ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty.
Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17
PART I – INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS
DEFINITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
The branch of public law that fixes the organization of the government
and determines competence of authorities who execute the law and
indicates to individual remedies for the violations of his rights.
Administrative law embraces all the law that controls, or is intended to
control, the administrative operations of the government.
SOURCES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
SOURCES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
1. Constitution
2. Statutes
3. Revised Administrative Code of 1917 (old law)
4. Administrative Code of 1987 (new law)
5. Jurisprudence
6. Rules and regulations by administrative agencies
Q. Is the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 still alive considering that
there is already the Administrative Code of 1987?
Yes, as was ruled in Mercado v. COA.
The Revised Administrative Code of 1917 remains a source of
administrative law.
Mecano v. COA
Facts: An employee claimed reimbursement for medical expenses but
this was denied because the provision he invoked in the Revised
Administrative Code of 1917 was omitted in the Administrative Code of
1987.
Held: In the absence of express repeal, the omission does not
necessarily mean it is repealed. In the absence of inconsistency between
the two laws and intent to cover the whole subject matter of the old
law, it was neither impliedly repealed. Thus, the Revised Administrative
Code of 1917 remains a source of administrative law.
Atty Guji: There’s a particular provision explaining how to go about
reimbursement if you incur or you suffer injury in the line of duty. He invoked an
old law, which is the Administrative Code of 1917. COA said it cannot be invoked
because specific provision invoked was not carried over to the Administrative Code
of 1987. It was already amended by omission according to COA.
In the absence of express repeal, the provision did not necessarily mean it is
repealed. And in the absence of inconsistency between the two laws and the intent
to cover the whole subject matter of the old law, it was clearly impliedly repealed.
Remember StatCon? Implied repeal is frowned upon. In which case, there was no
express repeal. So, we go to implied repeal.
An implied repeal only works if there is:
1. Irreconcilable inconsistency, and
2. If the subsequent law was intended to cover the entire prior law.
And because the Administrative Code did not specifically repeal the old law, the
Administrative Code of 1917 remains a source of Administrative law. It is still alive.
Administrative law may be sourced from statutes other than
the Administrative Code.
Leveriza v. IAC
Facts: The government leased a parcel of land but it was cancelled by
the airport manager. It was argued the airport manager has no authority
to cancel; that it is only the department secretary acting for the
president or the airport director by delegated authority who could validly
cancel the contract.
Held: Under the Revised Administrative Code, the authority to lease
belongs to the President, officer authorized by him or by law. The
authority of the airport manager falls under the third category as it is
expressly granted by RA 776. Thus, administrative law may be sourced
from statutes other than the Administrative Code.
Atty Guji: Administrative Code is not the only sole source of Administrative Law.
There are other statutes. In this case, there was a question of whether or not the
1|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G
airport manager can lease government property to a third person. But it was said
that it was only the President, in the exercise of its administrative powers.
However, there were actually three sources of the Administrative Code for the
power or authority to lease:
1. The President
2. Officer authorized by
3. Those granted by law.
In this case, the airport manager belongs to the third category because there is
a specific law that grants him the authority. Remember leasing of government
property is administrative as opposed to selling that it is strict act or omission.
This case explains why the Administrative Code is not the only source of the
Administrative law.
DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS
Purpose: To prevent concentration of executive, legislative, and judicial
powers to a single branch of government
Atty Guji: The Executive branch is perceived to be the most powerful because
that is the one that is proactive. As opposed to the judiciary which is passive,
except the Ombudsman, it is not passive.
How is it attained?
By allocating their exercise to the three branches of government
Atty Guji: The characteristics of separation of powers: Co-equal, independent,
coordinate. There is such a thing as lending of powers.
But is it absolute?
No. Sharing and mixing of powers between and among the three
branches is allowed:
1. President - shares legislation through veto
2. Courts - shares legislation through its power of review that
interprets or invalidates laws
3. Congress - shares exercise of executive power through confirmation
of appointments and assent to treaties. It also shares judicial power
through its power to create inferior courts and regulate number and
pay of judges
THE PRINCIPLE OF CHECKS AND BALANCES
Thus, the principle of separation of powers:
(a) allows blending of some of the executive, legislative or judicial
powers in one body
(b) does not prevent one branch from inquiring into the affairs of other
branches to maintain the balance of power
(c) but ensures that it does not encroach on the matters with the
exclusive jurisdiction of the other branches
The principal power of Congress to legislate includes the
auxiliary power to ensure that the laws it enacts are faithfully
executed
Power of oversight
 Intrinsic in the grant of legislative power
 Integral to the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system
of government
 It embraces all activities undertaken by Congress to enhances its
and understanding of and influence implementation of its enactment
Atty Guji: Once Congress passes a law, it can still monitor the implantation of the
law. You cannot say that it should be the executive as they are the ones who
execute the law. It’s not absolute because Congress can still supervise.
It concerns post-enactment measures undertaken by Congress to:
(a) monitor bureaucratic compliance with program objectives
(b) determine whether agencies are properly administered
(c) eliminate executive waste and dishonesty
(d) prevent executive usurpation of legislative authority
(e) assess executive conformity with the congressional perception of
public interest
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17
Atty Guji: In other words, they are going to assess whether or not the law is
properly imposed, and whether or not enforcement is effective.
Categories of Congressional Oversight Function:
1. Scrutiny
2. Investigation
3. Supervision
LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY
Purpose: To determine economy and efficiency in the operation of any
government activities
Basis: Power of appropriation which includes the power to specify the
project and activity to be funded, exercised through the power of the
purse or power of appropriation.
Power of Appropriation or Power of the purse
Budget hearing, people from the government, from the executive
department appear before the Senate or Congress. Administrative
officials defend their budget proposals. It is the means to review policy
in order to use previous appropriation to a certain revenue disbursed. It
is the opportunity for Congress to express confidence or disgust in the
performance of a public officer.
Atty Guji: Remember Miriam Defensor-Santiago. What happened was, her son
was from UP Law, and one thing led to another, his son took his own life because
he was so embarrassed by the panel of interviewers from UP Law. The line of
questioning delved not on the credentials of the student but on the mental stability
of the mother. So because, he was bombarded with those questions, he was so
embarrassed. Miriam blamed UP for that. A year later, UP went to the Senate
asking for budget. Miriam was there, she tried to ask everyone from UP, and said,
“Ang kapal ng mukha niyong humingi ng pondo sa Senado, sabihin niyo muna
anong ginawa niyo sa anak ko.”
But legislative scrutiny does not end in budget hearings. As such,
Congress can ask department heads to appear before and be heard on
any matter pertaining to their departments.
Atty Guji: Take note, they can only invite but they don’t have compulsive power
to make them attend.
Section 22, Article VI of the 1987
Department Heads, may upon their own initiative, with the consent of
the President, or upon the request of either House, appear before and
be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments.
Atty Guji: Remember, PGMA, when her administration is about to fall, and a lot
of accusations where thrown against her. There was a time when Congress wants
to summon her department heads to appear and she denied them access, “they
cannot go there without my consent.” And that is her executive prerogative.
POWER OF CONFIRMATION
Who exercises: The Commission is composed of the Senate President,
the ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators and twelve members of the
House of Representatives.
Who are subject to confirmation?
(a) Nominees of the President
(b) Heads of Executive Departments
(c) Ambassadors, other Public Ministers and Consuls
(d) Officers of the Armed Forces from the rank of Colonel or Naval
Captain
(e) Other officers whose appointments are vested by the President
under the Constitution
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION
Who exercises: Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its
committees.
Limitation of congressional investigation
It must be in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules
and regulations.
2|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G
Arnault vs Nazareno
The rights of persons appearing in and affected by such inquiry
shall be respected.
Facts: During Congressional investigation, the witness refused to answer
questions he claimed to be self-incriminating. The Senate cited him in
contempt and committed him to the custody of the Senate Sergeant-at-
Arms for imprisonment until he answers the questions. The contention
of the witness is that the Senate has no power to cite him in contempt,
information sought to be obtained is immaterial and does not serve any
intended for legislation. The answer required incriminates him.
Held: The power of inquiry includes the power to enforce it.
Atty Guji: Because if you invite somebody, and out of courtesy, you just allow
him to refuse to answer, then there is no compulsive factor in legislative
investigation to obtain what is needed. Then there must be this power of
contumacy to cite them in contempt in case they disrespect to the proceedings.
SENATE LEGISLATION
Arnault vs Nazareno
The power of inquiry includes the power to enforce it. Legislation
presupposes information. Mere request for information is often
unavailing thus some means of compulsion is essential to obtain what is
needed. Once an inquiry is admitted or established to be within the
jurisdiction of a legislative body to make, the investigating committee
has the power to require a witness to answer any question pertinent to
that inquiry, subject of course to his constitutional right against self-
incrimination.
The inquiry, must be material or necessary to the exercise of the power.
Hence, the witness cannot be coerced to answer a question that has
obviously no relation to the subject of the inquiry.
The witness admitted that the transaction was legal and that he gave
the P440,000 to a representative of Burt in compliance with the latter’s
verbal instruction. Then he refused to reveal the name of the
representative on the ground that it incriminates him. It is not enough
for the witness to say that the answer will incriminate him as he is not
the sole judge of his liability. The danger of self-incrimination must
appear reasonable and real to the court.
The fact that the testimony of a witness may tend to show that he has
violated the law is not sufficient to entitle him to the protection. It cannot
be invoked by reason of fanciful excuse, for protection against an
imaginary danger, or to secure immunity to a third person.
Grounds for contumacy:
a) Refuses without legal excuse to obey summons;
b) Refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation;
c) Refuses to answer any relevant inquiry;
d) Refuses to produce any books, papers, documents or records that
are relevant to the inquiry and are in the possession of the
concerned person;
e) Acts in a disrespectful manner towards any Member of the
committee or any misbehavior in the presence of the committee;
f) Unduly interferes in the conduct of proceedings during meetings.
Atty Guji: The right against self-incrimination is given primordial consideration
over the right to inquiry. But sometimes, what you can see there is a useless
undertaking. Because if it’s in aid of legislation and you cannot get anything from
the witness, what for?
LEGISLATIVE SUPERVISION
It allows Congress to scrutinize the exercise of delegated law making
authority and permits Congress to retain part of that delegated
authority.
How exercised
Though the veto powers when granting the President or an executive
agency the power to promulgate regulations with the force of law.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17
Atty Guji: Congress creates a law then delegates the administrative body to
prepare implementing rules and regulations (IRR). But before it will be enforced,
it has to be submitted for review. And if we don’t like it, we are going to veto it.
The veto power is not after all exclusive to the President.
These provisions require the President or an agency to present the
proposed regulations to Congress, which retains a “right” to approve or
disapprove any regulation before it takes effect. It allows Congress to
participate prospectively in the approval or disapproval of "subordinate
law" or those enacted by the executive branch pursuant to a delegation
of authority by Congress.
Atty Guji: Are you familiar with subordinate legislation? Congress makes a law.
It is the law making body. But, that law is without specifics. And you need an
administrative body to provide specifics to fill in the gap. And when the
administrative body does that that is the power of subordinate legislation. It
actually legislates but subordinate to the power of Congress because Congress can
strike it down with the veto power.
Example:
Sec 17.1 of Rep 9189 provides:
Sec. 17.1. For the May, 2004 elections, the Commission shall
authorize voting by mail in not more than three (3) countries,
SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CONGRESSIONAL
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. Voting by mail may be allowed in
countries that satisfy the following conditions:
(a) Where the mailing system is fairly well-developed and secure
to prevent the occasion of fraud;
(b) Where there exists a technically established identification
system that would preclude multiple or proxy voting; and,
(c) Where the system of reception and custody of mailed ballots
in the embassies, consulates and other Foreign Service
establishments concerned are adequate and well-secured.
Thereafter, voting by mail in any country shall be ALLOWED
ONLY upon review and approval of the Joint Congressional
Oversight Committee.
It is clear that Congress has already set the necessary standards to guide
the Comelec in identifying the countries where voting by mail can be
allowed. Since the standards have been defined, all that is left is
enforcement.
Atty Guji: Remember, they set the conditions by which we can allow voting by
mail. But yet, Congress says, you now have the conditions, try to do that, then tell
us because we are going to review that. Since the standards are clear, Congress
says, after the enforcement, we are going to review, subject to our power.
Macalintal v. Comelec
The Constitution has given the Comelec power to enforce and administer
all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election. The power
is exclusive. As such, it cannot be subject to review and revision of veto
by Congress in the exercise of its oversight power.
The legislative veto power or congressional oversight power over the
authority of the Comelec and its rules and regulations in order to enforce
election law is unconstitutional.
The power of the COMELEC to promulgate implementing rules and
regulations can only be struck down if it is illegal or constitutes grave
abuse of discretion. And the power to strike it down pertains to the
judiciary and not to Congress.
Atty Guji: That is why voting by mail was struck down as unconstitutional. Not
because voting by mail may not be allowed, it might be in the future, but primarily
because of the participation of the Joint Oversight Committee over the
implementation of the election. It now encroaches on the power of the Comelec
with regard to election laws.
ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG AGENCIES
1. Supervision
2. Control
3. Attachment
3|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G
Atty Guji: Control means you can replace judgement. Higher authority controls
the lower authority, whatever the lower authority decides, the higher authority can
replace or nullify it. Supervision is limited to ensuring whether or not the operations
are in place. Let’s talk about attachment.
Beja v. CA
Facts: An employee of an agency was charged administratively before
the department it is attached.
Held: The department is without jurisdiction over personnel action
involving employees of an agency attached to it. Attachment is a mere
lateral relationship between the department and the agency attached to
it for program and policy coordination. As such, the attached agency
retains independence insofar as personnel action and management are
concerned.
Attachment is only for policy and program coordination
How accomplished?
1. Representation of the department in the governing board of the
attached agency either as chairman or member, with or without
voting rights, if permitted by the charter.
2. Periodic reporting by attached agency to the department about the
progress of programs and projects.
3. Providing by the department general policies to serve as framework
for the internal policies of the attached agency (Section 38(3),
Chapter 7, Book IV, Administrative Code of 1987)
Atty Guji: In attachment, you actually retain your identity. The agency to which
you are attached does not absorb you. You retain your independence. Example,
NLRC is attached to DOLE. They are independent from each other. Insofar as
personal action is concerned, the agency to which it is attached has no jurisdiction.
Attachment is only for policy and program coordination.
Eugenio v. CSC
Illustration of the above numbers 1 and 3.
Representation of the department in the governing board of the
attached agency
The Career Executive Service (CES) Board is attached to the Civil Service
Commission composed of the CSC Chair as Presiding Officer.
Providing by the department general policies to serve as
framework for the general policies of the attached agency
The functions of the board (CES Board) include promulgation of rules,
standards and procedures on the selection, classification, compensation
and career development of CES members
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
REASONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
Atty Guji: What if there is no administrative agency? Example HLURB. If there is
no HLURB, chances are the cases supposedly governed by HLURB will now be
pertained to the regular courts. The regular courts already have lots of cases. And
that is a specialized case, dispute of homeowners. So the regular courts might not
be able to handle everything. That’s why we need administrative agencies.
Congress legislates. Can congress enforce that law? No, enforcement pertains to
the executive. But can the President enforce that law by himself? No. He needs
administrative agencies.
To help unclog court dockets.
Abejo v. De la Cruz
They have special knowledge, experience and capability to hear and
