final say especially if it involves legal question.
So you back your case of Tanada vs. Tuvera and you will
note that these rules that would usually affect the public, the
rights and interests of those governed by the rules, where
rules affect the public, we know and we learn that there
should be publication.
In the case of Executive Secretary v. Southwing Heavy

Industries (2206) you will notice there is this comprehensive
discussion about these elements. Again you have the 4
abovementioned requisites. I think this is the common
requirement to every rule, statute or whatever it is - it should
be fair and reasonable. Rules must be fair and reasonable.
1.
AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS
Executive Secretary v. Southwing Heavy Industries
(2206): It was argued that Section 3.1 of EO 156
(which banned the importation of used vehicle)
lacked any statutory basis for the President to
issue the same because it is an exercise of police
power vested on the legislature.
The SC ruled that the TCC (Sec. 401)
authorizes the President, in the interest of
national economy, general welfare and/or
national security, to inter alia, prohibit the
importation of any commodity.
You notice that EO 156 issued by the President was

questioned as issued without the authority and it should,
therefore, an legislative act that should have been done by
the Congress or Legislature. But the SC noted Sec.401 of
TCC, this was on 2006, I am not sure if this is still the law at
present, where the President, at least during that time, was
given the power to prohibit the importation of any commodity
for purpose of promoting the interest of national economy,
general welfare and/or national security.
This of course, settle the issued WON the President had the
authority. But eventually, of course, as you have notice, the
SC ruled that it was, however, issued beyond the authority
given because it overimportation to the freeport of Subic
where the authority as analyzed by the SC is applicable to
domestic industry and not the freeport. I will show that later
on.
So included in the rules/laws that be published are statues Republic Act, Presidential Decree, which of course have the
force and effect of laws. Usually it is issued by the President
when the President is granted emergency powers by the
Congress. Executive order that have been issued that
partake the nature of legislation.
The authority as analized by the supreme court was only

applicable to domestic industry and not to the Freeport. But
whether the president had the authority, the president had
the authority except that he overstepped that authority as
analyzed by the court.
Talking about Family Law, our Family Code is an Executive

Order. And of course Administrative Rules that partake of
rule-making power of admin agencies.
People vs Maceren
The Supreme said that the administrative rule cannot be
extended to amending or expanding the statute it seeks to
implement.
What need NOT be published, although, it is better to just

publish anyway, are:
1. Interpretative rules
2. Internal rules
3. Letters of instructions to subordinates
I think the common denominator here is that these rules do
not affect the public. And you know, of course, the reason
Sir: Ive notice though that the need for liberalizing the rule or
standard of interpretation can be found in recent
jurisprudence may be because of our activities and our
endeavors are getting complicated (dili ra love life ang
getting complicated, even our activities as well). You will
notice later on that even if it is not found in the law, what is
important is that a provision in the administrative rule is
germane to the purpose of the law. So this rule on relevancy
had been applied in the court many times unlike before kuan
gyud, civil law thinking. If it is not provided in the law, then
the rule cannot provide for such. But later on as I will show
you, the liberality principle has been applied, for as long as it
is related to the statute then the administrative rule can
actually provide for a subject even if it is not expressly
mentioned in the statute.
Executive Sec vs Southwing Heavy Industries
The subject matter of the law authorizing the president to
regulate or forfeit deportation of used motor vehicles is the
domestic industries. It was explained that if you established
a Freeport, youre actually trying to treat the Freeport
differently from all the other territories of the country. Mura
bag ang Freeport is a foreign country where our tariffs and
customs code will not be applied. Freeport gain. First of all
class, they are not of course brought forth to the domestic
industry so pwede raka i-store didto sa Freeport, pwede rasd
i-store gawas ang mga items not covered with tariff and
customs code. This was the ruling of the court, the president
has the authority (im not sure now in present, at least at that
time) to ban used vehicles in the domestic industry but not in
the Freeport. So it was therefore ultra vires.
Problem
This is an application of the relevancy test that I told you
earlier.
Homeowners association vs Defensor is the leading case
that will solve this problem.
What case is this? *referring to the slide* its Orceo vs
Comelec
RA 7166 or the Fairs Election Act provides that during the
election period, no person shall bear, carry or transport
firearms or other deadly weapons in public places including
any buildings, street, parks, private vehicle or any public
conveyance. Comelec has the power to issue rules to
implement and enforce RA7166. In one of its resolutions, the
comelec specifically in defining firearm included airgun,
airsoft, guns and their replica in whatever form. Is the
comelec resolution valid?
Answer: Ruling of the court, it says that its all right applying
the doctrine in the case of homeowners vs defensor, what is
prohibited specifically in the law is firearm. The implementing
rule has to define what constitutes the term firearm that it
includes airgun and airsoft. The court said that even if a rule
provides for a subject that is not expressly mentioned in the
statute that it seeks to implement, by itself, its not a ground
to say that the implementing rule is void. The provision does
not necessarily contradict the statute. All that is required is
that the regulation be germane to the objects and the
purpose of the law. The regulation is not in contradiction but
is in conformity with the standards prescribed by the law.
Question: What is the reasoning of the court why the
inclusion of airsoft and other replica of guns can be within
the object and purpose of the law and therefore germane?
Russell: As contemplated in the law sir, it prohibits the
firearm during the election period because it may be used to
coerce the electorate to vote to a certain candidate.
Who would like to explain the reasoning of the Court why the
inclusion of airsoft and other replica of guns can be within
the object and the purpose of the law and therefore germane?
It can be a tool for terrorism and other offenses punishable
under the Election laws. Since these replicas are life-like and
very close to the real firearms, they should also be banned
because they can produce the same effect of coercion.
Heres a caveat though: We can agree that it really is
germane to the purpose of the law but I think you should add
the fact that this involves COMELEC and when it comes to
regulating activities elections, I think the COMELECs

