Adlawan, Catherine Bernabe, Joseph Admin Law (EXEC CLASS) Administrative Review In laymans term review pertain to an evaluation

or inspection of a thing. In political law Review is a reconsideration or re-examination of a decision or ruling of a subordinate officer by a superior officer or in case of administrative agencies by higher administrative agency. It is the power to determine whether it is necessary to correct the acts of the subordinate and to see to it that he perform his duties in accordance with law. Administrative Review therefore is the power by higher officer in an administrative agency in the government to scrutinize or if it so warrants correct or reverse the acts or decisions of a subordinate and ensure that the subordinate do his duties. Limitations of Administrative Review Like any power granted to public officials administrative review is not absolute and must concede to certain limitations. In the case De Leon vs Heir of Gregorio Reyes, the Supreme Court pointed out that while heads of administrative agency have the power to reverse or change the findings of their subordinate they cannot do this haphazardly or indiscriminately. While there is no disputing the authority of administrative superiors to reverse the findings of their subordinates, this power must be exercised sparingly and only upon a clear showing of error. Lacking such flaw, the decision of the lower administrative officials should be sustained, if only because they have closer access to the problem sought to be resolved and have the direct opportunity to question the parties and their witnesses and to assess the evidence first-hand.1 The rule therefore is that for administrative officials to be able to reverse or change the decisions or findings of their subordinates it must be shown that the subject decision under review is flawed and erroneous; if the decision in question is correct and just then such decision must be upheld and sustained. The general rule with regards to evidences is that evidences not formally submitted or during the hearing may not be presented or submitted if the matter is already on appeal. This general rule though has an exception. The exception applies to issues not raised before the lower administrative agency and evidences in relation with these issues were not properly presented but the lower administrative agency resolved such issues in its decision. In the case of Vda. De Pineda vs Pena2, the Supreme Court ruled that refusal and disregard of the reviewing agency to consider rebuttal evidence on the ground that it was not presented properly during the hearing amounts to grave abuse of discretion. Appeal to higher administrative body is not limited to review of evidence submitted if there is no law prohibiting such body from conducting further hearing on

1 2

De Leon v. Heirs of Gregorio Reyes, 155 SCRA 584, 588 (1987) 187 SCRA 22 (1990)

issues of facts. The Cases of Reyes v Zamora3 and Benguet Exploration, Inc. v DENR4 explain the points and rationale of allowing administrative bodies to conduct further hearing on issues of facts. While the case of Reyes pointed out that participation in the hearing by the party estopped such party from questioning the hearing, it also emphasize that lack of law prohibiting the president from conducting further hearing and the necessity for the new hearing because of the lack in important facts germane to the determination of the issue. While the case of Benguet Exploration pointed out the fundamental essential requirements of due process in trials and investigation of an administrative character and in the interest of justice that new hearings is allowed especially in case that factual circumstances must be ascertain to justly decide the case. Another limitation to Administrative Review is that the one reviewing is not the same person who rendered the judgment. This is possible when the subordinate official is promoted to higher position, which his previous decisions are appealed to the office he now occupies. The one who made the decision is inhibited to make the review; the decision of the reviewing officer will be bias since he was the one who made the decision. The Supreme Court in the case of Zambales Chromite Mining Company vs CA 5 struck down the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources because it was established that decision being reviewed was decided by the Secretary himself while still holding lower or subordinate office. His action was called as a mockery of administrative justice.

3 4

90 SCRA 92 (1979) 75 SCRA 285 (1977) 5 94 SCRA 261 (1979)