determine promptly disputes on technical matters or essentially factual
matters are essential.
Atty Guji: There are cases before the courts that need Commissioners. When you
say the court needs commissioners, the court is admitting to its incompetence to
determine the issues to be resolved. Aside from Commissioners, we also have
administrative bodies.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17
To cope with the growing complexities of modern society.
Solid Homes, Inc. v Payawal
They can deal with problems in their particular fields with more expertise
and dispatch than the legislature or courts of justice.
NATURE AND MANNER OF CREATION AND ABOLITION
An attached agency conceived to be autonomous does not lose
its independent character by mere attachment.
Eugenio v. CSC
Facts: The Career Executive Service Board is attached to the Civil Service
Commission which later absorbed it through reorganization.
Held: An attached agency conceived to be autonomous does not lose its
independent character by mere attachment. The CESB is not one of the
offices listed under the Civil Service Commission. As such, the CSC
cannot absorb it because its authority to reorganize is limited to the
offices under its control as enumerated.
Atty Guji: So the CSC has no jurisdiction. It cannot absorb the identity and absorb
that particular body.
Reasons for delegation of legislative power.
Pantranco v. PSC
Facts: The Public Service Commission approved application of a
transportation company to operate additional trucks but subject to
conditions that it is valid for 25 years only and may be acquired by the
government which were argued as total abdication of legislative
functions. The controversy here is that Congress seemed to have
washed its hands and passed the buck to the administrative agency.
Held: This is valid subordinate legislation warranted by complexities of
modern governments. This multiplication of subjects of government
regulation, and the increased difficulty in administering the laws, there
is a growing tendency to delegate legislative power.
Atty Guji: The Public Service Commission issued a franchise or license to operate
but aside from issuing the license, it added that it will be valid only for 25 years.
If you set conditions, you are legislating already. There is total abdication. The SC
acknowledged that the commission is creating laws, but, that is proper and valid
because of the doctrine of legislative subordination. Congress is incompetent to
anticipate each and every situation that may arise during the implementation of
the law. If Congress is incompetent, it is the administrative body that has the
competence.
Solid Homes v. Payawal
Facts: A buyer of subdivision lot sued the real estate developer before
the trial court after it failed to deliver certificate of title despite full
payment.
Held: It is the National Housing Authority, and not the trial court, that
has jurisdiction over unsound real estate business practices. As an
administrative body specialized in the particular field assigned to it, it
can deal with problems with more expertise and dispatch than Congress
or the courts. Thus, the increasing vesture of quasi-judicial and quasi-
legislative powers on administrative bodies.
A public office may be created by the Constitution, by law or by
authority of law.
Secretary of DOTC v. Mabalot
Facts: By authority of the President, the DOTC Secretary transferred the
functions of the DOTC-CAR to the LTFRB-CAR. It was argued it is a
purely legislative act hence not even the president much less the
secretary can do so.
Held: A public office may be created by the Constitution, by law or by
authority of law.
4|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G
By authority of law
Example: The creation of the LTFRB-CAR falls under the third category
which may be decreed through Executive Order issued by the President
or by an administrative agency like the Civil Service Commission
By law
Examples:
1. Presidential Decrees expressly grant the President continuing
authority to reorganize the national government. It includes the
power to group, consolidate bureaus and agencies to abolish
offices, create, transfer, and classify functions.
2. Section 62 of the General Appropriations Act authorizes the
President and Congress to reorganize the department of agency,
including the power to create an office.
Atty Guji: Why are we saying now that the President has the authority to
create an office? Before, we said, in Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission,
that the President is without authority to create an office, but that is in so
far as, the Office of the President is concerned. Here we are talking about
the national government. But this case would tell us that it was error for the
Supreme Court to strike it down as unconstitutional. Pwede actually. It’s just
an adhoc body. If you read the dissenting, you will realize that the Supreme
Court was just afraid of its impact.
3. Section 20, Book III of the Administrative Code grants the
President residual powers to reorganize the national government.
Larin v. Executive Secretary
Facts: The President streamlined the Bureau of Internal Revenue and
abolished the Excise tax Service resulting in the termination of the Asst.
Commissioner. It was argued that there is no law authorizing the
President to reorganize executive agencies particularly the Bureau of
Internal Revenue.
Held: Sec. 48 of RA 7645 directs department heads to identify activities
no longer essential in the delivery of public services which may be the
basis of the president to scale down, phase out or abolish. This appears
to not include the power to create.
Sec. 62. Unauthorized Organizational Chargers – Unless otherwise
created by law or directed by the President of the Philippines, no
organizational unit or changes in key positions in any department or
agency shall be authorized in their respective organization structures
and be funded from appropriations by this Act.
It now grants power to create aside from the residual powers. Likewise,
presidential decrees expressly grant the president continuing authority
to reorganize the national government
Atty Guji: Presidential decrees date back as far as the time of Marcos. They are
still alive. Even if the President issues an executive order, it is still allowed. That is
the rule-making power of the President pursuant to the Ordinance Power of the
President.
Effect of expiration of administrative agency.
Atty Guji: Expiration of the administrative agency… effect of, What if the
administrative agency died it’s no longer there, what about the effect of its
actions… will it survive?
Cebu United Enterprises v Gallofin
Facts: The Import Control Commission issued import licenses subject to
conditions. But later its term of existence expired.
Atty Guji: So nawala ang import commission but nakaissue na siya ug licenses,
so the question is, what happens to those licenses? Mamatay ba sad sila because
the authority from which it is derived is no longer there.
Held: The conditions set forth in the import licenses remain in force and
effect even if the administrative agency that issued it has expired. The
valid acts of an administrative agency survive its own death.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17
Atty Guji: That’s the bottomline, so probably the question is ‘kinsa naman mag
enforce karun sir wala naman ang administrative agency?’ Chances are there is
another agency that took on the project to continue the commission.
Even if the agency has expired, its orders are still valid for as long as they were
made pursuant, or in conformity of the law.
Q. Who enforces the orders which survived after the expiration of the
administrative agency which issued such order?
If the agency was merely reorganized or replaced with a new one, the
replacement may be the one to carry out the order. But if it was
abolished, it may be some other agencies which will assume the
responsibility of ensuring compliance of the order.
Conversion is not equal to abolition.
Crisostomo v. CA
Facts: The President of the Philippine College of Commerce was
suspended. But later he was ordered reinstated but the PCC was already
converted into the Polytechnic University of the Philippines by the
President of the Republic.
Atty Guji: So giconvert. That is an activist university before I don’t know now.
Probably more activist than UP. Nagtapuk ang mga linkuranan sa gawas because
of the protest of the students, it happened before in San Carlos.
Held: Conversion is not equal to abolition. It merely changed the
academic status of the educational institution and not its corporate life.
Atty Guji: So pwede siya mabalik but the question there is, ‘somebody was
already there… so what happened?’
Take note of the highlighted portion. Conversion is not equal to abolition. It merely
changes the academic status.
To create such other positions as it may deem necessary is a
sufficient standard.
Viola v. Alunan
Facts: The Liga ng mga Barangay elected its first, second, third vice-
presidents and auditors for all chapters. It was challenged as
unconstitutional for being an undue delegation of legislative power.
Atty Guji: You might wonder kadaghan ba ninyu ug officials? Ang nagbuhat
gyud ana nila is kana ilang staff. So they said na you created lots of offices so
there is undue delegation.
Held: There is no undue delegation of legislative power as no less than
the Local Government Code authorizes the liga board “to create such
other positions as it may deem necessary for the management of the
chapter” which is deemed a sufficient standard.
Atty Guji: So we’re going to talk about sufficient standard, meaning duna kay
guide. Now what can you do or what you cannot do is guided by that particular
sufficient standard. Here, the Supreme Court said: when it says as ‘it may deem
necessary’ pwede. In consonance with the sufficient standard. Now you cannot
question the wisdom anymore kay naa may sufficient standard. As it may deem
necessary man bisan pag magbutang mu ug muse, prince charming… pwede.
First premise is, there is a law. And in delegation, the rule-making power of the
administrative agency. But prior to delegation, there must be that sufficient
standard which can be made as a basis by that government agency or
administrative agency to make rules and regulations.
Here, when you say ‘to create such other positions as it may deem necessary for
the management of the chapter,’ it validates the action of the Liga ng mga
Barangay to include a first, second, vice presidents and auditors from all chapters.
They added positions that were not necessarily specifically enumerated under the
mother law or source law. But here’s a catch all phrase which says that “for as
long as you deem it necessary, you can create that position.” So, that is a sufficient
standard.
But there is another case which says that when the sufficient standard says “as it
may deem fit”, SC said that it is not sufficient standard. In this case, the standard
used is “as it may deem necessary”, SC ruled that it is a sufficient standard.
5|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G
The difference is that “as it may deem fit” is more encompassing. There is no limit.
It is not a sufficient standard. Whereas, in the standard “as it may deem
necessary", the need should be established to justify it.
AGAIN: Source law, congress legislates. It cannot specify that much that is why it
gives a sufficient standard so that it can delegate the power to specify the law to
administrative agencies.
Naa tay mga examples of sufficient standard by which the administrative body
naghimu ug mga regulations and for as long as they are germae to the purpose
of the law they allow.
Examples of Sufficient Standards:
1. To maintain monetary stability in the Philippines.
2. To promote a rising level of production and real income in the
Philippines. (RA 265)
3. Promotion of public safety (Edu v. Ericta)
4. Public interest (People v Rosenthal, Pantranco v PSC)
Atty Guji: It might appear to be broad right? Pero whatever you decide or
whatever you regulate for as long as it will realize or enforce public interest
pwede na
5. Justice and equity (Antamok Gold v. CIR)
6. Simplicity, economy and efficiency (Cervantes v Auditor General)
7. Sense and experience of men (Mutual Firm Corp. v Industrial
Commission)
8. National security (Hirabayashi v. US)
9. Fair and equitable employment practices (Eastern v POEA)
10. Along the guidelines (De la Llana v. Alba)
Atty Guji: So these are guidelines, whatever you do dapat in line with this or
consistent with this.
Example of Insufficient Standard:
Viola v. Alunan
Facts; The seized property shall be distributed to charitable institutions
and other institutions as the Chair of the National Meat Inspection
Commission may see fit, in the case of carabaos.
Held: The phrase “may see fit” is a generous and dangerous condition.
It is laden with perilous opportunities for partiality and abuse, and even
corruption. There is no standard, guidelines or limitations on how to
distribute, the options are boundless
Atty Guji: So now, the Supreme Court is saying that cannot be allowed because
it’s too broad. Kay ngano man? Kay murag the sole discretion belongs to you. Wala
kay lain nga standard, kundi imu rang panan-aw. Kabaw ray gilalisan diri ha.
Ang iya ra pangutana kay as you may see fit the question is…
Who are the beneficiaries? What is the criteria by which they are
chosen?
Nganu sila man, nganu di man sila? So very broad diba? So the
discretion is so spitting.
Only the officers can answer and they have the sole direction. This is a
roving commission, a wide and sweeping authority which is not
canalized within the banks that keep it from overflowing. It is an invalid
delegation of legislative powers
But compare this with “create such other positions as it may deem
necessary for the management of its affairs” which was considered
sufficient standard.
Atty Guji: What could be the difference? As you may deem fit, as you may deem
necessary. What could be the difference?
When you say: as you deem fit. Murag bahala ka kinsa imu tagaan, pila, gamay
ra ba iyaha dako ba iyaha. Karne atu gihisgutan.
As may deem necessary at least nay standard diba? When you say necessary, it is
quantifiable as opposed to may deem fit na murag ikaw ray nakasabut unsay fit.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17
As it may deem necessary – you need to justify. As it may deem fit - it’s
overflowing. The discretion is unlimited.
Abolition of administrative agency, when valid.
1. It is carried out by a legitimate body
Who or what is that legitimate body?
Congress by legislation
President by decree
2. It is done in good faith.
When is it done in good faith?
Abolition pursuant to reorganization is in bad faith if any of the
following is present:
a. Significant increase in the number of positions (Take note of
the word “significant”)
b. An office is abolished but another one created performing
substantially the same functions
c. Incumbents are replaced by less qualified in terms of status
of appointment, performance and merit
d. Reclassification where the classified offices perform
substantially the same functions as the original offices
e. Removal violates order of separation
What is that order of separation?
1. Casuals with less than 5 years of service
2. Casuals with 5 or more years of service
3. Employees holding temporary appointments
4. Employees holding permanent appointments
Atty Guji: First in last out, ang pinakauna nasulod mauy pinakadugay matang-
tang. But here tan-awa:
Important: But regardless of length of service , those in the
same category enumerated above who are least qualified in
terms of performance and merit shall be laid first. Thus, the
order of separation after abolition through reorganization is
dictated not only by length of service, but also by performance
and merit, all things being equal.
Atty Guji: Ato i-qualify, pananglit you belong in the same category but still made
to choose. Kay daghan man kaayu mu, let’s say you’re 20 we only need 10 so unsa
man atu i-qualify ana? So we now talk about quality or the performance if they
belong to the same category.
If they are in equal footing, it should be based on merit and fitness. For example,
there are 10 permanent employees, you need to decide which one to fire and
which one to retain, base it on their merit and fitness.
Minor changes that do not substantially affect composition,
powers and functions of an agency does not amount to
abolition.
Canonizado v. Aguirre
Facts: The PNP was reorganized. It expired the terms of office of the
incumbent commissioners of the NaPolCom on the basis that it was
already abolished
Held: Minor changes that do not substantially affect composition,
powers and functions of an agency does not amount to abolition. As
such, the terms of office of the incumbent commissioners are not
expired, aside from the fact that they are members of the civil service
who can only be removed by cause and after due process pursuant to
the security of tenure. Without a valid reorganization, termination in the
form term expiration is unconstitutional.
Atty Guji: Of course we can contextualize this, gigamit lang ni siya to justify. But
really standing alone we said that even if we were protecting their security of
tenure if there is reorganization valid and in good faith you can terminate as a
result of reorganization.
6|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G
Abolition of administrative agency by the President, basis of.
National Tobacco Adminstration case
Facts: An executive order streamlined (simplified) the National Tobacco
Administration that substantially reduced its personnel. The affected
rank and file employees argue an executive order cannot reorganize an
office, bureau or agency attached to a department, it being a legislative
act.
Atty Guji: Because essentially diba? The power to create an office epertains to
Congress. And if you have the power to create you have the power to destroy. So
now they are asking nganung ang President naman gahimu nawala nata.
Held: The legislative power to abolish does not extend to a bureau,
office or agency in the executive department which the President may
reorganize pursuant to the power of control.
Abolition of administrative agency, effect on security of tenure.
Bagaoisan v. NTC
Termination arising out of valid abolition does not offend security of
tenure because it is one mode of terminating official relations. But
preference of appointment in favor of affected employees merely entitle
them to priority in consideration, but not to automatic appointment.
Atty Guji: Remember the next in rank rule? Wa lang you are just entitled to
priority in consideration but no vested right to be appointed. So kani giabolish pero
there is another office, can they be absorbed? They can depending on the
appointing authority but they have no vested right. In other words, the appointing
authority may actually appointed somebody outside of the abolished office.
In case of abolition of one office and creation of another, outsiders may
be appointed to the newly created office provided they qualify and it is
in the best interest of public service.
Atty Guji: Otherwise known as discretion of appointing authority
Example, if there is an office abolished or reorganized, and there is another
created, those who were terminated on the basis of the abolition or reorganization,
they do not necessarily have the right of first refusal nor the vested right to be
appointed. But in the government, for humanitarian consideration, they are always
accommodated, unless there is no basis to be appointed.
DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION FROM POWERS
DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION FROM POWERS
Purpose: To prevent concentration of executive, legislative and judicial
powers to a single branch of government.
Atty Guji: The executive branch (?) is perceived to be the most powerful because
that is the one that is proactive, as opposed to the judiciary nga passive except
ombudsman, he is not passive.
How is it attained?
It is attained by allocating their exercise to the three branches of
government. Separation of powers is independent, coordinate, and co-
equal.
Atty Guji: That isn’t absolute when you say separation of powers.
Q. Are they entirely independent from each other?
No, it not an absolute statement because sharing and mixing of powers