authority is much broader compared to an ordinary
administrative agency. As you may know, authority granted
to administrative agencies are strictly interpreted, generally.
Diba kay delegated authority cya. But this case involves the
COMELEC and the COMELEC is not exercising a delegated
power. The SC analyzed the general power of the
COMELEC in the conduct of elections. I think thats an
important context that you should consider.
The SC said that these details are left to the discretion of the
COMELEC, which is the constitutional body that possesses
special knowledge and expertise on election matters with the
objective of ensuring the holding of free, orderly, honest,
peaceful and credible elections.
Then quoted in Holy Spirit Homeowners Association, the
regulation should be germane to the object and purpose of
the law.
Problem: The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) issued two
rules: (1) a rule prohibiting the overbooking by domestic
airlines to more than 10% and (2) a rule requiring all
domestic airlines to shoulder all hotel accommodation, meal
and transportation expenses of bumped off passengers due
to overbooking.
(A) Is CAB required to notify and hear all domestic airlines
before issuing the rules?
(B) Is CAB required to publish the rules?
You have to distinguish the requirement of notice and
hearing and the requirement of publication although they
serve the same purpose. Publication is when you publish in
the newspaper or Official Gazette. Notice and hearing can
be done through bulletin or sending out of the notices to
concerned parties.
What is the threshold in CIR vs CA, because that is the most
important case relevant to this? It is important to take note of
the threshold. It is important to understand what is meant by
notify and what is meant by conduct hearing.
How would this notice and hearing be complied with?
The Supreme Court simply mentioned of opportunity for the
affected parties to be informed of the rules before they are
promulgated. So that they will be afforded the opportunity to
participate. File their comments or what. This is practically
the requirement of public participation under the Admin
Code.
Let's take a look at Section 9 Chapter 2 Book 7 of the Admin
Code.
The first rule is to check what the law provides on the matter.
Whether it requires prior notice and hearing. Otherwise if it is
a reasonable rule in the law that there is no need for such
notice and hearing then you don't have to comply.
Now if the situation is that the law is silent as to whether
notice and hearing should be conducted before the issuance
of the administrative rules, then the default rule is Section 9
Chapter 2 Book 7 should be observed.
SECTION 9. Public Participation.(1) If not otherwise
required by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable,
publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford
interested parties the opportunity to submit their views prior
to the adoption of any rule.
(2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid
unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a
newspaper of general circulation at least two (2) weeks
before the first hearing thereon.
GMA NETWORK, INC., vs. COMMISSION

ON ELECTIONS G.R. No. 205357; G.R. No.
205852; G.R. No. 205374; G.R. No. 205592
September 2, 2014
(3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall

be observed.
There should be circulated notices and afford opportunity to
submit their views prior to the adoption of the rule.
Remember we are talking here of notice and hearing, we are
not talking here of publication.
How should it be done?
Look at the case of GMA v COMELEC, I don't think that the
threshold is that there is an individual notice sent to every
stakeholders. I think what is required is that of course the
court will try to evaluate whether or not in fact they have
been informed in whatever way. That is the second rule.
Third rule is to check whether the rule is rate-fixing. Take
note there are two kinds of rate-fixing functions of
administrative agencies. It could be done (1) under its
quasi-legislative functions or it could be (2) quasi-judicial
function.
How to tell? Apply ka atong basic distinction nga specified
parties.
The five (5) petitions before the Court put in

issue the alleged unconstitutionality of
Section 9 (a) of COMELEC Resolution No.
9615 (Resolution) limiting the broadcast and
radio advertisements of candidates and
political parties for national election positions
to an aggregate total of one hundred twenty
(120) minutes and one hundred eighty (180)
minutes, respectively. The heart of the
controversy revolves upon the proper
interpretation of the limitation on the number
of minutes that candidates may use for
television and radio advertisements, as
provided in Section 6 of Republic Act No.
9006 (R.A. No. 9006), otherwise known as
the Fair Election Act. Pertinent
xxxxxx
The petition is partly meritorious.
xxxxxxx
a. Broadcast Election Propaganda
But how do translate this to actual events?

You know, a rate-fixing rule may be issued at first instance
as a quasi-legislative rule because the rate is
imposed/applied to the affected public in general. It could be
regional but that is still public.
But the moment someone will contest the rate, then there
will be a hearing. That translates the proceeding from
quasi-legislative to quasi-judicial because it becomes a
contested proceeding. Although it is rate-fixing function that
is involved, you still have to distinguish. What we are talking
here is quasi-legislative rate-fixing function.
RATE FIXING Quasi-legislative, but the moment someone
contest it, it becomes quasi-judicial proceeding (becomes
contested proceeding)
QUASI LEGISLATIVE RATE FIXING Requirements:
o Notice, afford interested parties to submit their views,
and
o Publication to newspapers of general circulation 2
weeks before the first initial public hearing.
TN.Book 7 Section 1 of the Administrative Code as noted by
the Supreme Court in the case of GMA vs COMELEC (2014
decision) this rule (notice and hearing) applies generally to
administrative agencies except Congress, Judiciary and
Constitutional commissions.
Fair Election Act provides for the rights of
candidates and political parties to make use airtime for
broadcast radio at the max limit of 180 minutes in TV and
120 minutes in radio. There has been many COMELEC
resolutions but this airtime is interpreted as airtime in TV
and radio per station. In 2013 elections, restricted the
allowable airtime that instead of per station, now its
aggregate. One of the issues was whether the COMELEC
was required to provide notice and hearing to radion station
and broadcast company.
The duration of an air time that a candidate,

or party may use for their broadcast
advertisements or election propaganda shall
be, as follows (2013 elections, the
COMELEC, through Resolution No. 9615, as
amended by Resolution No. 9631):
For
Candidates/Re
gistered
Political parties
for a National
Elective
Position
Not
more
than
an
aggregate total of one
hundred (120) minutes of
television
advertising,
whether appearing on
national, regional, or local,
free or cable television,
and one hundred eighty
(180) minutes of radio
advertising, whether airing
on national, regional, or
local radio, whether by
purchase or donation
For
Candidates/R
egistered
Political
parties for a
Local
Elective
Position
Not
more
than
an
aggregate total of sixty
(60) minutes of television
advertising,
whether
appearing on national,
regional, or local, free or
cable
television,
and
ninety (90) minutes of
radio advertising, whether
airing
on
national,
regional, or local radio,
whether by purchase or
donation.
f. Resolution No. 9615 needs prior hearing

