ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Administrative law is the part of public law establishing the framework
and determining the competence of administrative authorities (offices of
the government) and provides the individual person with remedies in
case his rights are violated. It is made up of laws which organize
administrative bodies; rules, regulations and orders issued by these
bodies, decisions over controversies in their particular field of
specialization; and doctrines dealing with their creating, operation and
effect of their decisions and regulations
As a function, administration refers to the implementations of the laws in
non-judicial matters by competent authority. As an organization, it refers
to the people controlling it for the time being.
Administration is classified into internal and external. Internal refers to
the legal side of public administration (personnel, budgeting, etc.)
External refers to problems of government regulations (regulation of
profession, business, etc.)
Administrative Bodies
An administrative body is a government organ that is neither a court nor
a legislative body (Senate, etc.) which affects the rights of parties either
through its rule-making or quasi-judicial powers. They created either by
the Constitution, law or by authority of law. Even though an
administrative agency conducts hearings and settles controversies, its
function is primarily regulatory since these hearings are part of its
regulatory duty. The rule-making power is administrative if it sets down
the details for the enforcement of law and doesn't have the discretion to
determine what the law says.
Types of Administrative Bodies:
1.) Those set up to make the government a private party (ex. the
GOCCs)
2.) Those set up for situations where the government offers grants or
special privileges (ex. Bureau of Lands)
3.) Those where police power is needed to regulate private businesses
and persons (ex. SEC)

4.) Those set up to adjust individual controversies because of strong

social policies
3.) Those set up to perform some business service to the public (ex.
COWD)
6.) Those set up to regulate business that affect public interest
7.) Those set up to carry out actual government business (ex. BIR)
POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES
Quasi-Legislative Power
the authority delegated by the law-making body to the administrative
body to adopt rules and regulations intended to carry out the provisions
of a law and implement legislative policy.

Exercise of delegated legislative power

Involves no discretion as to what the law shall be
Fix the details in the execution or enforcement of a policy
Rules and regulations issued by administrative authorities pursuant
to powers delegated to them have the force and effect of law
o They are binding on all persons subject to them
o Courts will take judicial notice
Letters of Instructions and Eos are presidential issuances; one may
repeal or alter, modify or amend the other, depending on which
comes later.
The function of promulgating rules and regulations may be
legitimately exercised only for the purpose of carrying out the
provisions of the law into effect.
Administrative regulations cannot extend the law or amend a
legislative enactment.
Administrative regulations must be in harmony with the provisions
of law. It must not override, but must remain consistent with the
law they seek to apply and implement.
Administrative agency has no discretion whether or not to
implement a law. Its duty is to enforce the law.
Administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which
relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of
Government.

Quasi-Judicial Power
the power of the administrative authorities to make determinations of
facts in the performance of their official duties and to apply the law as
they construe it to the facts so found.
Quasi-judicial power when it performs in a judicial manner an act
which is essentially of an executive or administrative nature, where the
power to act in such manner is incidental to or reasonably necessary for
the performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it.
In carrying out their quasi-judicial functions, the administrative officers or
bodies are required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of
facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from them as
basis for their official action and exercise of discretion in a judicial nature.
-

Proceedings partake of the character of judicial proceedings

Administrative 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 Judges must act on its or independence
consideration of the facts and the law of the case, and not
simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving 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
In forfeiture proceeding, where the owner of the allegedly
prohibited article is known, mere posting of the notice of hearing in
the Bulletin Board does not constitute compliance.
Due process demands that the person be duly informed of the
charges against him. He cannot be convicted of an offense with
which he was not charged.

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies,
an administrative decision must first be appealed to the administrative
superior up to the highest level before it may be elevated to a court of
justice for review
A. Reasons
(1)The administrative superiors, if given the opportunity, can correct the
errors committed by their subordinates;(2)Courts should as much as
possible refrain from disturbing the findings of administrative bodies
in deference to the doctrine of separation of powers;(3)On practical
grounds, it is best that the courts should not be saddled with the review
of administrative cases;(4)Judicial review of administrative cases
is usually effected through the special civil actions of certiorari,
mandamus and prohibition, which are available only if there is no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
B. Exceptions
(1)When the question raised is purely legal (question of law is
involved);
(2)When the administrative body is estoppel;
(3)When the act complained of is patently illegal;
(4)When there is urgent need for judicial intervention;
(5)When the claim involved is small;
(6)When irreparable damage will be suffered;
(7)When there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
(8)When strong public interest is involved;
(9)When the subject of the controversy is private land;
(10)In quo warranto proceedings