between and among the branches is allowed.
Atty Guji: Take note ha, sharing and mixing of powers but we said separate and
independent from each other. Independent sila but there’s such a thing as
blending of powers.
Examples:
1. The President shares legislation through his veto power.
Atty Guji: Congress enacts a law and the President might not like it and
vetoes the law. That is sharing with the legislative power.
A bill becomes a law when the President signs it. Consequently, the
President actually participates in the legislation because he or she is the
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17
last approving authority, except if he does not sign, and the 30-day period
lapses. By passage of time it becomes a law without the participation of
the President. But normally, there is.
2. The Court shares legislation through its power of judicial review
which interprets or invalidates a law.
Atty Guji: It is the Supreme Court that has the final say as to how a certain
law is supposed to be construed.
3. Congress shares exercise of executive power through
confirmation of appointments and assent to treaties. It also
shares judicial powers through its power to create inferior courts
and regulate number and pay of judges.
Atty Guji: But of course you know that it is only the Supreme Court that
is created by the Constitution. Lower courts are by mere legislation.
There are certain public officers appointed by the President that need the
confirmation coming from the Commission on Appointments.
PRINCIPLE OF CHECKS AND BALANCES
PRINCIPLE OF CHECKS AND BALANCES
Purpose: To prevent supremacy of one branch over the other and
secures coordination of various departments.
Atty Guji: However, seemingly by perception. It is the executive branch that is
Supreme kay kinahanglan siya interviewhun mauy Makita sa media again as
opposed to judiciary na passive you cannot even see the Supreme Court Justice
interviewed by the media, naa na sila spokesperson.
Thus, the principle of separation of powers:
1. Allows blending of some of the executive, legislative, or judicial
powers in one body.
Atty Guji: Take note of the word ‘blending’ because sometimes it may take
to mean that one is encroaching over the jurisdiction of another. Probably
this only means ‘blend’. You have to make the difference.
2. Does not prevent one branch from inquiring into the affairs of other
branches to maintain the balance of power, but ensures that it does
not encroach on matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of other
branches.
Atty Guji: So pwede, basta exclusive d ka pwede but once there is that area
or territory where you can meet halfway, blend your powers pwede, that’s
coordination.
For example, one branch asks what the other is doing, it is alright. But it
cannot say ‘you should not have done it this way’ because that is already
encroachment.
POWER OF OVERSIGHT
POWER OF OVERSIGHT
The principal power of Congress to legislate includes the auxiliary power
to ensure that the laws it enacts are faithfully executed. Power of
oversight pertains to the supervisory power of the Congress to ensure
that the laws it legislates are complied with.
What do you mean by auxiliary?
Extensive, subsidiary, supplemental or incidental.
Atty Guji: Principal power to legislate + auxiliary power to ensure faithful
compliance = power of oversight.
Power of oversight
A. Intrinsic in the grant of legislative power
B. Integral to the checks and balances inherent in a democratic
system of government
C. It embraces all activities undertaken by Congress to enhance its
understanding of and influence over the implementation of its
enactments.
7|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G
Atty Guji: Pananglit there’s a law passed by congress. Once it becomes a
law you might want to say na ‘well congress has no business at all in so far
as the implementation of the law is concerend’. Congress still can monitor
the implementation and enforcement to guide it in future legislation, so you
cannot say na wa nay labot ang congress because it’s the executive
department that enforces the law. Not absolutely because what they
supervise.
D. It concerns post-enactment measures undertaken by Congress to:
1. Monitor bureaucratic compliance with program objectives
2. Determine whether agencies are properly administered
3. Eliminate executive ways and dishonesty
4. Prevent executive usurpation of legislative authority
5. Assess executive conformity with the congressional
perception of public interest.
Atty Guji: In other words, the bottomline there is ila tan-awn, they’re going to
assess whether or not the law is properly enforced and whether or not the
enforcement is effective.
Categories of Congressional oversight functions:
A. Scrutiny
B. Investigation
C. Supervision
LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY
Purpose: To determine economy and efficiency of the operation of
government activities
Basis: Power to specify the project or activity to be funded.
Atty Guji: : Otherwise known as the power of the purse, you know what’s
purse? Pitaka, naa diha ang kaban ng bayan.
This includes the power of appropriation which includes the power to specify the
project or activity to be funded. It is otherwise known as the power of the purse.
It is the Congress that holds the purse. It appropriates the budget to all of the
government agencies.
Exercised through:
1. Power of the purse, and
2. Power of confirmation.
1 – Power of appropriation or power of the purse through
Budget Hearing
A. Administrative officials defend their budget proposals
B. It is the means to review policy and audit the use of previous
appropriation to ascertain whether they have been disbursed
accordingly
C. It is an opportunity for Congress to express its confidence or
disgust in the performance of a public officer.
Atty Guji:
Are you familiar with budget proposals? People from the government
from the executive department appear befor the congress to defend
their budget proposals in other words mangayu ug pondo sa congress.
If you are a government agency that somehow offended a Congressman or a
Senator, for example, then there is a budget hearing, you have to go there and
defend your budget proposal to be included in the next budget.
(Recall what happened to the son of Senator Miriam who committed suicide after
applying for admission to the UP Law Center) When the UP representatives went
to Congress asking for budget increase, and Miriam was there in that committee,
she castigated the UP Law Center representatives.
If you are going to be there, be prepared. Don’t be onion-skinned because for
always, they will sting, especially if somehow in the past you offended the
Congress.
But legislative scrutiny does not end in budget hearings
As such, Congress can ask department heads to appear before and be
heard by it on any matter pertaining to their departments.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17
Atty Guji: Take note ask, they can only invite but they have no compulsive
power to make you attend.
However, Section 22, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides that
the “department heads, may upon their initiative, with the consent of
the President, or upon the request of either House, appear before and
be heard on any matter relative to their departments.”
Atty Guji: Remember when GMA prohibited all her secretaries and department
heads from appearing in any investigation conducted by the House of Senate. That
is her executive prerogative, separation of powers because they cannot compel
attendance in deference to a co-equal branch of the government.
2 – Power of Confirmation
Who exercises?
The Commission on Appointments composed of:
1. The Senate President as ex officio chair
2. Twelve (12) senators, and
3. Twelve (12) representatives
Atty Guji: There is a ratio and proportion of representation on who are the
majority party and the minority party.
Nominees of the President whose positions need confirmation
by the Commission on Appointments:
1. Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls
2. Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval
captain
3. Other officers whose appointments are vested with the President
under the Constitution
Atty Guji: All appointments under the Constitution, including Comelec chair
and Commissioners need to be confirmed by the Commission on
Appointments (CoA).
Atty Guji: Is this exclusive? I think I listed all the cases there and you will
know the answer.
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION
Who exercises?
Senate of Representatives or any of its committees.
Limitations to Congressional Investigations
1. Must be in aid of legislation
2. In accordance with its duly published rules and regulations
3. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries
shall be respected.
Arnault v. Nazareno
Facts: During Congressional Investigation, a witness refused to answer
question he claimed to be self-incriminatory. The Senate cited him in
contempt, committed him to the custody of the Sgt-at-Arms and
imprisoned him until he answers the question.
The contention of the witness: Senate has no power to cite him in
contempt. The information sought to be obtained was immaterial and
does not serve any purpose in aid of legislation. The answer required
incriminates him.
Supreme Court ruling:
1. The power of inquiry includes the power to enforce. Legislation
presupposes information. Mere request for information are often
unavailing as some means of compulsion is essential to obtain
legislative information.
Atty Guji: The power of contumacy to cite in contempt for refusing to
answer a question on the basis of thinking it is self-incriminatory, has to have
that compulsion. Otherwise, there is no point for the hearing.
2. Once an inquiry is admitted or established to be within the
jurisdiction of the legislative body to make, the investigating
committee has the power to require the witness to answer any
8|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G
question pertinent to its inquiry, subject to his constitutional right
against self-incrimination.
Atty Guji: There has to be a balance between the power of inquiry and the
right against self-incrimination.
So now we can see that the witness can actually invoke the right from start
to finish.
3. The inquiry must be material or necessary to the exercise of the
power. Hence, the witness cannot be coerced to answer a question
that has obviously no relation to the subject of the inquiry.
Atty Guji: It presupposes now that the witness can actually say I think that
is not relevant to the subject matter, I refuse to answer because it might
incriminate me but if it is now relevant to the subject matter, there is that
compulsive character relevant naman. Pero it’s a matter of how do you define
relevancy, how do you define the subject matter in the first place. Depende
ra gyud na nila.
4. The witness admitted that the transaction was legal. That he gave
P440, 000 to a representative of Burt in compliance with the latter’s
verbal instruction. Then he refused to reveal the name of the
representative on the ground that it incriminates him.
5. It is not enough for the witness to say that the answer will
incriminate him for he is not the sole judge of his liability.
Atty Guji: Bottomline is, you are not the sole judge of your liability. You
cannot impose it on the one who is asking the question. Just like when you
are taking the witness stand. You cannot say that you will not answer the
question because it is a leading question. It is the lawyer who can say that,
not the witness even if the witness is a lawyer.
6. The danger of self-incrimination must appear reasonable and real
to the court. The fact that the testimony of the witness may tend
to show that he violated a law is not sufficient to entitle him to the
protection.
Atty Guji: In other words, it is not for you to decide whether that is self-
incriminatory.
7. It cannot be invoked by reason of fanciful excuse, for protection
against an imaginary danger, or to secure immunity to a third
person.
Atty Guji: Diba because he said I don’t want to divulge the date I want to
protect him he’s a third person.
Grounds for Contumacy (House Rules and Procedures
Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation):
1. Refuses, after being duly summoned, to obey such summons
without legal excuse
Atty Guji: Example is Junjun Binay (the son). He doesn’t attend despite
summons so he was cited in contempt. Gipadakop.
2. Refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmations
3. Refuses to answer any relevant inquiry
4. Refuses to produce any books, papers, documents or records that
are relevant to the inquiry and are in his/her possession
5. Acts in a disrespectful manner towards any member of the
Committee or commits misbehaviour in the presence of the
committee
Atty Guji: So kani, disrespective. They are investigators the senators the
congressmenso if they think you are disrespecting them they can cite you in
contempt, But makit-an nimu sa TV. Seldom do they practice contumacy.
6. Unduly interferes in the conduct of proceedings during meetings
Atty Guji: Because you know, ang problema man gud didtu kay murag in
the hierarchy of things, when you say right to self incrimination that’s your
basic right so the primordial consideration falls on that aspect. Mas ila
gitagaan ug respeto ang imung right against self-incrimination kaysa sa ila
power to inquire so murag girespetaran nlng. Pero sometimes all you can
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17
see there is it’s a useless thing. If it is in aid of legislation but you cant get
anything from the witness what for?
LEGISLATIVE SUPERVISION
It allows Congress to scrutinize the exercise of delegated law-making
authority, and permits Congress to retain part of that delegated
authority.
Atty Guji: It is only the President that has the veto power, and Congress can
override the veto. However, there is an instance when Congress has the power to
veto. There is such a thing as subordinate legislation. If Congress enacts a law and
it leaves to the administrative agency the power to formulate implementing rules
and regulations to fully implement the law, Congress sometimes requires the IRR
to be submitted to it for approval. If Congress does not like that, it vetoes the IRR.
That is the veto power of the Congress. Take note that this is an exception.
GR: It is only the President that has the veto power.
XPN: When Congress vetoes the IRR submitted to it by the
administrative agency for approval.
Question: Veto power pertains to the president, absolute?
How exercised?
Through its veto power when granting the President or an executive
agency the power to promulgate regulations with the force of law
These provisions require the President or an agency to present the
proposed regulations to Congress, which retains the right to approve or
disapprove any regulation before it takes effect
It allows Congress to participate prospectively in the approval or
disapproval of “subordinate law” or those enacted by the executive
branch pursuant to a delegation of authority by Congress
Atty Guji: Are you familiar with subordinate legislation? Congress makes a law
but of course that law is without specifics and you need an administrative body to
provide for the specifics to fill in the gap. And when the administrative body does
that, that is actually the power of subordinate legislation. It actually legislates but
subordinate to the power of Congress thus, congress can strike it down therefore
the VETO power.
Q. Does Congress have the veto power over the Comelec?
Makalintal v. Comelec
Facts: This case is about the constitutionality of RA 9189 (Overseas
Absentee Voting Act). SC struck down Section 17.1 as unconstitutional
insofar as it allows the Joint Oversight Committee of Congress to review
and approve the rules and regulations issued by Comelec. This violates
the independence of the Comelec as mandated by the Constitution.
Section 17 or RA No. 9189 provides:
“Sec. 17. Voting by mail – For the May 2004 elections, the Commission
shall authorize voting by mail in not more than three (3) countries,
subject to the approval of the Congressional Oversight Committee.
Voting by mail may be allowed in countries that satisfy the following
conditions:
(a) Where the mailing system is fairly well-developed and secure to
prevent occasion of fraud;
(b) Where there exists a technically established identification system
that would preclude multiple or proxy voting;
(c) Where the system of reception and custody of mailed ballots in
the embassies, consulates and other Foreign Service
establishments concerned are adequate and well-secured.
Thereafter, voting by mail in any country shall be allowed only upon
review and approval of the Joint Oversight Committee.”
Atty Guji: Congress enacts a law and it delegates the power to an administrative
agency. But in the delegation of power to formulate the IRR to fully implement the
law, Congress provides for sufficient standard as basis for the administrative
agency to formulate the IRR. But Congress now says that even after you are given
the standard and you have made an IRR based on that standard, that is still subject
to review by Congress.
9|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G
Held: It is clear that Congress has already set the necessary standards
to guide the Comelec in identifying the countries where voting by mail
may be allowed. Since the standards have been defined, all that is left
is their enforcement.
Atty Guji: In other words, there is a standard and almost, the law is complete.
So what is left is only enforcement.
The Constitution has given the Comelec power to enforce and administer
all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election. The power
is exclusive. As such, it cannot be subject to review and revision or veto
by Congress in the exercise of its oversight power.
The legislative veto power or congressional oversight power over the
authority of the Comelec to issue rules and regulations in order to
enforce election laws is unconstitutional.
The power of the Comelec to promulgate implementing rules and
regulations can only be struck down if it is illegal or constitute grave
abuse of discretion.
Atty Guji: And the one that strikes it down is not even Congress, but the Supreme
Court. Take note of that exception.
POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
1. Quasi-legislative
2. Quasi-judicial
3. Implied powers
Doctrine of necessary implication and inferences.
LLDA v. CA
Facts: An administrative agency issued a cease and desist order against
a local government unit from operating an open dumpsite. But it was
challenged as without basis because the law merely says it has the
power to “make, alter, modify orders requiring the discontinuance of
pollution”
Atty Guji: Tan-awa ha, ang power na gigrant sa administrative agency kay kani
ra, the power to make, alter, modify orders requiring the discontinuance of
pollution.
Held: While it is a fundamental rule that an administrative agency has
only such powers as are expressly granted, it has also implied powers
necessary to exercise its express powers
Atty Guji: The principle applied here is Doctrine of Necessary Implication and
Inferences which is otherwise known as common sense.
The only limitation is if there is a prohibition, you cannot do that but as long as it
is related to enforce or realize the objective of the authority you cannot do that
even if it is not enumerated or detailed in the order.
The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies
only when the agency exercises quasi-judicial powers.
SMART v. NTC
Facts: Telecommunication companies challenged the billing rules and
regulations promulgated by the NTC. It was argued to be premature
because of failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Atty Guji: Take note ha, rules and regulations promulgated by NPC so unsa may
power? Quasi legislative, it was trying to promulgate and make rules so now it was
argued to be premature because of failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Held: The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not
apply when the administrative agency exercises quasi-legislative power.
It only applies when it exercises quasi-judicial power.
In the same way, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies only when
the administrative agency exercises quasi-judicial power
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17

