Administrative Law

Administrative Agency- government body charged with the administering and implementing particular legislation. The term
agency includes any department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority board and bureau.
(Rep. vs. CA)

 power of administrative bodies to sue or be sued can be derived from their power to make contracts as provided by
the law creating it.
 Abolishing an agency by way of a passage of a law is a valid cause for termination of employment of its workers.
But Congress cannot declare a position vacant to terminate employment. Security of tenure must be respected.
(Mayor vs. Macaraig)
 To consider an office abolished there must have been an intention to do away with it wholly and permanently.
(Busacay vs. Buenaventura)

Quasi legislative powers

 While it is fundamental that an administrative agency has only such powers as are expressly granted to it by law, it
is likewise a settled rule that an administrative agency has also such powers as are necessary implied in the
exercise of its express powers. ( LLDA vs. CA)
 The orders of the Bureau of Agriculture, while they may possibly said to have the force of law, are statues and
particularly not penal statues and violation of such orders is not a penal offense unless the statue itself makes a
violation thereof a violation and penalizes it. (US vs. Panlilio)
 An act not punished by a law cannot be held as a penal offense by an administrative order. Regulation of
administrative bodies should be germane to the objects and purposes of the law (People vs. Maceren)
 Only the legislature can alter the jurisdiction of the courts. If done by executive orders, it would be an excess of
powers delegated by congress. (UST vs. Board of Tax Appeals)
 Power of regulation and rule making, even if vested upon administrative agencies, are still subject to the statutory
requirement of due process.
Note: rate fixing in exercise of quasi-legislative powers, only publication is required. When it is in the exercise of
quasi-judicial powers, since it applies only to a particular entity, hearing is neaded. (PHILCOMSAT vs. Alcuaz)
 Regulations internal in nature need not be published but otherwise publication is still needed. (Tanada vs. Tuvera)
 If an agency is vested powers and such agency is under the office of the President, an EO pursuant to such
granted power is valid. (Araneta vs. Gatmaitan)

Requisites for valid regulations

1. rules and regulations should be based on an existing law
2. should be with in the purview of the law
3. the rules and regulations, if not internal in nature, should be published.

Generally penal clauses are not allowed in rules and regulations unless authorized by law.

 An administrative agency, by its charter, can adopt procedural rules to make its function more efficient. (Realty
Exchange Venture Co. Vs. Sendino)
 Any administrative agency cannot declare a law or administrative regulation as void. Such power rest with the
courts. (Eslao vs. COA)
 Interpretation of COMELEC rules by the same agency is favored. ( Recabo vs. COMELEC)

Quasi-Judicial powers

 When an administrative body is conferred with quasi-judicial powers all subject matter pertaining to its specialization
are deemed to be included within the jurisdiction of said administrative body. Split jurisdiction is not favored. ( Tejeda
vs. Homestead Property Co.)

Requisites of quasi-judicial powers:

1. jurisdiction
 2. due process i.e. notice and hearing
 authority to receive evidence and make factual conclusions must be accompanied by the authority of the applying
law. (Carino vs. CHR)
 power to investigate does not necessarily mean the power to decide on the merit.

Quasi judicial powers are; a) to hear cases b) to decide based on the merits

Administrative proceedings:
 Where the statute does not require ant particular method of procedure to be followed by an administrative agency,
the agency may adopt any reasonable method to carry out its functions. The courts cannot determine a controversy
involving questions which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal where the question demands the
exercise of sound administrative discretion. (Provident Tree Farms vs. Batario)
 Guide for administrative proceeding (Ang Tibay vs. CIR)
1. right of the parties to present case
2. tribunal must consider evidence presented
3. decision must be substantially supported
4. evidence must be substantial (relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion)
5. decision must be rendered on the evidence presented
6. tribunal must act independently on the law and facts of the controversy
7. decision must be in a manner that issues are known as well as reasons for such decision

 administrative bodies are not bound by technical rules on procedure, but substantive requirements of due process
must be observed. This includes also the right to counsel. ( Salaw vs. NLRC)
 Requirements of due process are satisfied by the opportunity to submit position papers by the parties. What the law
abhors is not the absence of previous notice but rather the absolute lack of opportunity to ventilate a party’s side.
(PNOC- Energy Dev. Co. vs. NLRC)
 Judicial review does not include questioning the sufficiency of evidence because the agency is said to be an expert
on the subject. Judicial review is limited to the determination of grave abuse of discretion.
 Additional evidence will not cure an error of lack of notice and due process. (Lawrence vs. NLRC)
 Procedure must follow the natural sequence of notice , hearing and judgment. (Lawrence case)
 In absence of a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, the courts cannot interfere with the findings of an
administrative agency.