before adoption
The COMELEC promulgated Resolution No.
9615 on January 15, 2013 then came up with
a public hearing on January 31, 2013 to
explain what it had done, particularly on the
aggregate-based air time limits. This
circumstance also renders the new
regulation, particularly on the adoption of the
aggregate-based airtime limit, questionable.
It must not be overlooked that the new
Resolution introduced a radical change in the
manner in which the rules on airtime for
political advertisements are to be reckoned.
As such there is a need for adequate and
effective means by which they may be
adopted, disseminated and implemented. In
this regard, it is not enough that they be
published - or explained - after they have
been adopted.
While it is true that the COMELEC is an
independent office and not a mere
administrative agency under the Executive
Department, rules which apply to the latter
must also be deemed to similarly apply to the
former, not as a matter of administrative
convenience but as a dictate of due process.
And this assumes greater significance
considering the important and pivotal role
that the COMELEC plays in the life of the
nation. Thus, whatever might have been said
in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
Court of Appeals,58 should also apply
mutatis mutandis to the COMELEC when it
comes to promulgating rules and regulations
which adversely affect, or impose a heavy
and substantial burden on, the citizenry in a
matter that implicates the very nature of
government we have adopted:
It should be understandable that when an
administrative rule is merely interpretative in
nature, its applicability needs nothing further
than its bare issuance for it gives no real
consequence more than what the law itself
has already prescribed. When, upon the
other hand, the administrative rule goes
beyond merely providing for the means that
can facilitate or render least cumbersome the
implementation of the law but substantially
adds to or increases the burden of those
governed, it behooves the agency to accord
at least to those directly affected a chance to
be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed,
before that new issuance is given the force
and effect of law.
For failing to conduct prior hearing before
coming up with Resolution No. 9615, said
Resolution, specifically in regard to the new
rule on aggregate airtime is declared
defective and ineffectual.
xxxxx
Appearance or guesting by a candidate on
any bona fide newscast, bona fide news
interview, bona fide news documentary, if the
appearance of the candidate is incidental to
the presentation of the subject or subjects
covered by the news documentary, or
on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news
events, including but not limited to events

sanctioned by the Commission on Elections,
political conventions, and similar activities,
shall not be deemed to be broadcast election
propaganda within the meaning of this
provision. For purposes of monitoring by the
COMELEC and ensuring that parties and
candidates were afforded equal opportunities
to promote their candidacy, the media entity
shall give prior notice to the COMELEC,
through the appropriate Regional Election
Director (RED), or in the case of the National
Capital Region (NCR), the Education and
Information Department (EID). If such prior
notice is not feasible or practicable, the
notice shall be sent within twenty-four (24)
hours from the first broadcast or publication.
Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be
construed as relieving broadcasters, in
connection with the presentation of
newscasts,
news
interviews,
news
documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of
news events, from the obligation imposed
upon them under Sections 10 and 14 of
these Rules."63
Further, the petitioner in G.R. No. 205374
assails the constitutionality of such
monitoring requirement, contending, among
others, that it constitutes prior restraint. The
Court finds otherwise. Such a requirement is
a reasonable means adopted by the
COMELEC to ensure that parties and
candidates are afforded equal opportunities
to promote their respective candidacies.
Unlike the restrictive aggregate-based
airtime limits, the directive to give prior notice
is not unduly burdensome and unreasonable,
much less could it be characterized as prior
restraint since there is no restriction on
dissemination
of
information
before
broadcast. Additionally, it is relevant to point
out that in the original Resolution No. 9615,
the paragraph in issue was worded in this
wise:
Appearance or guesting by a candidate on
any bona fide newscast, bona fide news
interview, bona fide news documentary, if the
appearance of the candidate is incidental to
the presentation of the subject or subjects
covered by the news documentary, or
on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news
events, including but not limited to events
sanctioned by the Commission on Elections,
political conventions, and similar activities,
shall not be deemed to be broadcast election
propaganda within the meaning of this
provision. To determine whether the
appearance or guesting in a program is bona
fide, the broadcast stations or entities must
show that (1) prior approval of the
Commission
was
secured;
and
(2)
candidates and parties were afforded equal
opportunities to promote their candidacy.
Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be
construed as relieving broadcasters, in
connection with the presentation of
newscasts,
news
interviews,
news
documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of
news events, from the obligation imposed
upon them under Sections 10 and 14 of
these Rules.64
Comparing the original with the revised
paragraph, one could readily appreciate what
the COMELEC had done - to modify the
requirement from "prior approval" to "prior
notice." While the former may be suggestive
of a censorial tone, thus inviting a charge of
prior restraint, the latter is more in the nature
of a content-neutral regulation designed to
assist the poll body to undertake its job of
ensuring fair elections without having to
undertake any chore of approving or
disapproving certain expressions.
xxxxxx
SO ORDERED
SC: CIR vs CA was invoked. It added burden to
those affected. When computed, if each candidate would
avail of airtime aggregate rule, means he will only have 81
seconds per day. If three stations, 27 seconds a day. Indeed
it added burden to those affected. COMELEC is a
constitutional commission and under Section 1 Book 7 of the
Administrative Code, this is exempted to the notice and
hearing rule. Regardless whether said provision applies or
not, basic tenet of fair play and due process should tell
COMELEC to afford parties opportunity to be heard before
the issuance of the rules. Although the COMELEC did it after,
it(notice and hearing) should have been done before it
issued the rules. Hearing made after will not cure the defect,
it should have been done before the issuance of the rules.
NOTICE AND HEARING, REQUIRED (Exceptions to
non-application to congress/judiciary/concommsions, not
sure)
1. when the statue itself requires it or
2. when the administrative rule substantially adds
to or increases the burden of those directly
affected.
Take note ha, publication need not be in full. In fact,

publication can be done omitting certain portions of the rule.
There are rules that are really lengthy so there is no
requirement that everything should be published. That's the
general rule.
Exception lang is if the Rule carries a penal provision. The
Admin Code requires that no matter how lengthy the Rule
may be that the full text should be published. In case of
Rules lang that have penal provisions.
Case of Pesigan vs. Angeles, publication is necessary as
part of due process.
And fourthly, FAIR AND REASONABLE
In the same way that we require a statute to be fair and
reasonable, with more reason that we should also require
that the implementing rules to be fair and reasonable.
What constitutional requirement provides that every law
should be fair and reasonable? Somebody mentioned due
process. Substantive and procedural due process. Ari ka sa
Substantive due process, which requires fairness and
reasonableness of the law. If you require the law, then you
must also require the implementing rules to fair and
reasonable.
Lupangco vs CA. CPA board exam. There were reports on
leakage. On the prohibition that no examinee shall attend
any review class, briefing, conference or the like. Two
observations of the Court. This is not fair and reasonable
because for one, this violates academic freedom for those
universities and colleges offering review classes. Unya para
nako overbreadth sad. Abi kay naay leakage di na pwede
muhatag ug tips from the school. The SC also observed that
it is also very hard to implement. It's hard really to monitor.
That was not a reasonable resolution of the PRC.
GMA vs. COMELEC. I've already mentioned this earlier. 81
seconds na lang per day. In the end noh, unreasonable
according to the SC.
We go to Quasi-Judicial Power.
EXAMPLES OF THE EXCEPTIONS