Atty Guji: It is all about texts. There was a proposal that the name of the recipient
or the receiver of the message or call will be recorded in the billing. TN: There is
a particular remedy when you can say that that is premature because there was a
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It is available only when the
administrative agency exercises quasi-judicial power.

10 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17
PART II - QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWER
QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWER: SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION
Atty Guji: We discussed in detail already the quasi-legislative power of
the Comelec to administer elections, so this is just a reiteration of what
we learned in election insofar as quasi-legislative power is concerned.
This also would touch on some principles of statutory construction.
A. Nature and Definition
B. Kinds: Interpretative and Legislative Regulation
C. Source: Valid Delegation
D. Requisites of Valid Regulation
E. Penal Regulations
F. Construction and interpretation
Power of Subordinate Legislation
Administrative bodies are authorized to “fill in the details” which
Congress may not have the opportunity or competence to provide. This
is effected by promulgation of implementing rules known as
supplementary regulations.
NATURE AND DEFINITION
NATURE AND DEFINITION
Administrative regulations and policies enacted by
administrative bodies to interpret the law have the force and
effect of law.
Rizal v. NLRC
Facts: An insurance company terminated its employee on the ground of
tardiness and unexcused absences. But the Labor Arbiter reinstated him
with back wages. The insurance company moved to extend time to file
Appeal Memorandum on the last day. The motion to extend was denied
by the Labor Arbiter and the appeal was dismissed for being filed out of
time. The Revised Rules of the NLRC says decisions of the Arbiter
become final and executor unless appealed in 10 days and no motion
for extension is entertained.
Atty Guji: Appeal Memorandum shall be filed within 10 days and it is non-
extendible. Motion for Reconsideration is a prohibited pleading in an appeal
memorandum. In other words, the motion for extension is a prohibited pleading
just like the motion for reconsideration.
Because what happened here was, labor arbiter decides. In 10 days you need to
file an appeal if you don’t want to finalize the decision and 10 days lang and that
10 days cannot be extended but in this case the employee says that if the labor
arbiter and the NLRC insist on that and that will liberalize the rules it actually
gravely abuses its discretion because according to him under the rules of court
daw pwede man you liberalize but here the Supreme Court said that is in so far
the rules of court is concerned but we’re talking about the NLRC rules and
procedure.
Contention of the Insurance Company: The NLRC gravely abused its
discretion for dismissing the case out of technicality. It invoked the Rules
of Court on liberal construction in the interest of substantial justice.
Held: It may be true insofar as the Rules of Court is concerned whereas
the NLRC Rules of Procedure is clear and leaves no room for
interpretation. Administrative regulations and policies enacted by
administrative bodies to interpret the law have the force and effect of
law thus entitled to great respect.
Atty Guji: NLRC rules and procedure that was created by the NLRC as an
administrative body and here we say that you have to respect that, it has the force
and effect of law because specific man as a matter of fact motion for
reconsideration is prohibited you go directly for appeal
Labor Laws are actually social legislation and so the NLRC is tasked to provide
subordinate legislation. They actually formulate the IRR, or in this case, the NLRC
Rules of Procedure which actually interprets the law.
In statutory construction, interpretation and construction is the exclusive province
of the SC. However, in so far as who first interprets the constitutionality of law is
not really the SC. It could be the President or the Administrative Agency which is
11 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G
tasked to enforce the law, because they cannot enforce the law without construing
it. They have to understand it first before enforcing it. It is actually first interpreted
and construed by administrative agencies.
But that interpretation is binding only until it is nullified by the SC. Once it is the
SC that construes the law, its interpretation is binding. But if it is the administrative
agency, it is good as it gets because later on it might be nullified by the SC. Absent
any nullification by the SC, it is valid and binding.
Conditions for a valid subordinate legislation.
Sigre v. CA
Facts: A land tenant had been paying rental to the landowner with 32
cavans every agricultural year. But he stopped paying rentals to the
landowner and instead remitted it to LBP pursuant to the Memorandum
Circular issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform. It set guidelines
in the payment of lease rental by farmer-beneficiaries under the land
transfer program of PD No. 27.
Atty Guji: PD 27 is the Agrarian Reform Law under the Marcos Regime. A
presidential decree has the force and effect of law. The question here is, can a
Memorandum Circular supersede a Presidential Decree?
It says payment of land rentals terminates on the date the value of land
is established. Thereafter, tenant-farmers pay their lease rentals to the
LBP or its authorized representative.
Atty Guji: There are instances when tenant-farmers make little payments because
the landlords do not issue receipts. Sometimes, the landlords take advantage. So
there is this Memorandum Circular to protect their interests.
The Court of Appeals nullified the Memorandum Circular as there is
nothing in PD 27 that sanctions it. It is in conflict with PD 816 which
says payment of lease is to be made to the landowner. As a statute, PD
816 prevails over the Memorandum Circular.
Atty Guji: There is another PD that specifically says payment must be to the
landowner, but the intent of the MC here is to protect the interest of the tenant-
farmers because sometimes their payments are not reflected or not accounted for
because they don’t issue receipts.
Held: The power of subordinate legislation allows administrative bodies
to implement the broad policies laid down in the statute by “filling in”
the details, provided:
1. It is germane to the purpose of the law and
2. Conforms to the standard prescribed by law.
TN: As an administrative agency you can fill in the detail in the gap of
the law, provided you follow the conditions. Germane means related as
opposed to mundane which means worldly.
Atty Guji: What happened is, here is a law PD 27. Katu bitaw karaan na
comprehensive agrarian reform law during the time ni Marcos. It says now that if
you are the tenant you pay the lease to the landowner. So the problem there is
ingun sila, ‘why do you stop paying the payment directly to the landowner?’.
Because the MC now says okay diritso na sa banko.
The reason there is according to DAR, sometimes or most of the time kaning
payment sa tenants given to the landowner they do not issue a receipt. When you
do not issue a receipt you cannot account or monitor the expenses so chances are
it comes to a point where supposedly fully paid naka d ka makaprove coz you don’t
have a receipt.
So the DAR made a memorandum circular and let the farmers pay directly to the
bank because in the bank nay accounting klaro kaayu. But they said it has no basis
in law because the law does not even mention about stocking the payment. But
actually it’s not stocking the payment, it is just chattled to the bank, bayran
gihapun ang owner pero dili directly sa iyaha.
PD 27 emancipates tenants from the bondage of the soil by transferring
to them ownership of the land they till. The Memorandum Circular is
intended to avoid the situation where payments of lease exceed the
value of the land. It is to remedy the situation where lease payments
are not recorded or monitored because of the refusal of landowners to
issue receipts to the tenants. In the exercise of the power of subordinate
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17
legislation, administrative bodies are empowered to promulgate rules to
fill in the gap of the statute to fully implement the law.
Atty Guji: Take note ha broad policies, remember sufficient standards. Normally
it’s broad vague even but if it’s capable of determination, reasonable determination
pwede.
So if you are the administrative body here are your standards: You can enact an
IRR basta germane to the purpose of the law and conforms with the standard
prescribed by law even if what your saying there has no direct relation with the
source law.
The reason is congress legislates and that law is couched in general terms. There
are no specifics yet. Asa man nimu ibutang ang specifics? Sa administrative body
because it has the expertise in the field and because congress actually admits that
it cannot anticipate each and every situation that arises during the implementation
that’s why administrative agencies kamu bahala.
What the SC is saying is that even if it is a mere memorandum circular but if it
actually gives life on the purpose and intent of the law then that is allowed in
subordinate legislation. If Congress legislates, it cannot anticipate each and every
situation in the field as the law is being enforced. That is why an administrative
agency is better equipped in understanding the situation and they can fill in the
gap on law.
KINDS OF QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWER
KINDS
1. Interpretative regulation
2. Legislative regulation
Eslao v. COA
Facts: A state university entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to evaluate
government reforestation operations. The Board of Regents of the State
University confirmed the appointments and designations of the state
university personnel including the rates of honoraria and per diem. The
Commission on Audit however found that the approved rates of
honoraria were higher than the rates in the National Compensation
Circular (NCC) No. 53 thus disallowed.
Atty Guji: Because the problem here was State University, nakigcoordinate. There
was a memorandum agreement with the DENR for reforestation project so
ofcourse if you monitor and evaluate the reforestation project there’s a team there
and you have to pay the team. So gibayran, honorarium per diem and COA again
unsa may fixation sa COA? Disallowance right?
Once makakita kag loophole it will declare disallowance. So according to COA, the
rates are higher not allowed. But the DMB says the legal basis of law is actually
antiquated there’s a new circular that allows or justifies the higher wage. But still
the COA did not budge but here the Supreme Court said the DBM is right, it
interpreted the provision of law and COA should yield administrative regulations
and policies enacted by administrative bodies to interpret the law have the force
of law and they are entitled to great respect.
But take not great respect lang ha it is not binding. It is as good as it gets until
nullified by the Supreme Court.
The natural propensity or tendency of auditors is to find disallowance there. If
there is something going to be disbursed from the pockets of the government and
if the auditor will find that there is no legal basis to it, that auditor will stop it.
Because they are fixated to disallowing, that is their job.
The auditor based the disallowance on the Compensation Policy
Guidelines (CPG) which provided for lower rates and should apply to the
Memorandum of Agreement. The Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) clarified that the honoraria should be based on NCC
because it pertains to foreign-assisted projects whereas the CPG
pertains to locally funded projects. But the COA argued that CPG is
applicable because it does not distinguish between projects locally and
foreign funded.
Held: It is true that the CPG does not distinguish between foreign and
local funded projects. The CPG was issued by the DBM in 1980 whereas
the NCC was in 1988. As such, it is meant to amend the CPG. Also, the
provisions of the NCC are clear that it is applicable to foreign-assisted
projects only. It was issued “to prescribe/authorize the classification and
12 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G
compensation rates of positions of foreign-assisted projects including
honoraria rates for detailed personnel”.
The DENR certified that its review of reforestation projects undertaken
by state universities is one of the components of the Forestry Sector
Program Loan. Thus, it is a foreign-assisted project. DBM clarified that
the honoraria rate should not be based on the CPG since it pertains to
locally-funded projects while the NCC pertains to foreign-assisted
projects.
It is difficult to understand why despite these certifications, the COA
took a rigid and uncompromising posture that the CPG is the applicable
criterion for the honoraria to members of the reforestation evaluation
project team of the state university. Administrative regulations and
policies enacted by administrative bodies to interpret the law have the
force and are entitled to great respect.
Atty Guji: When you are going to make guidelines out of the source of law, the
first thing that they refer to is the interpretation of the law because you can never
make a guideline without that interpretation or construction. So this is a result of
interpretation that has the force and effect of law, unless nullified later on by the
SC. Because it only says “with great respect”, meaning, it is binding so long as the
SC did not find anything to the contrary.
Interpretative regulations are at best advisory, for it is the
court that finally determines what the law is.
Peralta v. CSC
Facts: A trade specialist in the Department of Trade and Industry
received his initial salary. But it was deducted with the amount
corresponding to his absences during the covered period on Fridays
hence it included Saturdays and Sundays because he had no
accumulated leave credits. The basis for deduction is the Handbook of
Information on the Philippine Civil Service which states that:
Atty Guji: The law empowers the CSC commissioner to prescribe amend for
suitable rules and regulations that carry out the provisions of the Civil Service Law.
So kana when you say empowered, gidelegate ang authority. So that’s why the
CSC commissioner made the handbook of information of the Philippine Civil Service
that states:
“When an employee is on leave without pay on a day before or on a day
immediately preceding a Saturday, Sunday or a Holiday, such Saturday,
Sunday or a Holiday shall also be without pay.”
Atty Guji: Diba, it actually avoids long holiday. Long weekend kay kasagaran
kanang giingun nila sa gobyerno ‘mabilis pa daw sa alas kwatro’ diba mawa na
ang empleyado. But that’s not true anymore.
Now you might be wondering na why are we talking about Saturday, Sunday and
Holiday na you are supposed to be paid daily. But in the government most of them
are paid monthly. So kung absent kag Friday wala nakay Saturday Sunday. So is
that correct? Mau ni ang source law:
After 6 months of continuous satisfactory service, the Department Head may in
his discretion, grant the employee 15 days vacation leave of absence with full pay
exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays or Holiday for each calendar year of service. In
addition another 15 days of sick leave is granted exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays
and Holidays.
The CSC construed this as referring only to employees who have earned leave
credits against which the absences may be charged with pay as its letters speak
only of leaves of absence with pay. Mau nay position sa Civil Service.
The intent and spirit prevail over the letter of the law.
Before in the government, for example, when you are absent on a Thursday, and
Friday is a holiday, you cannot avail of a holiday in Saturday and Sunday. It was
meant to discourage you from incurring a long absence or a long vacation. In the
government, we are paid in monthly basis and so even Saturdays and Sundays are
supposedly paid.
Contention of the trade specialist: The General Leave Law in the Revised
Administrative Code, the old Civil Service Law, the Civil Service Decree
and the Civil Service Rules and Regulations have no specific provision
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17
which supports the rule. The deduction without legal basis deprives
property without due process of law.
Atty Guji: Insofar as Civil Service is concerned, to them what governs now is the
Administrative Code of 1987, however, if you look at the Code of 1987 it does not
expressly repeal the Civil Service Act of 1959. If there is no express repeal, there
is a chance that the old law may still be alive. For me, my opinion is, the Civil
Service Act of 1959, no matter how old it is, it is still alive so long as there is no
irreconcilable inconsistencies.
Contention of the Civil Service Commission: The rule that applies only
to employees paid on a monthly basis rests on the assumption that one
who has no leave credits who absents on a Monday or Friday, could not
be favourably credited with intervening days had the same been working
days. To allow otherwise allows an employee who is on leave of absence
without pay for along period of time to be entitled to payment of his
salary corresponding to Saturdays, Sundays or Holidays.
It also discourages employees who have exhausted their leave credits
to absent on a Monday or Friday to have prolonged weekend to the
prejudice of the government and the public in general. While the law
excludes Saturdays, Sundays and holidays in the computation of leave
credits, it does not however include a case where the leave of absence
is without pay.
Issue: Whether the salary representing the intervening days of
Saturdays, Sundays and holidays is deducted if the employee is absent
or on leave without pay on a Friday or Monday?
While it was pending however, the CSC amended the policy. The
employee is not deemed absent on the intervening days. This mooted
the issue. But for reasons of public interest and public policy, the SC
says it is its duty to rule on its validity.
Atty Guji: Before that was the rule but it was already amended, however the SC
said that even if the issue is now moot and academic, we are still going to rule
because it will be for future guidance. The SC is sometimes very inconsistent, if
the issue is moot and academic but very controversial, the SC might say, it has
been mooted so it is useless to discuss up to this time. But sometimes it says the
case is of transcendental importance so even if it has been mooted, they need to
decide on the issue to serve as guide for the future because it might be repeated.
Held: The law empowers the CSC Commissioner to prescribe, amend,
and enforce suitable rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of
the civil service law. The law in point says: After at least 6 months of
continued satisfactory service, the department head may, in his
discretion, grant an employee 15 days vacation leave of absence with
full pay exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays for each calendar
year of service. In addition, another 15 days of sick leave is granted
exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. The CSC construed this
as referring only to employees who have earned leave credits against
which their absences may be charged with pay as its letters speak only
of leaves of absence with full pay.
The intent and spirit prevail over the letter of the law. Government
employees, whether or not they have exhausted their leave credits, are
not required to work on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday. Thus, they
cannot be deemed absent on such non-working days. The law did not
distinguish between those who accumulated leave credits and those who
exhausted them. When an administrative or executive agency renders
an opinion or issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-
existing law. It is at best advisory, for it is the court that finally
determines what the law means. It is not binding upon the courts. It
may be set aside if there is error of law, abuse of power or lack of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion conflicting the letter or spirit of
the law. As such, these interpretative regulations need not be published.
Atty Guji: Common sense would tell us that if you are not required to work on a
Saturday or Sunday, thus you cannot be declared absent on a Saturday or Sunday.
You cannot be deemed absent on such non-working days.
When an administrative or executive agency renders an opinion and issues a
statement of policy it merely interprets the law.
13 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G
Kani gibali natu, ganina the Supreme Court sustained the case. Sa katung
handbook it was actually an opinion lang kay iya man giinterpret ang balaod but