Specific Powers:
 Power to cite of contempt is inherent to the courts. Such power is available to administrative bodies if the law
provides for such power.

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

 Power to summon is attached in the power to take testimony or evidence. Such must be provided by law. This
cannot be impliedly delegated. It should be vested by law to the administrative body.
 Power to investigate is not necessarily power to take testimonies.
 Power to impose fines criminal in nature must be resorted into the courts.

Administrative rules and regulations, although has the force of a law, are not laws. A penalty for violating such rules is void.
Conditions where an administrative rule can prescribe a penalty:
1. if the law itself prescribes a penalty
2. if the law considers violation of the rule punishable
  Civil fines may be imposed in order to preserve the integrity and function of administrative agencies against wanton
disregard of regulation.

Civil Fines- serves as a reminder

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

Administrative decisions:
 In administrative review, a reviewing official should not be the same one who originally decided on the case.
Otherwise there would be no real review of the decision. (Zambales Chormite vs. CA)
 Bar on amending final and executory decisions apply also to quasi judicial bodies to avoid endless litigation.
( Mendiola vs. CSC)
 Writs of executions from administrative decisions may be applied to the proper courts but the administrative body
cannot issue such writ. (Divinagracia vs. CFI)

Generally, administrative bodies can execute their decisions unless proven otherwise
 Automatic review of an administrative agency is not allowed if there is first another agency which should hear the
appeal.
 Jurisdiction is vested by law and is not lost nor be legally transferred by voluntary surrender in favor of a body not
vested by law with such jurisdiction. (GSIS vs. CSC)

Exhaustion of administrative remedies:

 Primary jurisdiction- an administrative body vested with a special jurisdiction should be first resorted to. Further
administrative remedies are not provided by law.
 Failure to exhaust administrative remedies will not affect jurisdiction of the courts but will deprive the complainant of
a cause of action which is a ground to dismiss. If not invoked at the proper time, its shall be deemed waived. (Soto
vs. Jareno)
 Exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies:
1. estoppel on the party invoking the doctrine
2. when the administrative act is patently illegal amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
3. unreasonable delay or official action that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant.
4. partial execution
5. when the question involved is purely legal.

 Poverty is a ground for exempting one from exhausting administrative remedies. (Sabello vs. Dept. of Education)
 When administrative appeals are not provided by law, resort to the courts is allowed.

Judicial Review:
 Finding of facts by administrative agencies must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial
evidence and judicial review should be invoked if there is a grave abuse of discretion. (Timbancaya vs. Vicente)
 What can be considered by the court; 1. decision of the agency 2. all records considered
 Even acts of the Office of the President may be review by the RTC upon the principle of separation of powers
(Lupangco vs. CA)
 Direct appeal to the CA of administrative decisions must be provided by law. Otherwise, such review shall be
concurrent with the RTC. (Board of Commissioners vs. De la Rosa)

Rights for judicial review:

1. decision must be final, based on the merits
2. exhaust administrative remedies.

Department Structure:
  Department Heads- exercises control and supervision over his constituents.
 Qualified political agency – department heads are considered alter ego of the President.
 Administrative disputes;

Administrative Code provides of a procedure to settle disputes among administrative agencies.

- pure question of law, submitted to the Secretary of the DOJ
- Law and fact – determined by the OSG

Law on Public Officers:

 Laws providing a retirement age for public officials has no retroactive effect. ( Segovia vs. Noel)
Requirements for a public office;
1. created by law
2. governmental in nature
3. for the benefit of the public
4. permanent
5. functions defined by law

 Foreign service is covered by the civil service (Astraquillos vs. Manglapus)

 Career service- appropriate eligibility provided by law is needed for a valid appointment and a security of tenure.