1. Executive Order 172 creating the Energy Regulatory
Board (now ERC) itself provided the rule that the
ERB may fix the prices of petroleum products only
upon notice and hearing, although provisional
rates may be issued ex parte.
2. CIR v. CA (261 SCRA 236)
CIR V. CA (261 SCRA 236)
When an administrative rule is merely interpretative

in nature, its applicability needs nothing further than
its bare issuance for it gives no real consequence
more than what the law itself has already prescribed.
When the administrative rule goes beyond and
substantially adds to or increases the burden of
those governed, it behooves the agency to
accord those directly affected a chance to be
heard, and thereafter to be duly informed, before
that new issuance is given the force and effect of
law.
How to determine if the power involved is quasi-judicial? Beri

EZ. More or less, these proceedings would involve the
granting, denying, suspending or revoking a license, permit,
franchise, Certificate of Public Convenience and of necessity.
More or less kana nga mga areas. This is quasi-judicial
because this involves ascertainment of facts upon which a
decision is to be maid and determination of the rights and
liabilities through the application of law.
TAKE NOTE:
Generally, publication need not be in full. In fact, the
publication may be done omitting certain portions of the rule
if the administrative rule is very lengthy. There is no
requirement that everything must be published, except if the
rule carries a penal provision, the Administrative Code
requires that everything must be published no matter how
long the full text might be.
The word laws in Article 2 (Article 1 of the old Civil Code)
includes circulars and regulations which prescribe penalties.
Publication is necessary to apprise the public of the contents
of the regulations and make the said penalties binding on the
persons affected thereby. (citations omitted.) (Pesigon v.
Angeles, G.R. No. 64279, April 30, 1984)
Publication is part of due process.
4. FAIR AND REASONABLE

In the same way that we require a statute to be fair and
reasonable, with more reason that we should also
require that the implementing rules to be fair and
reasonable.
What constitutional requirement provides that every law
must be fair and reasonable?
Due Process, which includes substantive and
procedural due process. Anhi ta sa substantive due
process
which
requires
fairness
and
reasonableness of the law. Now, if we require the
law to be fair and reasonable, we should also
require the implementing rules to be the same. For
example,
See Lupangco vs. CA (1998): PRCs resolution

which provides that no examinee shall attend any
review class, briefing, conference or the like conduct
by, or shall receive any hand-out, review material, or
any tip from any school, college or university, or any
review center during the three days immediately
preceding every examination day including the
examination day.
What happened here is in the CPA Board
Exam, there were reports that there was a
leakage of answers. So PRC made the
resolution above to minimize chances of
cheating among the students. The Supreme
Court said that it is not fair and reasonable.
First, this violates academic freedom for
those Universities and Colleges offering
review classes. And for me, personally,
overbreadth pud siya kay abi lang naay
ni-report ug cheating kay di na dayon pwede
mu-attend ug review class and manghatag
ug notes and tips from the school. Supreme
Court also observed that it is very hard to
implement. Unsaun man tawn na nimu
pagmonitor ang tanang skwelahan? Okay ra
siguro law schools kay pila ra manang law
schools, pero schools offering accountancy
programs. Bisan gamay ra na nga college
kay maka-offer ra dayon. So its really hard
to monitor. So the Supreme Court said that
its really not a reasonable resolution of the
PRC.
See also GMA vs. COMELEC (2014): The

unreasonable result of the subject COMELEC
resolution (redefining airtime limits for campaign in
broadcast and radio) would be that a candidate will
only have about 81 seconds per day in one station
or about 27 seconds in three stations.
Parehas na nag advertisement sa radio nga
pwerteng paspasa na gyud. Di man ganeh
ta makasabot ana nila nga pila na sila
ka-minutes, unsa nalang nang pila ka
seconds.
So
indeed
unreasonable
according to the Supreme Court.
QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER
HOW TO DETERMINE IF QJ IS INVOLVED:
-
the function of granting, denying, suspending or

revoking license, permit, franchise or certificate
of public convenience and/or necessity is not

just purely administrative, but quasi-judicial or
adjudicative function because it is dependent
upon the ascertainment of facts by the agency
upon which a decision is to be made and rights
and
liabilities
determined
through
the
application of law. (Saado v. Court of Appeals)
HI JEPERSON!!! from Bumble Bee, hahahahaha
We look at the office but we look at the function it exercise.
So nature of power or function given to it by law must be
examined. So Commission on Human Rights in the
Constitution for example, had just been given by Constitution
with investigative power. So theres no power to adjudicate
ky investigation lng. Its important to read the case of
INGSINAS VS AGUSTIN (2013 CASE) because this
explained the characteristics of quasi judicial proceedings.
So basically you have taking and evaluating evidence,
determination of facts based on evidence, the rendition of
order supported by the facts, determination of what the law
is applicable to the specific controversy and then it involves
adjudication of respective rights of the parties involved.
So characterization of the functions involved is the first step
because there are rules applicable to that. One of which is
as shown in Ingisnas vs Agustin, doctrine of Res Judicata is
applicable also in judicial and quasi judicial proceeding. If
function involved is not judicial or quasi judicial, it is error on
the part of one invoking res judicata. Precisely it is called res
judicata from the word adjudicate. So it must have been in a
quasi judicial function. So this was illustrated in the case of
Meralco vs Atillano (June 2012 case). Why was it relevant in
that case? Because the secretary of the DOJ because the
procedure in the fiscal is that the prosecutor conducts
preliminary investigation first sends subpoena to file counter
affidavit. The prosecutor will either call the parties to hear
their sides in an informal way or simply render or issue a
resolution from the basis of the complaint and the counter
affidavit and the pieces of evidence attached to the
complaints or counter affidavit. After resolution of the
prosecutor, maybe provincial or city prosecutor, if you are
the aggrieved party, you can petition for review to the
regional state prosecutor (rsp) for certain crimes or go
straight to the DOJ Secretary. This case involves estafa. So
when it reached the DOJ Secretary which dismissed the
estafa filed by meralco, the resolution simply said that the
Secretary affirmed the resolution below and agreed with the
ruling of the City Prosecutor. Wla na discussion as to the
facts and the law. So gi question ky this is a violation kuno of
the requirement in the constitution that the decision must
state the facts and law upon which it is based.
In my notes I stated that the constitutional and
administrative code requirement. So question, unsa diay na
ang requirement na ang decision must state the facts and
the law. Applicable lng na sa court? Section 4 article 8 of the
constitution which says that the decision must state the facts
and the law upon which it is based is applicable only in
judicial bodies so only to courts. So that provision is not
applicable to quasi-judicial bodies. So that provision is not
applicable to quasi-judicial bodies. Now question, may a
decision therefore of a quasi-judicial body refuse to state the
facts and law upon which it is based? The answer is no.
Because while section 4 article 8 of the constitution is not
applicable to administrative bodies, the administrative code
however require quasi-judicial bodies to still state the facts
and the law upon which the decision is based.
and the purpose only is to determine whether there is prima
facie evidence for the filing in court. Look at the finding, is
the finding a final finding of liability? No. the resolution will
simply say that there is a prima facie evidence for the filing of
the case in court, also known as probable cause.
Again we go back to the rule, we distinguish
quasi-legislative from quasi-judicial.
Again, notice and hearing generally quasi-judicial,
quasi-legislative only publication is required. Take note of
the exceptions though.
Quasi-judicial functions sets different requirements for resort
to court, doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
applies to quasi-judicial functions and not to quasi-legislative.
Quasi-judicial decisions generally appealable to CA or SC
because considered equal in rank with RTC. Policy of court
for Quasi-judicial powers is that generally the court will not
entertain factual findings, only when there is clear showing of
capricious or whimsical judgment,
grave abuse of
discretion, not uniform pronouncement of courts, or clear
mistakes of fact, clear error in the appreciation of the facts.
Quasi-judicial bodies as considered with the RTC, so you
dont go to the RTC, exception is here is shown in the case
of Heirs of Vidad vs. Landbank of the Philippines 2010, the
DARAB is given the power to determine just compensation
for those lands covered under the CARL, DARAB there is
exercising Quasi-judicial function. However, per specific rule,
instead of going to the CA, it is required that the decision of
the DARAB be brought to a special agrarian court which is
actually an RTC, so while DARAB is exercising
Quasi-judicial function, it is not equal with RTC in this case.
Ofcourse quasi-judicial bodies decisions are still subject to
judicial review even if it says final and unappealable.
Requisities for the exercise of quasi-judicial functions by
administrative body:
public. So in this case, the jurisdiction of the public service