opinion palang because the Supreme Court has not yet decided with finality
whether or not that opinion is concomitant with the law.
So kani ang nahitabo is that interpretation is incorrect. It is at best advisory
because it is the court that finally determines what the law means so it is not
binding upon the courts. It may be set aside if there is error of law abusive power
or lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion conflicting the letter or spirit of
the law. As such these administrative regulations need not be published.
So again bottomline is if you interpret the law and out of that interpretation you
make a policy that is merely advisory until the Supreme Court says with finality,
that ‘okay this is correct’ then that becomes a policy.
Bottom line: If the administrative agency makes a guideline, that is actually the
result of their interpretation which is why we call that Interpretative Regulation.
SOURCE: VALID DELEGATION
SOURCE: VALID DELEGATION
Unbridled discretion delegated to the provincial board.
People v. Vera
Facts: A convict applied for probation under Act No. 4221. The private
prosecution opposed on the ground that Act No. 4221 violates the equal
protection clause because its application is not uniform throughout the
country. Section 11 empowers the provincial boards to make it effective
or otherwise in their respective provinces. It is an undue delegation of
legislative power. The trial court denied the application.
Atty Guji: This is a very old case but best illustrates valid delegation. This is the
very old probation law, I think 1920s but we bring this now because it best
illustrates valid or invalid delegation.
Sa pirmiro palang it says ‘this act shall apply only to those provinces in which the
respective provincial boards have provided for the salary of the probation officer
at ways not lower than those now provided for provincial fiscals’. Take note in
those provinces respective provincial board so unsa man na administrative body
iya girefer it’s actually referring to the local government unit the province through
the provincial board. It applies only, and take note buut pasabut diay if the
provincial board does not allocate funds or this salary of the probation officer,
there cannot be a probation officer.
Kinsa may magprobation officer kung walay sweldo? You deal with convicts imu
girehabilitate how do you do that without the salary. So now, it goes without saying
that the law actually says it’s up to the provincial board kung mutake effect ang
probation law sa ilang probinsya.
Because they can say, ‘okay no budget’ and you cannot force them to allocate
funds. So is that valid delegation? It violates equal protection clause because its
application is not uniform throughout the country. Exactly because one province
can say ‘okay we have the budget so the probation law can be applied here’ but
what if you allow the province na impoverished na province na walay budget na
no budget so no probation law.
It cannot be applied uniformly throughout and you cannot argue that ‘basin diay
makakwarta mi, makahatag name sa among officer nana mi probation law’ it is
nto even the intention of the law because if that happens it now becomes the sole
discretion of the provincial body to determine whether or not the probation law
can be inforce in the province.
There is a section there in the law which provides that the budget for the Office
of the Commissioner depends on the Commission Board. So if the Commission
does not appropriate the budget then there is no probation for that particular
province.
Held: The general rule is legislative power cannot be delegated. But
immemorial practice permits the central legislative body to delegate
legislative powers to local authorities. The delegation of legislative
power is valid if the law is complete in all its terms and provisions when
it left the hands of the legislature so that nothing is left for the judgment
of the appointee or delegate of the legislature.
An examination of a variety of cases on delegation of power to
administrative bodies shows that the ratio decidendi varies. But it can
be broadly asserted that it revolves around the sufficiency of standard
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17
in the law to aid the delegate in the exercise of discretion. In some
cases, it is sufficient, in others, it is insufficient and still in others, it is
lacking. It is incomplete if it does not lay down any rule of definite
standard by which the administrative body or officer may be guided in
the exercise of the power of discretion delegated. What is granted by
Section 11 is a roving commission that enables the provincial board’s
arbitrary discretion.
TN: Roving commission means unlimited, unbridled discretion.
Section 11 presupposed that if the provincial board does not wish the
Probation Act to apply, it simply declines appropriation of salary for the
probation officer. This leaves the entire matter to the provincial board
to determine, a virtual surrender of legislative power to the provincial
boards.
Atty Guji: They said pa gyud na ‘okay if the provincial board says walay kwarta
walay probation officer’ in effect the provincial board actually suspends the
enforcement of the law and you cannot suspend unless you are congress or the
Supreme court by virtue of a TRO.
You know what kanang RH law ba, it’s been with the Supreme Court naka TRO
pana even until now dili pa siya me enforce.
While delegation allows an administrative body or officer to determine
the facts according to the terms of the law, the legislature did not
provide for the operation of the Probation Act contingent upon specified
facts or conditions to be ascertained by the Provincial board. The
discretion is arbitrary because it is absolute and unlimited. It is not
required to justify refusal to appropriate funds for the salary of probation
officers.
Atty Guji: In this case, it depends on the Commission board on whether or not
to appropriate budget for the probationer. And here it does not even require
explanation why they didn’t appropriate in the first place.
That now is abdication or total surrender of legislative power and it cannot be a
valid delegation of power. It is valid if the law is complete in all its terms.
Kanus-a ta kaingun na valid ang delegation? It is valid if the law is complete in all
its terms and provisions when left by the hands of congress so that nothing is left
for the judgement of the appointive delegate of the legislation. In other words the
law must be complete in itself that when it leaves the hand of congress what it
needs is only enforcement.
However, how do you reconcile this when you say that subordinate legislation
you’ll fill in the gap. In other words when you fill in the gap there are some missing
words in the law, if there are missing details how can we say that the law is
complete. How do you reconcile?
It means that when we say the law is complete in itself, the law is complete in so
far as the general terms are concerned. Meaning there is guide all ready there is
sufficient standard. Dili gihapun siya complete kay you need to fill in the gap of
the missing details.
This makes the applicability of the Probation Law dependent not only
upon the full discretion of the provincial board, but on its pleasure. While
it may be argued that the Probation Law may take effect any way at
some future time when the Provincial Board appropriates, it still rests
solely upon the will of the Provincial Board and not upon the happening
of a contingency.
Atty Guji: What if the Commission Board now says, well we did not appropriate
because there is no budget in the first place. Can we just appropriate later on? If
that happens, if we allow that, we are actually empowering the Commission Board
to suspend the enforcement of the law, which it cannot do.
In effect, the Provincial Board is empowered to suspend the
enforcement of the law. The power to suspend law pertains to Congress
subject to the condition that when it suspends, it cannot be suspended
as to certain individuals only, leaving the law to be enjoyed by others.
The suspension must be general. Thus, Section 11 is an improper and
unlawful delegation of legislative authority to the provincial boards and
is therefore unconstitutional.
14 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G
Public safety is a sufficient standard.
Calalang v. Williams
Facts: The Reflector Law provides:
“(g) Lights and reflector when parked or disabled. – Appropriate parking
lights or flares visible 100m away shall be displayed at a corner of the
vehicle whenever such vehicle is parked on highways or in places that
are not well-lighted or is placed in such manner as to endanger passing
traffic. Furthermore, every motor vehicle shall be provided at all times
with built-in reflectors or other similar warning devices either pasted,
painted or attached to its front and back which shall likewise be visible
at light at least 100m away. No vehicle not provided with any
requirements mentioned in this subsection shall be registered.”
Atty Guji: That’s the source law passed by congress but of course the LTO or
LTFRB can still promulgate rules and regulations. So dunay administrative order
based on that law.
Administrative order number 2 says that no motor vehicles of whatever style or
kind make class or denomination shall be registered if nto equipped with reflectors,
such reflectors shall either be factory built in or commercial glass reflectors
reflection tape or luminous paint then the luminousity shall have the intensity to
be maintained and visible at all times such that when struck by a beam of light
shall be visible 100 meters away.
Take note ha that it does not reflect the reflector law dli siya pareha, so they said
na duna may addition especially this one: Another section that prescribes
dimension, placement.
The source law did not provide for this pero ngano man the administrative order
naa man ni siya is that valid?
A motorist challenged this as unconstitutional because it deprives
property without due process.
Atty Guji: Reflector Law is a service law. There is a question there on whether or
not the policy as implemented by the administrative agencies have basis under the
Reflector law? Another issue is its constitutionality.
Held: The law is enacted under the police power to promote public
safety. Police power is the state authority to enact legislation that may
interfere with personal liberty or property to promote the general
welfare.
Thus, persons and property could be subjected to all kinds of restraints
and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health and
prosperity of the state. It is the power to prescribe regulations to
promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and
general welfare of the people.
Atty Guji: Public safety is a sufficient standard. So it is up to you to formulate
guidelines based on public safety. AO No. 2 is the IRR of the Reflector Law and it
is more specific.
Generally legislative power cannot be delegated except the local governments that
participate in its exercise. What cannot be delegated is the authority of congress
to enact laws, alter or repeal them. If it involves discretion as to what the law shall
be it cannot be delegated. Because ang discretion sa administrative agency is how
to enforce the law not to determine what the law shall be.
If it involves the authority to execute pursuant to the law it can be delegated the
law must be complete in all its terms and conditions and there must be sufficient
standards. The standard may either be express or implied if implied it need not be
spelled specifically but for as long as it is verifiable.
Remember the distinction between as you may deem fit and as you may deem it
necessary? Fit is sole discretion, unfettered but if you say necessary that necessary
is quantifiable and that is the measure. In other words it’s not really your
discretion.
In the reflector law the onjective of the law is public safety, so anything that you
do for as long as it is geared towards public safety that can be acceptable. The
principle of non delegation has been constrained to adopt to the growing
complexities in life thus the birth of the principle of subordinate legislation. While
law making is non delegable the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to
implement the law provided it is germane to the purpose of the law and provides
a standard.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17
Edu v Ericta
Facts: Administrative Order No. 2 (IRR of Reflector Law) says:
“No motor vehicles of whatever style, kind, make, class or denomination
shall be registered if not equipped with reflectors. Such reflectors shall
either be factory built-in reflector commercial glass reflectors, reflection
tape or luminous paint. The luminosity shall have an intensity to be
maintained visible and clean at all times such that if struck by a beam
of light shall be visible 100m away at night.”
Another section prescribes dimension, placement and color. This was
likewise challenged for being an undue delegation of legislative power.
Held: Generally. Legislative power cannot be delegated except to local
governments that participate in its exercise. What cannot be delegated
is the authority of Congress to enact laws, alter and repeal them. If it
involves discretion as to what the law shall be, it cannot be delegated.
If it involves authority to execute pursuant to the law, it can be
delegated. The law must be complete in all its terms and conditions.
There must be sufficient standard that defines legislative policy, marks
its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to
apply it. The standard may either be express or implied. If implied, it
need not be spelled out specifically. It could be implied from the purpose
and policy of the act considered as a whole.
Atty Guji: Two tests to know proper delegation of legislative power:
1. Completeness test – the law must be complete in itself
2. Sufficient Standard test – the law must have sufficient standard that defines
legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specified the
public agency to apply it.
If the law is complete then that can be delegated because you don’t need to
determine what the law is. The administrative agency has nothing else to do but
enforce the law. But in the enforcement, there is interpretation and if during the
interpretation, there is something missing, the agency can fill in the gap. Rationale
is that Congress cannot anticipate what happens on the field.
In the Reflector Law, the objective of the law is public safety. The
principle of non-delegation has been constrained to adapt to the growing
complexities of modern life thus the birth of the principle of subordinate
legislation. While law-making is non-delegable, the authority to
promulgate rules and regulations to implement the law is allowed
provided it is germane to the purpose of the law and conforms with the
standard of the law.
Two categories of legislative powers:
1. Determine what the law should be.
2. Authority to fix the details in the execution of enforcement of
legislative policy.
Atty Guji: So katu even if not found in the source law for as long as it is geared
towards public safety pwede. Just like COMELEC, kadumdum mu sa mga
resolutions before? Anything that equalizes opportunities for candidates, rich or
poor alike but not necessarily found in the language of the law but for as long as
geared towards the equalization of opportunities.
Rationale: It is impracticable to anticipate multifarious and complex
situations during enforcement of the law
Two tests to determine valid delegation of legislative power.
Eastern v. POEA
Facts: An overseas worker was killed in an accident in Japan by virtue
of which his widow was awarded death benefits and burial expenses by
the POEA pursuant to EO No. 797 and MC No. 2. But the employer
argued that the POEA has no jurisdiction, as it pertains to the SSS
against the State Insurance Fund. EO 797 says that POEA governing
board shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to govern its
exercise of adjudicatory functions pursuant to its mandate to protect the
rights of overseas Filipino workers to fair and equitable employment
practices.
Atty Guji: Take note that it is only an EO and memorandum circular that provides
burial benefits. “Fair and equitable practices” is a sufficient standard.
15 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G
MC No. 2 Sec C. Compensation & Benefits. –
In case of death of the seamen during the term of his contract, the
employer pays his beneficiaries the following:
a. P220,000.00 for master and chief engineers
b. P180,000.00 for other officers, including radio operators and
master electrician
c. P130,000.00 for ratings.
Contention of the employer: This Memorandum Circular violates non-
delegation of legislative power. There is no statutory authority given to
POEA to promulgate it. Even if there is, the regulations represent
exercise of discretion which cannot be delegated.
Atty Guji: The issue here is the POEA does not have the authority to promulgate
to give the standard in awarding the death benefits and burial expenses.
Held: It is true that legislative discretion as to substantive contents of
the law cannot be delegated. What can be delegated is the discretion
on how the law is to be enforced and not what the law shall be. Two
tests to determine valid delegation of legislative power:
1. Completeness Test – the law must be complete in all its terms and
conditions such that when it leaves Congress, there is nothing else
left for the delegate to do but enforce it.
2. Sufficient standard test – there must be adequate guidelines in the
law to define the boundaries of the delegated authority.
Atty Guji:
Either or ni siya ha, if you don’t pass here and you pass here that’s all right.
If you use sufficient standard, it admits that the law is not complete after all for
as long as there is sufficient standard.
The reason is the increasing complexity of governmental task and the
growing inability of Congress to cope directly with its myriad problems
demanding its attention. The growth of society has ramified its activities
and created peculiar and sophisticated problems that Congress cannot
be expected to seasonably comprehend. This demands specialized
legislation. With the myriad of problems besetting society, Congress has
become incompetent to provide specific solutions. Thus, the need for
delegation.
This justification for delegation of legislative power is applicable to
administrative bodies. With the proliferation of specialized activities and
their attendant peculiar problem, Congress found it more and more
necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the authority to
promulgate rules to carry out the general provisions of the law. This is
the Power of Subordinate Legislation. With this power, administrative
bodies are authorized to “fill in the details” which Congress may not
have the opportunity or competence to provide. This is effected by
promulgation of implementing rules known as supplementary
regulations.
Memorandum Circular No 2 is one of such administrative regulation
guided by the mandate to protect the rights of overseas workers to fair
and equitable employment practices which is deemed a sufficient
standard.
Atty Guji: So pwede, even if wala sa executive order, memorandum circular lang
hatag ka ug burial expenses it has the force and effect of law.
Again delegation? It is an actuation that congress cannot do it alone the courts
cannot do it alone. Let the administrative body do it because they are experts in
the field.
At the end of this lecture you will realize that kaning quasi-legislative power of
administrative agencies can be summarized in one liner, one phrase ‘subordinate
legislation’ that’s it remember it by this doctrine.
Take note, it is very important, “the power of subordinate legislation” and
remember this key phrase, do not paraphrase. The standard says fair and
equitable employment practices. If you die in line of duty, logically, your
beneficiaries should be entitled to some amount of compensation.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17
The code-making authority is an unconstitutional delegation of
legislative power. Thus, unconstitutional.
Shechter v. US
Facts: The National Industrial Recovery Act authorizes the President to
“approve codes of fair competition” for the live poultry industry. It may
be approved upon the application by one or more trade or industrial
association if the President finds that:
1. The applicant imposes no inequitable restrictions on admission to
membership and that is truly representative.
2. The code is not designed to promote monopolies or eliminate or
oppress small enterprises or will not discriminate.
Atty Guji: kani ang nahitabu diri was this. National Industrial recovery act it’s the
law then it says okay we authorize the president to approve codes of fair
competition but what the president did was iya gidelegate ang delegated authority.
Pwede man na siya, you can delegate a delegated authority provided duna pa kay