3 levels
1. First level – clerical, messengerial works
2. Second level –Supervisory group
3. Third level – career executive eligibility

 Non-career- appointment based other than merit and fitness. Tenure is subject to the pleasure of the appointing
authority (Astraquillos vs. Manglapus)
 De jure officers – possessing all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
provided by law. All rights to the position are vested to the appointee
De facto officers- recognized for the public interest so that he may be allowed to exercise
such functions. Exercises the functions of the office under some color of
right and is obtained through;
1. valid appointment but fails to perform conditions of the position
2. no known appointment but people regard him as the officer he represents
himself
3. defect in the appointment/election or his own eligibility
4. appointment/election is pursuant to a law which is later declared
unconstitutional the procedure of election/appointment.

Requirements of a de facto officer;

1. There must be an existing public office
2. color of right
3. actual possession of the office

 De facto officers cannot claim compensation but can avail a quantum merit basis if no de jure officer claims such
compensation.
 Actual service rendered may be a basis for compensation of de facto officers (Cantillo vs. Arrieta)
 Salary paid to the de facto officer may be claim by the de jure officer at the time the latter had assumed office.
 All other fringe benefits obtained by the de facto officer may be claimed.

Modes to enter into government office:

1. appointment
2. by election
 either way the persons becomes a public officer
 liabilities and powers are similar to appointive and elective officials

appointment: exercised by authority vested with the power to appoint.

 either regular or ad interim

Steps:
 position which does not need approval:
1. naming of the appointee
2. issuance of the commission of the appointment
3. acceptance by the appointee
 positions which requires civil service eligibility
1. naming
2. issuance of commission
3. submission to the CSC for attestation
4. acceptance
 it is the CSC who will determine eligibility
 when approval by another body is needed:
1. naming
2. approval by the Commission of Appointments
3. issuance
4. acceptance

 when the last act of the appointing official is finished, the appointment is complete with respect to the
appointing official. Appointment cannot be revoked
 acceptance is needed from the appointee and it his sole prerogative

Permanent appointment: all qualifications are met with the civil service eligibility
Temporary appointment: when there is no civil service eligibility
Career Service Executive: refers to cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries, bureau head.
When all qualifications are met plus career executive eligibility, appointment is permanent.
Without eligibility, temporary status like cabinet secretaries.

Regular appointment- done when Congress is in session

Ad interim: when congress is on recess.
 when appointment needs no concurrence from the Comm. Of Appointments, it is neither ad interim or
regular
 ad interim appointment is permanent in nature. Such officer may hold office at once.

 appointment, even made bythe President, may be refused by the appointee (Borromeo vs. Mariano)
 in regular appointments which need confirmation by the Comm of Appointement, the officer cannot hold office pending
confirmation.
 offer of second post, if made mandatory, is deemed removal from office without cuase.
 chairman of the CHR need no confirmation from the Comm of Appointments
Congress cannot add positions which needs confirmation from the Commission of Appointments. (Calderon vs. Carale)
 CSC cannot disapprove eligibility of an appointee on the grounds that there is a much more qualified person for the
position, as long as the appointee meets the qualifications. (Medenilla vs. CSC)
 in career service, the attestation of the CSC is needed to complete the appointment. The appointment must be submitted
with in 30 Days or else it would be ineffective with regards to the CSC. Another appointment, in such case, may be resorted.
 Submission of the appoint for attestation of the CSC is the last act of the appointing officer.
 designation of a person to an office by the President is temporary in nature. If done by any other offier, it shall be invalid
(Binamira vs. Garrucho)
 CSC can only approve or disapprove an appointment. It cannot appoint a person or direct an appointing officer to appoint
a particular individual. (Orbos vs. CSC)
Rights of public officers
Longevity pay – given to an officer based on the length of service (1% of his salary for every 3 years of service; in the
judiciary 5% for every 5 years)

Self organization: public sector employees cannot go on strike since their salaries are based on law. Only Congress can
increase their pay.

Salary/compensation: for de jure officials. Honorary officials cannot demand compensation

 salary cannot be assigned since, if it is still not given, it belongs to the government. There is no free
disposal of the same.