commission states that matters of rates that it may charge
doesnt include a cause of action involving the failure to
deliver telegraphic message or for poor services. So, you go
to court.
1. Must have jurisdiction

(do not look at the parties to determine the jurisdiction, but
the cause of action and the applicable law which would tell
you the proper jurisdiction)
So its not a violation of Admin Due Process. Whats required

is that at the very least, theres an opportunity to seek a
reconsideration.
General idea of a cause of action is the act constitutes a

violation or invasion of anothers rights. What determines the
right of the other person is the law. For you to be able to
know jurisdiction, first, you should identify the cause of
action. If your cause of action is to enforce an incentive or a
bonus scheme by the employer. You are trying to enforce
therefore a contract. So there was therefore a violation of a
contractual obligation. Your cause of action therefore is
specific performance in a way because you want to enforce
a contract. The SC said that the provision when it comes to
contract is the Civil Code and what law is applicable to those
labor cases? Labor Code. So SC said that it is the regular
court which has the jurisdiction because it is not the Labor
Code that is applicable.
The ultimate test to know if that is the particular cause of
action, you ask the question what law is applicable to that
particular cause of action? If that is the applicable law if Civil
Code then regular courts. For example, in the case of Globe
Wireless Ltd. Theres even a case before this which is RCPI.
This is about telegrams na wala naabot unya kabahin baya
to ug patay. So RCPI was sued before the NTC because he
wants RCPI to be fined. SC said that there is no question
that since it is a regulatory body, it will have the power to
impose fines but not when it comes to poor service to public.
Perhaps, kanang regulatory or monitoring scheme na pa
submiton mo ug reportial requirements then you will not
submit, then you can be fined but for poor service (e.g. no
signal), you are therefore enforcing a contract there, the
contract between you and the provider. AT & T in the US,
similar to their fair use policy sa Globe. Mu subscribe ka ug
globe then giingnan ka ug unlimited use sa data sa internet
but pag abot sa 2.5 gig then ni slow down. AT & T was fined
because of that practice in the US. So, Globe right now is not
anymore practicing that fair use, so they will no longer say
that it is unlimited because they dont have the obligation
really to make it unlimited. So it creates confusion to the
Of course your due process requirement. Its not difficult to

understand administrative due process; what is required is
only 1. Opportunity to be heard. But this might not be very
familiar to you---a second opportunity to explain ones side,
opportunity to seek reconsideration. So it is not a violation of
administrative due process even if you havent received a
copy of the complaint at the first instance.
So it is not a violation of Administrative Due process even if
you have not received a copy of the complaint at the first
instance.
Ex. There was an administrative complaint filed against you.
A hearing was conducted, you were not able to participate
also. Witnesses have been asked to testify, you were not
able to provide a witness. Decision came, but eventually,
you were given a copy of the decision. You have 15 days
within which to file a Motion For Reconsideration. If you were
able to file an MR within 15 days, these supposed defects
are DEEMED CURED. Why? Your MR will be treated as an
answer to the complaint! What ever arguments against the
witnesses presented. You can also evidences in your MR, so
thats your opportunity to present evidence.
Other rules:
a. Ang Tibay vs. CIR, which enumerated the requisites of
Admin Due Process:
1. Right to Hearing
2. Tribunal must consider evidence presented
3. Decision must have something to support itself
4. Evidence must be substantial
5. Decision must be based on the evidence adduced at
the hearing or at least contained in the record and
disclosed to the parties
6. The Board or its judges must act on its or their
independent consideration of the facts and the law
of the case, and not simply accept the views of a
subordinate in arrive at a decision
7. Decision must be rendered in such a manner that
the parties to the controversy can know the various
issues involved and the reasons for the decision
rendered.
b. Rivera v. CSC: Requirement of impartiality of the
tribunal applies to administrative due process. In this case,
there was a hearing officer. Later on,nahimong
commissioner. Siya ra gihapon nagdecide sa case decided
below.
c. ATIENZA, JR. V. COMELEC (2010)- The requirements of
administrative due process do not apply to the internal affairs
of political parties(obviously you apply it only in the admin
bodies). The due process standards set in Ang Tibay cover
only administrative bodies created by the state and through
which certain governmental acts or functions are performed.
EXCEPTIONS TO NOTICE AND HEARING AS
REQUIREMENTS FOR DUE PROCESS
Whats important here is that you know the reasons why they
dont need notice and hearing.
Summary Abatement of Nuisance per se (police

power)
Preventive Suspension (it is not a penalty)
Padlocking of filthy restaurants, theaters, etc.
(they are actually nuisance per se)
Cancellation
of
Passport
of
accused
(pragmatism, accused may escape)
Summary distraint and levy (lifeblood theory of
taxation; need for taxes)
Grant of Provisional Authority (temporary only)
-Not unless this is the same with Maceda vs. ERP
that in petroleum products, grant of provisional rates
will still need notice and hearing prior to the
issuance.
QUANTUM OF PROOF
Lameyra v. Pangilinan, 322 SCRA 117