control.
Example: Congress tells me make a code, and then I also say Arjie make a code
but ikaw na bahala that’s not valid. But when I say Arjie make a code submit it to
me for review that’s valid. Mau nay nahitabo.
Thus, the birth of the Live Poultry Code.
Issue: Valid delegation of legislative power?
Held: This is an unfettered discretion to make whatever laws the
President thinks may be needed or advisable for the rehabilitation and
expansion of trade and industry. In approving the Code, the President
may impose his own conditions, adding to or taking from what is being
proposed, as “in his discretion” he thinks necessary “to effectuate the
policy” declared in the law.
Atty Guji: Again kung binisay-un gani ninyu ang phrase na bahala na ka that’s
not valid. And take note pag-abut sa exam I’m not going to use the same words.
Im going to use alternative words and again you might be lost in translation.
Take note, “in his discretion” and “as it may deemed fit”, that could be unbridled.
It likewise authorizes the President to create administrative agencies to
assist him. But their finding or recommendation in the making of the
code is subject to the discretion of the President who may either accept,
modify or reject them as he pleases. The authority relates to a host of
different trades and industries thereby extending presidential discretion
to all varieties of laws. It is a sweeping delegation of legislative power.
Aside from the general statement of rehabilitation, correction and
expansion, it has no standard for any trade, industry or activity. Instead
of prescribing rules of conduct, it authorizes the making of codes to
prescribe them. The code-making authority is an unconstitutional
delegation of legislative power
Atty Guji: In this case, it’s as if there is an abdication on the power to legislate
on the part of Congress allowing the President to make the code. That is unbridled,
therefore, there is no sufficient standard. Congress has been lazy in stating that
Mr. President knows better, that is not allowed.
EFFECTIVITY OF PRESIDENTAL ISSUANCES, RULES, ETC.
EFFECTIVITY OF PRESIDENTIAL ISSUANCES, RULES, ETC.
GR: Publication is required before they take effect . Of course in the
interest of due process.
XPN: Interpretative or internal in nature not concerning the general
public.
Atty Guji: Pananglit, COMELEC election en bank issues a resolution then kami sa
field we cannot understand how do we go about this what do we mean by this. So
we write COMELEC en bank for clarification then COMELEC en bank answers in the
form of letter of instruction to guide us. That merely interprets a regulation and
does not affect the general public for purposes of guiding the field officers so it
need not be published because it does not involve the general public. For internal
consumption lang, guidance.
16 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G
When it is interpretative, it just guides the employees. There are regulations, laws,
and subordinate legislation that are hard to understand, so what we do is write
the said office to give us guidelines. It then issues an advisory for our guidance.
It is interpretative in nature and is clearly an internal matter. If it is only for the
benefit of consumption of those inside the administration and does not involve the
public, it does not need to be published.
Presidential Issuances
Basis: Ordinance power of the President.
Authority to issue executive orders, proclamations, administrative orders
and memorandum, circulars, general or special orders.
Atty Guji: Take note na ang president sa panahon ni Marcos, presidential decree
balaod gyud to kay gimerge man there was fusion of legislation and execution
panahon ni Marcos. Panahon ni Cory diba iya gisupplant ang 1973 consti declare
your government revolutionary. In which case she can issue executive order. Did
you not realize that your family code is an executive order, Congress did not pass
that Cory did.
So nganu kabuhat man ang President ana? Why can the president say okay today
is holiday tomorrow is not ngnau man na? Because of the ordinance power of the
president, naa siyay law making authority.
Ordinance power of the president: Authority to executive orders, proclamations
administrative orders memorandum circulars general or special orders.
Atty Guji: Even if the law-making power is vested exclusively with Congress, the
President can still issue executive orders that have the force and effect of law.
Basis is the Ordinance Power of the President.
Effectivity of Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)
(Penal or Non Penal)
1. Publication
2. Filing with the UP Law Center
Except: When the law dispenses with filing. However, it cannot
dispense with publication. Because it violates due process remember?
Tanada v Tuvera publication cannot be dispensed you may shorten or
lengthen the 15 day period but you cannot dispense all together.
Nature of administrative rules and regulations
A. They have the force and effect of a law
B. Partake the nature of a statute
Rule-making power of a public administrative agency
It is a delegated legislative power
Test of validity of delegation of rule-making power
1. Completeness test – The law must be complete in itself
Atty Guji: Take note – Complete in itself. But it must not be super
complete that it precludes the specific details that only the
administrative agency can identify.
2. Sufficient standard test – The law must fix a standard where
the limits are sufficiently determinate or determinable. Meaning
verifiable quantifiable.
Take note: In case of discrepancy between the statute and IRR, the
statute prevails.
Remember liquor ban, the Omnibus election code is very specific that you can only
ban liquor on the eve of election and on the day meaning 2 days ragyud. But the
MMDA under Tolentino before proposed to the COMELEC why can’t we make it 2
months towards election and so the COMELEC weighed it, it is too long.
So COMELEC thought okay 5 days towards election day, buhat sa COMELEC 5 days
na of course nidagan sa Supreme Court si Tanduay San Miguel Beer.
Supreme Court issued a TRO and said COMELEC cannot do that because the law
is very specific on the eve of election and election day it cannot expand the law.
Even if you have the best of intentions.
Types of administrative rules and regulations
1. Enforces the law – Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17
2. Interprets the rule – Letter of Instruction (LOI) – Does not involve
the general public in which case publication is not necessary.
Atty Guji: LOI is only for the consumption of those inside the organization
for their guidelines. It need not be published because the public is not
involved.
Test of validity of administrative rules and regulations
1. Germane to the object of the law
2. Conforms to standards prescribed by the law
3. Sole purpose of carrying into effect general provisions of the law
REQUISITES OF A VALID REGULATION
REQUISITES OF A VALID REGULATION
1. Authorized by law
2. Promulgated within the scope of authority
3. Promulgated in accordance with prescribed procedure
4. Reasonable and fair
5. Duly published
6. Filed with UP Law Center
I cannot give you hard and fast rule how to answer the exam there are
a thousand and one ways to kill a cat ana man gyud na siya when you
answer the exam it’s self expression so we cannot issue a hard and fast
rule that you should answer this way. We can only give tips and tips do
not bind you. Expression man na lain lain ug style ang taw.
Authorized by Law.
Tayug Rural Bank v. Central Bank
Facts: Central Bank imposed 10% penalty on past overdue loans of rural
banks. But the law does not authorize it thru the Monetary Board to add
penalty for past due accounts.
Atty Guji: Central Bank what’s that? Administrative body and here’s the law that
is silent about penalty for past due accounts but here the Central bank through
the monetary board says na if past due na gani 10 percent. Is that valid?
Held: when an administrative agency promulgates rules, it must be in
pursuance of the procedure or authority conferred by law. When this is
complied, it partakes the nature of a statute, and its compliance may be
enforced by a penal sanction provided by law. Hence, an administrative
agency cannot impose a penalty not provided by law, much less one
that applies retroactively.
Atty Guji: Take note ha, penal sanction provided by law. Meaning if the law is
silent you cannot provide a penal sanction. Hence an administrative agency cannot
impose a penalty not provided by law much less one that applies retroactively. In
other words bottomline there is the spring cannot rise above its source.
The trend or the attitude of the SC is that, when you are an administrative agency,
you can promulgate, you can implement rules and regulations. However, if you
start to provide for penalty, the presumption is that it is invalid because it is not
to be exercised by the administrative agency. They cannot penalize.
But is a case to case basis. Sometimes the SC allowed but sometimes it does not.
But once it involves penalty, the presumption is it’s an invalid delegation.
Promulgated within the scope of authority.
Boie-Takeda v Dela Serna, Philippine Fuji Xerox v Trajano
Facts: Sales Commissions of medical representatives were ordered
included in the computation of 13th month pay. But the employer refused
to pay because commissions do not form part of the basic salary as basis
of the 13th month pay. PD 851 says the 13th month pay is based on basic
salary which should be defined in its common and generally accepted
meaning. A rate of pay for standard work period exclusive of such
additional payments as bonuses and overtime. But the Labor Secretary
revised the guidelines on the implementation for the 13 th month pay law.
Held: The inclusion of commission in the computation of the 13th month
pay unduly expands the concept of basic salary defined in the 13 th month
pay law. Implementing rules cannot add or detract from the provisions
of law it is designed to implement. It must be in harmony with the
17 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G
provisions of law they are intended to carry into effect. They cannot
widen its scope much less amend an act of Congress.
Atty Guji: Is the employer correct that commissions don’t form part of the basic
salary as basis for the 13th month pay? Yes.
The Labor Secretary probably thought that anyway presumption is, you do
something in favor of labor it is in favor of labor. An administrative agency cannot
expand the definition of basic salary by adding commissions. But if employer gives
it as a matter of liberality, then it is alright.
If there is no doubt let the language of the law which is clear be implemented.
Republic v. CA
Facts: In 1985, the BIR assessed and demanded payment of tax
deficiency from a company which did not pay after it availed tax amnesty
under an EO. BIR insisted because the implementing memorandum
limits tax amnesty to assessments made after EO took effect in 1986.
Held: The executive order merely provided for a general statement
covering all tax liabilities from 1981-1985. It did not limit its applicability
as it is designed to be in the nature of a general grant of tax amnesty.
Administrative issuances to enforce the law must be in harmony with it,
not modify or supplant it.
Atty Guji: The EO does not limit until 1985. It merely identifies tax liability wage
but it did not really say it cannot be applied outside. It must follow the law, not
modify.
People v. Maceren
Facts: the Fisheries Law prohibits “the use of any poisonous or
obnoxious substance” in fishing. But the administrative order prohibited
and penalized electro fishing. The trial court quashed the information on
the ground that no law was violated since electro fishing is not a
poisonous or obnoxious substance contemplated by law.
Atty Guji: Fisheries law niana ra siya na poisonous or obnoxious pero ang
administrative law it went further it penalizes electro fishing.
Held: The Fisheries Law does not expressly criminalize electro fishing
hence the administrative order cannot penalize it. The administrative
agency cannot transcend the bounds demarcated by statute to exercise
that power
Atty Guji: Source law says it prohibits the use of any poisonous or obnoxious
substance but an administrative order somehow expanded it by penalizing
electro fishing. If it is about penalty the attitude of the SC is to strike it down as
unconstitutional. Because if you provide penalty that is somehow in the
competency of Congress.
How do you compare that with katung burial benefits na ihatag sa POEA it was
not in the form of pnelaty that was assistance even if not found in the law pwede.
But here it’s not assistance it was penalty, it criminalizes that’s why there is no
basis in the law. It expands the law.
Echegaray v. Justice Secretary
Facts: A dead man walking challenged the constitutionality of the death
penalty law for being cruel and inhuman, arbitrary and unreasonable,
undue delegation of legislative power and unlawful delegation of
delegated powers by the Justice Secretary to the Bureau of Corrections
Director.
Contention of the dead man walking:
The death penalty is cruel and inhuman because it fails to provide drugs,
dosage and procedure to be used for lethal injection. The implementing
rules are uncertain as to the date of execution, time of notification and
the court which will fix the date of execution.
Atty Guji: Echegaray claims that it is inhuman and that it prolongs his agony for
he doesn’t know when he will die. He was the only guy convicted when the death
penalty law was resurrected.
Held: The death penalty law says the court which designates the date
of execution is the trial court which convicted him. The implementing
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17
rules, when read in conjunction with the law, says the death sentence
is carried out not earlier that 1 year nor later than 18 months from the
time the death penalty became final and executory, subject to executive
clemency.
Atty Guji: SC said there is actually a date but it is a range and not a specific date.
This is to afford the President a chance to grant executive clemency. The case was
that Echegaray raped his daughter but he never admitted until his death.
Contention of the dead man walking: There is undue delegation of
legislative power because the power delegated to the Justice Secretary
to promulgate rules and regulations on the subject of lethal injection
was likewise delegated to the Prisons Director.
Atty Guji: The issue here is that the delegation is given to the Justice Secretary
but the latter himself delegated the power to the Prison Director.
Held: The rule is that what has been delegated cannot be delegated or
potestas delegate non delegari potest.
Exceptions.
1. Delegations of tariff powers to the president under Section 28(2)
Article VI, 1987 Constitution
2. Delegation of emergency powers to the president under Section
23(2) Article VI, 1987 Constitution
3. Delegation to the people at large (This refers to people’s initiative.
We can propose law)
4. Delegation to local governments. It talks about local legislations.
5. Delegation to administrative bodies.
6. Empowering the Justice Secretary in conjunction with the Health
Secretary and the Prisons Director to promulgate rules and
regulations on the subject of lethal injection is a form of delegation
of legislative authority to administrative bodies.
It is subject to the following Requisites:
1. It must be complete in itself – it must set forth the policy to
be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate
2. It must fix a standard – the limits sufficiently determinate or
determinable, to which the delegate must conform in the
performance of his functions.
Considering the scope and definiteness of the death penalty law, it
sufficiently describes what is the job to be done, who is to do it and
what is the scope of authority. It is executed under authority of the
Prisons Director who shall take steps to ensure the administration of
lethal injection causes instantaneous death by personnel trained prior to
the performance of such task. Requiring detail greater than that does
not serve any useful purpose. A delegated legislative power is proper
even if the standard appears general provided it is capable of reasonable
application.
Requiring detail greater than that does not serve any useful purpose.
Atty Guji: What does this mean? It means that source law complete only in so
far as general statement is concerned. Incomplete in so far as detail. But you
cannot be too detailed.
There is a law and it is complete already but lacks the necessary specifics that is
why there is subordinate legislation. But if you are too specific rather than the
ordinary specific, that is not necessary.
A delegated legislative power is proper even if the standard appears
general provided it is capable of reasonable application.
Atty Guji: Sufficient standards such as public interest, public safety, equitable
practices etc., they are general but are capable of reasonable application so they
are reasonable standard.
There is no undue delegation of legislative power from the Justice
Secretary to the Prisons Director for the simple reason that under the
Administrative Code of 1987, the Bureau of Corrections is a mere
constituent unit of the Department of Justice. The DOJ is tasked to take
18 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G
charge of the administration of the correctional system. But the
execution procedure that empowers the Director to prepare the manual
to detail procedure prior to, during and after administering the lethal
injection is invalid.
Atty Guji: So pwede nimu ipasa, however the qualification here is imu gipasa
provided again that you retain the power of review imu icontrol if you don’t like
what they did pwede nimu ilisan.
No undue delegation from Justice Sec to Prisons Dir. AO 1987 states
that Bureau of Corrections is a mere constituent unit of the Department
of Justice.
Atty Guji: It was not delegated at all because in the 1st place they belong to one
DOJ. But something is wrong there the execution procedure from manual to detail
procedure prior to, during and after administering the lethal injection is invalid.
They are pin pointing each other as to who is at fault.
It virtually abrogates the Power of Justice Secretary to promulgate the
manual to the Prisons Director. It does not provide for a mode of review
and approval by the Justice Secretary who is the rule-making authority
identified by the death penalty law and the administrative superior who
should stamp imprimatur of a manual prepared by a constituent unit.
The suspension of execution of death sentence under the implementing
rules is likewise invalid. The Revised Penal Code suspends the death
penalty while a woman is pregnant or within 1 year after delivery. But
the implementing rules suspends the death penalty while a woman is
pregnant or within 3 years following the date of sentence. Since the 3-
year reprieve does not find support in the Revised Penal Code, it
expands the death penalty law.
Atty Guji: When should the death sentence be executed? RPC provides that it
has to be suspended if the woman is pregnant or within one year after delivery.
But the IRR says 3 years following the date of sentence. It is not in the source law
(RPC). So SC found it invalid because it somehow expanded the law which is not
allowed.
These two provisions being invalid, respondents are enjoined from
enforcing the death penalty law until the implementing rules and
regulations are appropriately amended revised or corrected according to
this section.
Duly Published.
Republic v. Medina
Facts: The PSC approved the application of Meralco for rates adjustment
which was challenged for lack of notice of hearing. The Public Service
Act grants it discretion to approve rates proposed by public services
provisionally without need of hearing. But it appears that the notice of
hearing was published in 2 newspapers for 10 days but the hearing
started ahead on the 6th day and the rates were approved on the 11 th
day.
TN: There must be notice of hearing for 10 days.
Held: If the PSC is empowered to approve provisional rates even
without a hearing, a fortiori (with more reason) it may act on such
rates upon a 6-day notice.
Atty Guji: You may not be allowed to dispense with the publication of the notice
of hearing but you can shorten that. There is already substantial compliance just
like in Tanada v. Tuvera.
Phil Consumers Foundation v. Education Secretary
Facts: the Department of Education, Culture and Sports issued a
Department Order authorizing 15-20% increase in school fees. This was
challenged as unconstitutional on the grounds of lack of legal basis and
violation of due process.
Atty Guji: This was challenged as unconstitutional. What was the challenge? Ang
authority man gud sa DEPED was to regulate so regulate raman kaha why are you
authorizing increase? Increase is not part and parcel of regulation.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17