Vacation/Sick leave: 15 days for each

 EO 1077 allows unused leaves to be accumulated or converted to cash.
 There is mandatory leave for 5 days every year or else it shall be forfeited.
 3 special days of leave for birthdays, anniversary, residential transfer.
 Maternity leave- only for married women. 60 days
 Paternity leave – married male employees are entitled to 7 days leave. He must also be living with his wife.

Pension—is not considered double compensation. Form of gratuity for the service rendered by an individual for the service
he gave the government.

Payment of back wages- generally not available if officer is suspended except:

1. suspension is unwarranted
2. he is exonerated from liability

 pardon will not constitute automatic reinstatement. Such person must apply or be appointed again to the position.

 pardon based on innocence will entitle officer to backwages (Garcia vs. Chairman of COA)
 acquittal will give rise to payment of backwages. But is the accused dies, it shall be not considered as acquittal and his
heirs will not be entitled to backwages. Dismissal based on merits is considered acquittal. (Manlayaon vs. Lising)
 next in rank rule is not a mandatory rule. It shall only give right of preference in considering appointees. If strictly followed,
it will be limiting the discretionary prerogative of the appointing authority. (Espanol vs CSC)
 liabilities may be deducted from salaries. Pension is not subject to attachment. (Cruz vs Tantico)
 retirement benefits under the GSIS, the employee should complete at least 15 years of service.

Note: the President may head the NEDA under the constitution.

 constitutional commission officers are not allowed to manage a private business if it will affect their duties
 members of Congress who are lawyers are prohibited from appearing personally in court but may act through their firms.
 conflict of interest test is used to determine if a public officer may hold another office.


Classification of Duties of officers:

Discretionary- exercise of judgment and discretion. Performance must be within the ambient of the law.
Ministerial – functions they ought to exercise.
 a ministerial officer may be compelled by mandamus . if discretionary, remedy is certiorari
 discharge of duties of officers are co extensive with the territorial jurisdiction conferred by law.
 civil liability will arise if there is malice gross negligence etc.
 Criminal and civil liability arises for nonfeasance malfeasance or misfeasance.
 appointing a knowingly negligent person will subject the appointing officer to liability.
 executive clemency are applicable to both criminal and administrative cases (Llamo vs. Orbos)
 administrative cases pending during a previous term, upon reelection of the official, will constitute to condonation of the
case and the same shall be wiped out. (Pascual vs. Hon. Board of Nueva Ecija)
 reelection will not condone criminal cases since the affected party is the State. The State must be the one condoning and
not just the constituents of the official (LIbanan vs. Sandiganbayan)
 an officer with a temporary position may be replaced. Upon replacement, he is not considered removed but his term
expired.
 courtesy resignation is not considered a resignation since there is no intention of leaving post.
 acceptance of a new position is deemed relinquishment of the old if both positions are incompatible. This is a valid way of
separating an incumbent from his former position. (Zandueta vs. de la Costa)
 if resignation is subject to approval, if not acted upon is not complete.. there is no abandonment if there is a leave of
absence filed. ( Punsalan vs. Mendoza)
 abolishing an office is a valid way of removing an officer if abolition is not done whimsically.

 preventive suspension must be for a definite period or else it may constitute penalty before determination of guilt ( Deloso
vs. Sandiganbayan.)
 90 day preventive suspension is adopted.
 no official has a vested right over an office but he has the right to be protected to such office.
 Hold over – remaining in position even after expiry of term. There must be a prohibition of holding over to make it
unlawful. This is to prevent unnecessary vacancy in the public office. (Nueno vs. Angeles)

Election Laws

COMELEC: neither a judicial or legislative body. It is more of an executive body not falling under the Office of the President.
 administers all laws on election, plebiscite, initiatives, recall, referendum.

 members of COMELEC will have a 7 year term without reappointment. Appointment cannot be temporary.
 staggered system of appointments.
 jurisdiction
over all election controversies.
 exclusive original over: election, returns, qualification of regional, provincial, city candidates.
 Election, returns, Qualification of candidates of municipalities are to the RTC and for barangay, MTC. Both
shall be appealable to the COMELEC.