substantial evidence
Rubberworld v. NLRC, 175 SCRA 450
substantial evidence means such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.
Energy Regulatory Board v. Court of Appeals
To understand the nature of substantial evidence
we compare it to the other evidentiary proofs, thus:
hierarchy of evidentiary values:
(1) proof beyond reasonable doubt (criminal)the moral certainty as to the commission of the
crime
(2) clear and convincing evidence (extradition)firm belief or conviction as to the existence of a
fact. Some SC decision will say simply that its
higher than preponderance of evidence but
lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
(3) preponderance of evidence (civil)- simply
means greater weight. So if there are 2 parties,
the evidence with greater weight.
(4) substantial
evidence
(administrative)sometimes, SC says that this is lesser than
preponderance of evidence.
QUESTION
May an administrative agency rely on affidavits submitted to
it in rendering a decision when the affiants had not been
called to testify and to identify their affidavits?
WHAT ABOUT AFFIDAVITS? Whats the value of these in
admin proceedings?
As a General Rule, if you dont present the affiant, its
hearsay. Mu-ana dayon ka na technical rules are not
applicable here in Admin. So you ask, are these affidavits
admissible?
Answer: YES. They are admissible but they have to be
admitted with caution. This is because of how the affidavits
are prepared. They are practically prepared by the lawyers.
Ex. Affiant na grade 2 ra, maayo kaayo muhimog affidavit.
Muana dayon I, the respondent in this case...I had been
advised by the lawyer to say that this agency has no
jurisdiction. Kuyawa ah! Hisgot namag jurisdiction! Ok rana
kay gi-advise.an man siya sa lawyer. Pero lisud.
PLDT v. Tiamson (2005)

Although admissible in evidence, affidavits being
self-serving must be received with caution. This is
because the adverse party is not afforded any
opportunity to test their veracity. By themselves,
generalized and pro forma affidavits cannot

constitute relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind may accept as adequate. There must be
some other relevant evidence to corroborate
such affidavits.
It doesnt mean that we ignore or dispense with the basic
and fundamental rules of evidence. Rules such as he who
alleges, must prove his allegations, of course, very
fundamental. Even in labor cases, you can also say that
mere allegations are not evidence. Self-serving evidence is
also weak evidence.
*Story about ni Judge Singco and one defense lawyer
regarding denial and alibi as weak defences
RULES OF PROCEDURE
There are two reasons why quasi-judicial bodies have the
power to promulgate rules of procedure:
1. Doctrine of Necessary Implication
2. The Constitution grants such power when it stated
that Rules of procedure of special courts and
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court [Section 5(5) last
par., Article VIII, 1987 Constitution).
DBL: This is an implied grant of the power to
promulgate rules of procedure of quasi-judicial
bodies. Nevertheless, through the Doctrine of
Necessary Implication, the power is necessarily
implied even in the absence of a Constitutional
provision.
So what are the basic precepts with regards to the power of
quasi-judicial bodies to promulgate rules of procedure?
1. Impliedly granted by the Constitution.
2. Valid until disapproved by the Supreme Court.
Should the rules be approved by the Supreme Court
in order to be valid? No. It will continue to exist and
be implemented unless and until disapproved by the
Supreme Court.
3. Must not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights. This is a basic Constitutional
requirement.
4. The Rules of Court applies suppletorily. Even in
labor cases, you can make use of certain rules not
found in the NLRC Rules of Procedure. You can
make use of provisions in the Rules of Court.
Especially in the execution stage, daghan kaau
nang gray areas so you can make use of remedies
under the RROC on how to execute judgments.
SUBPOENA AND CONTEMPT POWERS
Are quasi-judicial bodies clothed with subpoena and
contempt powers?
If the law does not grant contempt
powers, is there a way that a disobedient party may be
punished because of such disobedient act?
You know the rules, subpoena and contempt powers are of
course judicial in nature. Since we are talking here of
administrative proceedings, the only way by which the
administrative agency can exercise these powers is if these
powers have been expressly granted to them. Thats why the
Supreme Court pronounced in Carmelo vs. Ramos(In Re:
Contempt Proceedings Against Armando Ramos, GR No.
L-17778, November 30, 1962)
Subpoena and contempt powers, not being
inherent can be exercised only if first, it is allowed
by law and second, must be in connection with
the matter they (administrative bodies) are
authorized to investigate.
Meaning, narrow iyang scope. When we say authorized by
law, how may the administrative agency make use of this
power?
You mentioned about seeking the aid of the courts and then
somebody mentioned about directly imposing contempt. So
which is which? Go to court or directly impose contempt in
case of disobedience of the subpoena for example?
So, this is importantsubpoena and contempt powers. You
have to understand this very carefullywell actually the
exercise of subpoena and contempt powers would be either:
1. The law allows the administrative agency itself to
DIRECTLY exercise the power. It is possible that the
law grants the agency that power to directly issue
subpoena and cite in contempt the disobedient
party.
Ex. The Ombudsman not only is the
ombudsman given directly by law the
power to issue subpoena, is also
granted contempt power. Meaning, the
body na itself and mu cite in contempt
sa disobedient body.
This is one option congress may
havegrant right away contempt
powers.
2. If however, there is no specific grant of that
contempt power then, an administrative agency-there are now two types of administrative agencies,
if you analyze Carmelo v. Ramos case: (must be
distinguished from each other):
i. There are agencies created by the
Administrative Code of 1987 and;
The different bureaus and agencies may
avail of Sec. 13 Chapter 3 Book 7 of the
code in contested casesmeaning,
exercising extra-judicial functions. So, very
important to make as a precondition that,
the agency is exercising extra-judicial
function because the code saidin
contested cases. If that is the case, then,
any of the administrative agencies created
by the admin code in contested cases-may avail of Sec. 13 Chapter 3 Book
7which allows the administrative agency to
seek the aid of the RTC.
ii. Those administrative agencies that had been
created after the administrative code and
will be created (in the future); those
created by law or will be created by law
(created by congress) after the admin
code.
How can we tell whether these agencies
have contempt powers?
Is there a
threshold before these administrative
agencies can exercise the contempt
powers? (walay question ba kung
gi.grant.an) Ang question lang, kung wala
gi.grant, is there still a way that contempt
power may be exercised using Sec. 13
Chapter 3 Book 7 invoking/seeking the aid
of the court? This is where Carmelo v.
Ramos case finds relevance
i. According to the SC (interpretation ni sir)-- if
the agency has been created by congress
other than the administrative code, then,
there should be a grant at least that power
to take testimony of evidence. Without that
power, that agency cannot even seek the
aid of the court similar to the power granted
to administrative agencies created by the
administrative code. Dili ni investigation ha,
lain
ng
take
testimony
of
evidencenag.gather jud siya ug evidence,
naa gyuy hearing officer in a way. Ang NBI
for example, mag,gather mana ug
evidence but it will not conduct its
investigation in a way that it is getting the
testimony of those subjected to the
investigation. So, if it is purely investigative