Contention: Lack of legal basis because the authority to regulate school

fess does not always include the power to increase them

Held: The Education Act of 1982 vests the DECS with the power to
promulgate rules regulating the educational system of the country. It is
also charged with rule-making authority to promulgate the necessary
rules and regulations. The authority to prescribe school fees may not
have been expressly granted to it. But in the absence of a law stating
otherwise, this power includes the power to increase school fees. Since
no other government agency is vested with power to prescribe school
fees, it defaults to the Department of Education, Culture and Sports.

Atty Guji: Again doctrine of necessary implication, wala siyay gispecify na

increase but when you regulate it actually includes authorizing increase. Because
if it’s not the DEPED that authorizes increase who else? So dapat DEPED gyud by
virtue of the Doctrine of Necessary implication

DECS has the power to prescribe school fees and now it increases. Is increasing
the fees included in the power to prescribe? The contention there was that the
power must be somewhere else, not expressly stipulated under the law. But the
question is, if it is not DECS, who will? So, there’s no one else but DECS.

Contention: Lack of due process because the Department Order was

issued without notice and hearing to the parents and students.

Held: The power to prescribe fees is either quasi-legislative or quasi-

judicial. Remedies differ depending if quasi-legslative or quasi-judicial.

Take note of the difference: It is quasi-legislative when the rules are

meant to apply to all enterprises of a given kind throughout the
country. If you implement IRR as such quasi na siya.

As such, prior notice and hearing to affected parties is not a

requirement of due process. (It is for everybody in so far as the
prescription of school fees)

You cannot invoke that but of course publication is still necessary but
here we’re talking about notice of hearing to affected parties.

It is quasi-judicial when the rules apply exclusively to a particular party,

based upon a finding of fact. As such, prior notice and hearing are
essential to the validity of the rules. (This case is quasi-legislative
because it is not intended for a particular person) Meaning there is
adversarial proceedings.

Bottomline: Quasi legislative doctrine of subordinate legislation and the

tests are sufficiency test and completeness test.