 decisions are decided first in divisions and upon motion for reconsideration, en banc. Administrative functions must be
heard en banc.
 the Comelec cannot transfer one municipality to another legislative district. Only minor adjustments are allowed.
 decisions of the COMELEC are appealble to the SC on certiorari. The SC cannot review however the administrative
functions of the COMELEC.
 pre proclamation cases are first to be decided by the COMELEC in divisions, also in election protest.
 proclamation while there is a pre proclamation contest, the case shall be dismissed and the movant may file a regular
election protest.
 cases to be heard by the COmelec in divisions, those decided in its quasi judicial functions. Those pertaingin to their
administrative functions, it shall be decided en banc, like promulgation of election laws.
 under the Omnibus Election code, the COMELEC is delegated to postpone election if the circumstances provided by law
are present.
 election period is 90 days before day of election and 30 days after. Since the Congress fixed time for campaign to 90 days
for national positions and 45 days for local, before the election, COMELEC (pursuant to Sec 9 Art IX-C) extended the
election period to 120 days before elections to accommodate filing of certificate of candidacy.
 campaigning may be done only after filing of certificate of candidacy within the campaign period.
 Day of election is fixed by the Constitution unless provided for by law. Election period is fixed by the constitution.
 the Constitution synchronized national and local elections. Congress cannot desynchronized the elections even though
they can fix the date of elections.
 Every election year, election day must be fixed through a law. And COMELEC must fix the election, filing and campaign
period. Except of election period, the periods must be in accordance with the law.
 COC will be filed:
1. national positions, to the COMELEC directly
2. all other position, to the election register.

 qualifications of candidates are fixed by the constitution or by law. A candidate must possess all qualifications and none of
the disqualifications.
 disqualifications are not perpetual: in case of insanity or incapacity, if it ceases the candidate may file candidacy. In case
of conviction, 5 years after service of sentence.

Effect of filing: under RA 9006, an elective official who files a COC can retain his old position.

Conduct of elections:
 permanent list of voters shall be revised every 12 years.
 every election period, the board of elections shall update the current list of voters.
 ratio of ballot to a prescient: 1:5
 certificate of votes is available upon request.
 election returns will be the basis of counting of votes cast in a voting prescient.
 counting is done by the board of canvassers. The municipal board of canvassers may proclaim municipal position
winners. City BOC can proclaim and so on.
 for the President, VP, Senator, certificate of canvass will be given to the COMELEC who will proclaim Senatorial winners.
For the Pres and VP, the canvassing will be done by Congress in a joint session.

Pre Proclamation controversy:

 to be filed with the COMELEC citing:
1. the composition of the board of canvassers and the proceedings which are improper.
2. preparations, custody of election returns. Not applicable for Pres. VP Senators.

 an appointive official is deemed resigned from post upon filing of a certificate of candidacy. This applies even if the office
is one without charter.
 if the filing of candidacy is later revoked by the officer, he is still deemed resigned.
 reelection will not bar criminal prosecution since it is the State who is the offended party. Preventive suspension cannot be
extended upon reelection since one term is different from another. A new suspension order is needed.
 the qualification of citizenship is needed only to an elective official and not to a candidate. An official who reacquired his
citizenship when he started assumption of office is not disqualified. (Frivaldo case)
 when charter of the city prohibits voting in a certain province, it is also implied that residents of the area are not allowed to
run for positions in the said province.
 removal of a person from office in an administratiove case shall disqualify him from running in an election.

 generally a second placer is not to be proclaimed if the winner is disqualified, except if the following are present:
1. winner is disqualified.
2. disqualification is known to the people in law and in fact
 the votes cast for such candidate will be considered stray votes.

 No pre proclamation controversy may be filed for the position of Pres., VP Senators. What is allowed is questioning
manifest errors in canvass or election returns. (Chavez vs. COMELEC)

Grounds for failure of elections:
1. election is not held on the date specified by force majeure, violence, terrorisms, fraud or other nanalogous cases.
2. election in any polling place has been suspended before the hour provided by law by the same reasons as above.
3. after voting and during preparation and transmission of election returns, such elections result in failure to elect
caused by the same reasons.
 there is failure of elections if the will of the electorate is been muted and cannot be ascertained.

Nuisance candidate: when candidacy is filed in mockery of the elections or to confuse the electorate by filing similar names
or by circumstances showing that the candidate has no intention to run.
 SC can only review decisions of HRET, SET, PET if there is a grave abuse of discretion.