C. Appeal to the President

Of special interest is the question of whether or not a decision of
thecabinet member has to be appealed first to the President before it
may bebrought to a court of justice. Jurisprudence on this matter
is ratherindecisive.In the early case of demaisip vs. Court of Appeals, the
Court held thatappeal to the President was not necessary because the
Cabinet member was after all his alter ego and, under the doctrine of
qualified politicalagency, the acts of the secretary were the acts of the
President. This view was abandoned in Calo vs. Fuertes, where it was
held thatappeal to the President was the final step in the administrative
processand therefore a condition precedent to appeal to the courts.In
Bartulata vs. Peralta, however, the court reinstated the Demaisip
doctrine, again on the basis of alter ego justification. Tan vs. Director of
Forestry, thereafter revived Calo andagain requiredappeal to the
President as a prerequisite to an appeal of a Cabinet member's decision
to the courts of Justice.
D. Effect of Non-compliance
The failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not affect
the jurisdiction of the court and merely results in the lack of a cause
of action which may be invoked in a motion to dismiss. If this ground to
dismiss the court action is not properly or reasonably invoked, the court
may proceed to hear the case. As previously noted, the court has the
discretion to require the observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies and may, if it sees fit, dispense with it and
proceed with the disposition of the case.
Questions Reviewable
Two kinds of questions are reviewable by the courts of justice, to wit: the
question of fact and the question of law .
On the question of fact, review of the administrative decision lies in the
discretion of the legislature, which may or may not permit it as it sees fit.
But when it comes to the question of law , the administrative decision
may be appealed to the courts of justice independently of legislative
permission or even against legislative prohibition. The reason is that

the judiciary cannot be deprived of its inherent power to review all

decisions on questions of law, whether made initially by lower courts and
more soby an administrative body.
A. Questions of fact
Even if allowed to review administrative decisions on questions of fact,
courts of justice generally defer to such decisions and will decline to
disturb them except only where there is a clear showing of arbitrarinessor
grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court ruled in Osias Academy vs.
DOLE that findings of administrative agencies which have acquired
expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are
generally accorded not only respect but finality.
B. Questions of Law
Administrative bodies may be allowed to resolve questions of law in the
exercise of their quasi-judicial function as an incident of their primary
power of regulation. However as a rule, it is only the judicial tribunal that
can interpret and decide the question of law with finality.
Judicial Review
General Rules
An administrative decision may be appealed to the courts of justice only if
the Constitution or the law permits it or if the question to be reviewed is
a question of law. However, jurisprudence is replete with cases where the
Supreme Court has applied the exceptions rather than the rule. In the
case of the constitutional commission, i.e., the Commission on Elections,
the Commission on Audit, and the Civil Service Commission, it is provided
that any decision order or ruling of each Commission may be brought to
the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within30 days
from receipt of a copy thereof.On the basis of Sec. 16 of the Interim
Rules and Guideline implementing Sec. 9 (3) of BP Blg. 129, the Court of
Appeals may review final decisions, orders, awards or resolutions or
regional trial courts and of all quasi-judicial bodies, except the
Commission on Elections, the Commission on Audit, the Sandiganbayan,
and decisions issued under the Labor Code of the Philippines and by the
Central Board of Assessment Appeals.Other appeals are prescribed by
special laws, such as RA No. 1125, providing for appeal to the Court of
Tax Appeals of any decision rendered by the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs, or any provincial or city board of
assessment appeals.

Methods of review
The methods of judicial review are prescribed by the Constitution,
statutes or the Rules of the Court. These methods may be specific or
general.
It is provided in RA No. 5434 that an appeal from a final award,
order or decisions of the Patent Office shall be taken by filing with said
body and with the Court of Appeals a notice of appeal within 15 days
from notice of such award, order or ruling, copies being served on all
interested parties. The Administrative Code generally provides that an
appeal from an agency decision shall be perfected by filing with the
agency within 15days from receipt of a copy thereof a notice of appeal,
and with the reviewing court a petition for review of the order. Copies of
the petition shall be served upon the agency and all parties of record. The
petition shall contain a concise statement of the issues involved and the
grounds relied upon for the review, and shall be accompanied with a true
copy of the order appealed from, together with copies of such material
portions of the records as are referred to therein and other supporting
papers. The Supreme Court instructed certain universally accepted
axioms governing judicial review through the extraordinary actions of
certiorari or prohibition of determinations of administrative officers or
agencies: First, before said actions may be entertained, it must be
shown that allthe administrative remedies prescribed by law or ordinance
have been exhausted; and, Second, that the administrative decision may
properly be annulled or set aside only upon a clear showing that the
administrative official or tribunal has acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction, or with a grave abuse of discretion.
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction or Prior Resort
There are two doctrines that must be considered in connection with the
judicial review of administrative decisions:
(1) doctrine of primary jurisdiction or prior resort; and
(2) the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction simply calls for the determination
of administrative questions, which ordinarily questions of fact, by
administrative agencies rather courts of justice.

If the case is such that its determination requires the expertise,

specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies
because technical matters or intricate questions of facts are involved,
then relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a
remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within
the proper jurisdiction of the court