then, it cannot confer the quasi-judicial
body the power to cite a person in
contempt under the admin code.
REVIEW:
So, 2 ways
1) To grant right away the power to cite in contempt; or
2) If not granted, check if the agency was created by
the Admin Codego to Book 7 but only in contested
cases (involving quasi-judicial function) because it
was not directly granted the power to cite in
contempt so, it has to seek the aid of the court
because contempt power is not inherent in that body.
If the agency is something else not created under
the Administrative Code, Carmelo v. Ramos
saidat least that body must be clothed by
legislature with the power to receive/take testimony
and receive evidence. So, issue siyag ug subpoena
kay naa may power to take testimony and receive
evidence then, in case of disobedience, it can go to
the RTC under the rules of court.
Is Res judicata applicable in administrative agencies?
Applicable in quasi-judicial bodies and judicial
bodies of course, NOT in purely administrative
functions
Res judicata applicable in administrative agencies? Why did
I mention that? Res judcata applicable in quasi-judicial
bodies and judicial bodies not including administrative
functions.
San Luis vs Court of Appeals
Same elements on? Res judicata, whats the test? How to
test whether res judicata is applicable? Aw naa diay
elements. But essentially unsa man? Litis pendecia will
apply dba? And of course you take note of the three
elements.
RES JUDICATA IN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
San Luis v. Court of Appeals, 174 SCRA 258

Although a judicial concept in origin, res judicata
now applies to QJ decisions. The elements are: (a)
sameness of causes of actions, (b) sameness of
issues, (c) identity of parties/privies.
Board of Commissioners v. Dela Rosa 197 SCRA 853

Exception is in the case of administrative adjudication on
citizenship. Because apart from looking at the sameness of
causes of action, issues and identity of parties, we add three
more requirements.
1. The adjudication of citizenship must have been done
by the SC;
2. It should be the main issue in the case; and
3. The SolGen must have taken a direct and active part
in the proceedings.
NOTE: In Board of Commissioners v. Dela Rosa 197
SCRA 853, there is no res judicata in administrative
adjudication of citizenship unless certain requisites (3) are
present: Supreme Court Decision, main issue and SolGens
participation.
MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
QUASI-LEGISLATIVE ACTS/RULES:
-
RTC (Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation; validity)
If quasi-legislative as you know, you go to the RTC lang. Not

MTC because if you seek for the nullification of a rule, the
cause of action is incapable of pecuniary estimation. So you
go to the RTC not with the MTC.
QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS:
-
Rule 43 (to the CA) (excluding Labor Code

decisions)( Petion for Review)
(Mixed Questions of FACTS and LAW)
Rule 45 (to the SC)
(Pure Question of LAW)
Rule 65 (to the CA [following Hierarchy of Courts
Doctrine])
(Graves Abuse of Discretion amounting to)
As for quasi-judicial decisions, we have three rules:

1. Rule 43 PETITION FOR REVIEW to the Court of
Appeals. We exclude the Labor Code Decisions per
specific provision of the rule. Because for Labor
Code decisions, as you know NLRC, Labor Arbiter,
NLRC, then no more appeal. Thats why the remedy
is Certiorari under Rule 65, you go to the CA under
St. Martin Funerals Doctrine. CA before SC under
the Hierarchy of Courts Doctrine. Note: The petition
is called PETITION FOR REVIEW, theres another
petition that might confuse you its PETITION FOR
REVIEW ON CERTIORARI. And theres another
one also with the term CERTIORARI, PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI. TN: Facts, law or mixed
questions of facts and law for RULE 43.
2. Rule 45 PETITION FOR REVIEW ON
CERTIORARI. Pure questions of law, you go to the
SC.
3. Rule 65 To the CA following Hierarchy of Courts
Doctrine, via PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. Ground:
Grave abuse of discretion.
SUBJECTS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
Ombudsman v. Bungubung (2008)
Petition for review on certiorari filed with the SC
under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court shall raise
only questions of law. A question of law has been defined
as one that does not call for any examination of the probative
value of the evidence presented by the parties.
In Ombudsman v. Bungubung (2008), that has been
confirmed. Only question of law under Rule 45. I dont think
its a difficult task to determine whether the question is one of
fact or law. Di man siguro na lisod. So if you have allegations,
even if they hinge on certain facts but the resolution of which
would require application of law and for example it would
require a final determination of what law is applicable or
whether in the first place in a particular rule or part of a rule
is valid then thats a question of law you can go straight to
the SC via RULE 45, PETITION FOR REVIEW ON
CERTIORARI.
BASIC RULES ON REVIEW
1. Decisions must be based on SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE ONLY;
2. Findings of facts made therein are to be
respected so long as there are supported by
substantial evidence; Hence, it is not for the
reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence,

determine the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise
substitute its judgment with that of the QJ Body; (So
do not think findings of facts deserve great respect.
Thats not the rule. Findings of facts that are
supported by substantial evidence, mao na ang mo,
the court will accord great respect.)
3. Administrative decisions in matters within the
executive jurisdiction can only be set aside on
proof of:
(1) grave abuse of discretion,
(2) fraud, or
(3) error of law.
See: Ombudsman v. Bungubung (2008), citing Montemayor
v. Bundalian (2003)
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION
APPLICABILITY: WHEN REGULAR COURTS

HAVE ALSO CONCURRENT JURISDICTION
OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
RULE: THE REGULAR COURT REFERS THE
MATTER TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY
WHICH HAS THE COMPETENCE TO RESOLVE
THE CONTROVERSY (ORDINARILY REQUIRING
EXPERTISE OR SKILL).
EFFECT: THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDING IS
SUSPENDED PENDING REFERRAL TO THE QJ
BODY
The doctrine is applicable of course in a situation where the

court and the administrative agency have concurrent
jurisdiction.
Q: So what are examples of this?
A: For example: If the essence of the cause of action is
recovery of a movable property.
Q: What is the remedy under the rules?
A: Replevin.
Q: If you want to recover your motor vehicle?
A: Replevin.
Q: If you are to recover a computer, laptop?
A: Replevin.
Now you want to recover an item that had been seized by
the Bureau of Customs because of an initial finding of
smuggling. Your claim is, its not a smuggled goods or items.
So you dont say that it is smuggled and you will seize it,
confiscate it. Thats your allegation. So you want to recover it
because youre saying di na siya smuggled. Diba replevin is
a remedy for recovery of movable property. So here,
generally, all cases of recovery of personal property, regular
court. But there are special reasons because its provided for
in special procedure that there are certain movable
properties, the possession of which maybe in a particular
agency because of some specialized considerations.
But there are special reasons because its provided
for by special procedure, that there are certain
movable properties, the possession of which maybe
in a particular agency because of some specialized
considerations, like determination of whether it is a
smuggled good or not. This is so technical. So who
determines whether it is smuggled or not? You have
specialized agencies. Illegal logging cases, for
example, timber or other lumber and unique permit
for example from the DENR, so it was recovered
from being confiscated (recovery of personal
property). But for special reasons, because of the
competence of specialized agencies, law grants
them jurisdiction also. Thats why its concurrent.
This is where the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
will be applied.
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION
APPLICABILITY:
WHEN
REGULAR
COURTS HAVE ALSO CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT
MATTER
RULE: THE REGULAR COURT REFERS
THE
MATTER
TO
THE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY WHICH
HAS
THE
COMPETENCE
TO
RESOLVE
THE
CONTROVERSY
(ORDINARILY
REQUIRING
EXPERTISE OR SKILL).
EFFECT: THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDING
IS
SUSPENDED
PENDING
REFERRAL TO THE QJ BODY
So, you apply the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction,

what is the rule? Suspend only, not dismiss. It
should be referred to the Quasi-Judicial body
concerned.
DOCTRINE OF PRIOR EXHAUSTION OF

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
APPLICABILITY: WHEN REFERRAL TO
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND
RESORT
TO
ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES ARE MADE CONDITION
PRECENDENT
BEFORE
THE
CONTROVERSY CAN BE BROUGHT
TO THE COURT.
RULE: THE REGULAR COURT WILL
DISMISS THE CASE OF THERE IS
NON-COMPLIANCE.
EFFECT:
DISMISSAL
WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
NOTE:
THERE
ARE
SEVERAL
EXCEPTIONS
EXCEPTIONS
Pure Question of Law
Agency is estopped
Act is patently illegal
Urgent need for judicial intervention
Small Claims
Irreparable Damage will be suffered
No other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy
Strong public interest
Private Land
Quo Warranto
(I think sir is giving sample problems on some items

in the exception)
Pure Question of Law it is difficult to craft a
question on this topic.
Quo Warranto where the rule on qualified political
agency will apply; demand of public service will
require that issues involving positions, public offices,
should be resolve with (dispatch?); example: you file
a case because you think that the director had been
invalidly appointed and you think you are the rightful
possessor to the office, then you file a Quo
Warranto.
private land cases & act is patently illegal
TN: topics not discussed doesnt mean it will not be
asked in my exam.
Your goal is not to pass my exam but to become
LAWYERS.
FERNANDEZ, CALAM, BARING, SACARES, PABUAYA,

GENERALE, DIONALDO, DIN, ALBANO, YAP,
FERNANDEZ, OBESO, EMBOY, MORALES, YNTIG,
DIONEN, YANO, MALIGMAT
Doctrine of Prior Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies is

different from your Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction because
in Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction, concurrent, in Doctrine of
Prior Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies initial
jurisdiction is with the administrative agency, not with the
court. So the rule is you have to exhaust these remedies
plus complete the process. If this is not complied with, it may
be susceptible, meaning your cause of action in court not
complying with this one, to motion to dismiss for failure to
comply with a condition precedent, or at the very least,
failure to state your cause of action. So he case will be
dismissed. Unlike in the application of the Doctrine of Prior
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies, non-compliance of
this rule will not oust the court of jurisdiction. This will not
affect the jurisdiction of the court. That is why, even if there
is non-compliance of prior exhaustion of administrative
remedies, and the other party failed to invoke this ground for
dismissal, the court can still continue and exercise
jurisdiction. This will not affect the courts jurisdiction
because this is subject to waiver. The dismissal, if there is
invocation of the doctrine, is without prejudice. Note of the
various exception.

Admin - Complete Long

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Admin - Complete Long

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive,if you have faith.

USUAL BAR EXAM QUESTIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE

DBL: Karon pa ko kanotice nga every four

Delegation to admin agencies

Delegation to the president

law may be enforced (Easternshipping lines Inc.

Delegation to local government units

Delegation to the People

Pp vs Maceren GR No. 32166 October 18, 1977 (Favorite

The reasons for the delegation to the Administrative

study of admin law involves the study of

Student: commission on human rights

statute creating admin bodies; the admin code and

Internal Administration considers the legal aspects

You were asked to read in the outline the important terms in

including regulatory agencies, chartered institutions and

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW: ATTY. DB LARGO| BATCH 2016 | 4

Under the power of control of the President?

Effects if entity is considered government instrumentality

subject to Civil Service Laws;

(f) subject to the control of the President (? - Sir. Largo)

Valid not because of the power to reorganize but pursuant to

In other words, the President can create an Ad hoc office,

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW: ATTY. DB LARGO| BATCH 2016 | 6

autonomous entity, albeit administratively attached to

Philippines. Kay na preventively suspended man si

For Political Reasons and purposely to defeat

next-in-rank rule, therefore is not applicable in

intended to meet the specific needs of a deregulated power

May a public officer validly claim

collegiate body, judicial power as well. It we tall about the SC.

Consequently therefore, any act of the alter ego will be

In general, since the act of the Secretary is

One notable exception is when the Doctrine of Qualified

Well, there are 2 reasons there:

Which means where there is this decision of the secretary,

1. By reason of necessity, the President of course cannot

HOWEVER, where the particular agencys rules provide for

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW: ATTY. DB LARGO| BATCH 2016 | 10

Case in point: Southern Cross vs. Cement Manufacturers

as to implementing or executing a law. This could never

modify the decisions of regulatory agencies

applicable to the public and not to a particular individual we

While the law does not expressly grant the Pollution

Does not include the

Does not include the

So, what important provisions should be found in the

to another. And problema kay ang Chairman of the National

Lets go to Kinds of Administrative Regulations

why a publication is required - that is part of DUE

Interpretation of rules does not, as a general

So as to the matter of publication, interpretative rules dont

Interpretative rules are given weight but never conclusive.

In the case of Executive Secretary v. Southwing Heavy

You notice that EO 156 issued by the President was

The authority as analized by the supreme court was only

Talking about Family Law, our Family Code is an Executive

What need NOT be published, although, it is better to just

regulating activities elections, I think the COMELECs

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW: ATTY. DB LARGO| BATCH 2016 | 18

GMA NETWORK, INC., vs. COMMISSION

(3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall

The five (5) petitions before the Court put in

But how do translate this to actual events?