19 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17
PART III - QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER
DEFINITION
QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER
The power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the
legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the
standards to enforce and administer the law.
Atty Guji: This is just a reiteration of the Quasi-Judicial Powers. Remember
Comelec has Quasi-Judicial powers. In Admin law, we have to just magnify some
concepts. Quasi-means semi “mura-mura”. Quasi-Judicial, you are like a judge but
not actually a judge.
Acts in the exercise of quasi-judicial power, enumerated.
The incidents of quasi-judicial power
It is required to:
1. Investigate and ascertain the existence of Facts, hold hearings,
weigh evidence
2. Draw conclusions from them as basis of their official function
and exercise discretion in a judicial nature. It determines Facts
then applies the law on the given set of Facts.
3. Limitation: But an administrative body cannot assume
jurisdiction over a case pending in the regular courts.
Atty Guji: You cannot encroach, if it is pending in the regular courts, wait
for the pending case to be dismissed. Also, wait for the party to file it with
you.
Even if it was filed with the judicial courts but it turns out that it is the
wrong venue, the administrative agencies cannot just take it away from
the courts unless the courts themselves dismisses it for lack of jurisdiction
or the higher court says “you have no jurisdiction”. Once it is dismissed,
that is already the time that the case can be filed in the administrative
agency. But the administrative agency cannot just encroach or tell the court
that “you have no jurisdiction, give it to us.” It cannot be done.
Quasi- judicial courts are supposed be passive. Except when you talk about
the Ombudsman because it is supposed to be active.
4. Administrative agencies are neither part of the judicial system
nor are they deemed judicial tribunals.
5. Even if it performs quasi-judicial functions, it does not depart
from its basic nature as an administrative agency.
Atty Guji: This is because it is just one of the many functions of an
administrative agency
United Residents of Dominican Hills v CLSP
They remain with the executive branch. As such, they cannot impose
their judgment upon the judiciary.
REQUIREMENTS FOR A VALID EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION
REQUIREMENTS FOR A VALID EXERCISE
1. Jurisdiction
2. Due process
Jurisdiction.
The power to hear and decide a case.
Globe Wireless Ltd. v. Public Service Commission
Facts: An international telecommunications company operates a
franchise granted by law which failed to deliver a message abroad. A
case was filed before the PSC which found it liable for unsatisfactory
service.
Held: The law authorizing franchise limited the jurisdiction of the PSC
“only with respect to the rates” charged to the public and it does not
include acts of negligence.
The jurisdiction of administrative agencies is limited to those expressly
granted or necessarily implied by law.
20 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G
Atty Guji: So if you have a problem with the service given to you by a
telecommunications company at that time, the remedy is not to file that with the
PSC but with the regular courts. Jurisdiction is expressly granted or necessarily
implied by law. We are again haunted here by the doctrine of necessary implication
and inferences.
Due Process.
Utto v. Comelec
Facts: The Comelec en banc voided the proclamation of the mayor who
argued his right to due process was denied because the twin-notice
requirement of prior notice and hearing was not observed.
Held: Even if it was not observed, the twin-notice requirement does not
apply if the proclamation was void ab initio. In administrative
proceedings, due process simply means an opportunity to be heard and
to reconsider or to explain, either written or verbal.
This rule applies a fortiori if the respondent chose not to avail of the
opportunity to answer charges because of the belief that the disciplining
authority is without jurisdiction.
Atty Guji: Administrative proceedings are summary in nature. Those procedural
due process elements or steps enunciated in “Ang Tibay” case, that does not
necessarily hold true for all cases because today what we are saying is, for as long
as there is an opportunity to be heard, give it to the respondent, that would be
enough.
There is already substantial compliance insofar as substantial procedural due
process is concerned. You cannot invoke “I have the right to counsel”, “I have the
right to cross-examine witnesses”. As long as you were given an opportunity to
present your side, that would be enough.
When we say “a fortiori” it means that with more reason. In this case, he thinks
that the authority has no jurisdiction so he snubbed altogether and did not appear.
Normally, if you know that there is no jurisdiction, you file a motion to dismiss or
reserve the question of jurisdiction.
Garcia v. Pajaro
Facts: An administrative case was filed by the treasurer against the
revenue collector who refused to attend the scheduled hearings despite
notice because he believes it is the mayor who has authority to discipline
him.
Held: When a party refuses to answer the charges against him, he
cannot invoke denial of due process. The refusal to attend the scheduled
hearings, despite notice, is at his own peril.
Atty Guji: Because he thinks that there was no jurisdiction, thus he did not attend.
The proper way should have been to attend, and then question jurisdiction.
If you question jurisdiction: appear and then question jurisdiction. Do not snob it
altogether, otherwise, it is deemed a waiver
Rivera v. CSC
Facts: The Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) ruled on the motion
for reconsideration filed by the manager who was found guilty of grave
misconduct and acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service by the
LBP. It was appealed to the CSC which sustained the original decision
of the LBP.
The manager argued he was denied due process because the MSPB
Chair (Mr. X) that ruled on the motion for reconsidered is now the CSC
Commissioner who ruled on the appeal.
Held: The reviewing officer must be other than the officer whose
decision is under review else there could be no different view.
Atty Guji: At the first level, X ruled on his motion for reconsideration but X was
promoted to the appealing authority. Thus, when the case was raised for appeal,
it resulted to a situation where the person who ruled it in the lower level is to
review his own findings in the appellate level.
This is very unprocedural as it violates due process for you to review your own
findings. This applies even if you were part of a collegial body because still, you
were part of that collective decision. This would defeat the purpose of review.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17
So out of propriety, the most that you can do is inhibit.
Unless if it is a motion for reconsideration, it can be filed in the same tribunal
because it is not really a review, it is for reconsideration of their view.
RELATED POWERS
RELATED POWERS
Powers could either be express or implied, but we also have the Related
Powers.
1. Power to promulgate rules of procedure
2. Subpoena power
3. Contempt power
Power to promulgate rules of procedure.
Provident Tree Farm v. Batario
Facts: The BOC banned the importation of wood, wood products or
wood-derived products. But its jurisdiction was challenged because the
Tariff & Customs Code does not outline the enforcement of the import
ban.
Held: The absence of rules of procedure does not diminish jurisdiction
over the subject matter. Where the law does not require any particular
rule of procedure to be followed by an administrative agency, it may
adopt any reasonable method to carry out its function.
Atty Guji: Apply here the doctrine of necessary implication. There is no clear basis
in the law for you to promulgate rules and procedure. The law is silent. If the law
is silent, you cannot be crippled by the mere silence of the law.
How do we carry out our functions? Just use a reasonable method. For other
government agencies, they actually adopt the rules of procedure of other agencies
or they can also adopt, by suppletory character, the Rules of Court. So if the rules
are silent, a reasonable method can be used to carry out its function.
Subpoena and contempt powers must be granted by law.
Carmelo v. Ramos
Facts: The mayor created a committee to investigate anomalies in
licensing. The committee subpoenaed a private citizen to appear before
it but he refused hence a case for contumacy was filed before the trial
court.
Held: Subpoena and contempt powers must be granted by law.
Whatever power claimed by the committee comes from the power of
the mayor to investigate as implied from the power to suspend or
remove employees. There is no statutory grant of power to investigate.
Atty Guji: It was just the mayor doing the extra mile by creating a committee to
investigate anomalies. The person then did not appear after being summoned.
Is that contumacious?
No, it isn’t because the LGUs (mayors, even provincial boards) do not have the
power to cite you for contumacy because there is no such grant under the law.
So can they issue a subpoena?
Yes but it is without legal force or compulsion. So what it really is is an invitation.
Can you refuse?
Yes.
Is there a consequence?
No because this is a mere invitation. You can snob that.
Hence, the Ombudsman has contempt power because Section
15(g) of the Ombudsman Act gives it the power to “punish for
contempt, in accordance with the Rules of Court and under the
same procedure and the same penalties provided therein.”
Lastimosa v. Vasquez
Facts: The ombudsman ordered a prosecutor to show cause why she
should not be punished for contempt after filing a case for acts of
lasciviousness, instead of attempted rape.
21 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G
Held: It constitutes defiance, disobedience or resistance of a lawful
process, order or command of the Ombudsman thus making her liable
for indirect contempt.
Atty Guji: The Ombudsman deputized the prosecutor to file a case for rape, the
prosecutor on the other hand, decided that the case was not of rape so she filed
a case for acts of lasciviousness instead.
One of the defenses is that the Ombudsman cannot cite her in contempt since
they don’t have jurisdiction over her. Ombudsman said, since you were deputized,
you are under our direct control and supervision thus you cannot deviate from our
order.
Her actions constituted defiance of the superior order thus the Ombudsman
proceeded and cited her in contempt.
QUANTUM OF PROOF
QUANTUM OF PROOF
Atty Guji: We already talked about the different levels of quantum of
proof. Remember, the highest level is overwhelming evidence.
Lamyera v. Pangilinan
Facts: A janitor was dismissed from service by the mayor due to absence
without leave on the strength of the certification by a personnel officer
that the janitor did not report for work one month. This was affirmed by
the CSC.
Held: While findings of fact of administrative agency must be respected,
it must be supported by substantial evidence. Certification of the
personnel officer does not amount to substantial evidence, especially
against the allegations that the janitor was prevented from signing the
log book, replaced by another and forced to resign.
Atty Guji: Bottom line here, the janitor was oppressed. There was conspiracy
between the mayor and the personnel officer. The janitor wanted to work but he
was prevented to work. He cannot login or logout so exactly he did not have any
evidence for attendance of work. Substantial evidence should be considered in a
case to case basis but in this case the SC said that there is no substantial evidence.
It is grave oppression.
And when it is supported by substantial evidence, even if not
overwhelming or preponderant, it must be respected, except
when there is grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law.
ERB v. CA
Facts: The ERB approved the application for a gasoline retail outlet in a
trading area but it was reversed by the Court of Appeals because it
results in ruinous competition and its feasibility study is already stale.
Held: The power to determine whether a gasoline station benefits the
oil industry and public interest lies with the ERB and not the appellate
court.
Atty Guji: The ERB has the specialized expertise insofar as the grant of gasoline
station franchise is concerned. If it is about safety and public convenience, the
agency that is in the best position to determine that is the ERB and not the CA,
except if there is grave abuse of discretion.
Substantial evidence, defined.
Rubberworld v. NLRC
Facts: An employee was dismissed due to stock cards discrepancies. But
the employee filed a case for unfair labor practice because the dismissal
is a mere result of his refusal to disaffiliate from the union.
Held: Unfair labor practice was belied by the fact the employee pursued
the case alone where normally he is supported by the union. There is
likewise no proof of affiliation, much less the existence of the union.
There is no substantial evidence which is defined as such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17
Atty Guji: Unfair labor practice can only be forwarded if there is a union. There
is no union in the first place. It must be within reason for you to assume that that
is adequate to support you conclusion.
ENFORCEMENT AND EXECUTION
ENFORCEMENT AND EXECUTION
Lapid v. CA
Facts: A governor was suspended by the Ombudsman for 1 year after
he was found guilty of conspiracy with other officials for illegal quarrying
and collecting fees without the benefit of an ordinance.
The governor filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals and
prayed for injunctive relief but it did not act on it. Thus, the governor
went to the SC which likewise did not grant the injunctive relief and
instead required parties to comment. On the same day, the CA acted
and denied it. Thus, the DILG enforced the decision.
Issue: Whether the one-year suspension is immediately executory?
Held: It depends. If the law creating the administrative agency states
that its orders or decisions are immediately final and executory, an
appeal does not stay its execution.
Whereas the Administrative Code of 1987 says:
“An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory, and in case
the penalty is suspension or removal, the respondent shall be considered
as having been under preventive suspension during the pendency of the
appeal in the event he wins an appeal.”
Sec. 68 of the LGC says: “An appeal shall not prevent a decision from
being final and executory. The respondent shall be considered as having
been placed under preventive suspension during the pendency of the
appeal in the event he wins such appeal. In the event the appeal results
in his exoneration, he shall be paid his salary and such other
emoluments during the pendency of the appeal.
Atty Guji: GR: When you say preventive suspension, the rule that “there is no
pay for no work” applies.
XPN: What we are talking here about is appeal and it says here that if you are
later on exonerated, consider the period when you were placed under prevention.
Why are we saying here that you are entitled to salary in case of
exoneration? Because in exoneration, you are not intended to be placed under
preventive suspension (you were actually dismissed already pursuant to the
executed ruling of the lower court) but you were considered to have been placed
under preventive suspension.
So in case you’re exonerated, you are innocent of the charge, you are entitled to
salary. But if it is purely preventive suspension, you are not entitled to salary.
But Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act says:
“Any order, directive or decision imposing the penalty of public censure
or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month’s salary shall be
final and unappealable.
In all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives or decisions of
the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme court
by filing a petition for certiorari within ten (10) days from receipt of the
written notice of the order, directive or decision or denial of the motion
for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
The Rules of Procedure of the Ombudsman likewise says:
“In case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or
reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent
to one month salary, the decision shall be final and unappealable.”
In all other cases, the decision shall become final after the expiration of
ten (10) days from receipt thereof by the respondent x xx”.
22 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G
Atty Guji: You have to make a distinction.
If penalty is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month’s
salary ― final (unappealable) and executory
If penalty is higher ― not final (still appeallable) but immediately executory
Suspension for one year without pay is not enumerated as immediately
final and unappealable. That an appeal prevents finality and execution
depends on whether the law expressly says so.
Since the governor was charged before the Ombudsman, the
Ombudsman Act applies.
If before the Office of the President, the LGC applies.
If before the CSC, the Administrative Code applies.
Caveat: Administrative Order No. 17 dated September 15, 2003
amending Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of
the Ombudsman says the decision is final, executory and unappealable
where the respondent is:
1. Absolved of the charge
2. Convicted where penalty is:
a. Public censure or reprimand
b. Suspension of not more than one month
c. Or a fine equivalent to one month salary
In all other cases, the decision may be appealed to the CA under Rule
43. But such “appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory.
In case the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent wins
such appeal, he shall be considered as having been under preventive
suspension and shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that
he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal.”
Atty Guji: The only way that a decision is prevented from being executory is when
there is a restraining order.
The Ombudsman rules of procedure are procedural in nature
thus may be applied retroactively to cases pending and
unresolved at the time of passage.
Villasenor v. Ombudsman
Facts: Two electrical inspectors were dismissed and suspended for one
year by the Ombudsman for violation of code of conduct and ethical
standards for public officials and employees for negligence resulting in
a hotel fire that killed 74 persons.
Despite their appeal form their suspension and dismissal, the
ombudsman enforced the decision.
But they argued that the AO that amended the rule does not apply to
them because it took effect 3 months after the decision was issued and
3 years after it was enforced. Hence, it cannot be applied retroactively.
HELD: While Art. 4 of the Civil Code provides that laws shall not have
retroactive effect, it does not apply to rules of procedure of the courts.
Being retroactive in nature, they apply to actions pending and
unresolved at the time of their passage.
As a general rule, no vested right attaches or arises from procedural
laws and rules, hence retroactive application does not violate any right.
The Ombudsman rules of procedure are procedural in nature thus may
be applied retroactively to cases pending and unresolved at the time of
passage.
There is no such thing as vested interest in an office or even an absolute
right to hold it. No one has vested right in an office except constitutional
offices which provide for special immunity as regards tenure and salary.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION OR PRIOR RESORT
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION OR PRIOR RESORT
PSUMW v Samar Mining. Cited in Abejo v dela Cruz
Under the sense-making and expeditious doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, the courts cannot or will not determine a controversy
involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative
tribunal where the question demands exercise of sound discretion
requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate
matters of fact, and a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with
the purposes of the regulatory statute administered.
Atty Guji: If it is about the expertise of an administrative body, it is the
administrative body that has primary jurisdiction.
If the case was filed before the regular court for example, and seemingly the
regular court has no jurisdiction because the issue pertains to an administrative
agency because it is under their expertise, it does not necessarily follow that it is
transferred right away to that administrative agency. You may file a motion to
dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. If it is dismissed then probably your
opponent can transfer the case to the administrative agency. Again, administrative
agencies must be passive.
When you think about it, it actually is a remedy available in favor of the regular
courts so when the regular court says they have no jurisdiction, because the
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction pertains to a specialized administrative agency, it
can dismiss it right away, on its own for lack of jurisdiction.
Thus, jurisdiction over unsound real estate practices pertains
to the National Housing Authority, and not the courts, the
former having been granted regulatory authority with quasi-
judicial functions.
Antipolo Realty v. NHA
Facts: A buyer of a subdivision unit stopped paying after the developer
failed to beautify the subdivision per contract to sell. After the buyer
refused to pay, the developer rescinded the contract to sell but it was
reinstated by the NHA which jurisdiction is now assailed by the
developer.
Held: NHA is vested by statute exclusive jurisdiction over certain
disputes falling within its special expertise.
But the doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not necessarily divest the
court from jurisdiction. It merely suspends the proceedings pending
referral to the administrative body.
Where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts and comes into play
whenever enforcement of a claim requires the resolution of issues which
under a regulatory scheme have been placed within the special
competence of an administrative body. In such case the judicial process
is suspended pending referral to the administrative body.
Atty Guji: It depends – sometimes the court will dismiss, sometimes the court
does not. Here, it actually means that it can be referred to commissioners. There
are questions there that cannot be resolved by the court on the simple basis that
the court has no expertise. For example, court appoints a commissioner for land
disputes.
In the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction, it is not a hard and fast rule. It
could either be:
1. The court dismisses due to lack of jurisdiction; or
2. Suspends the proceedings and refer the matter to the
commissioners
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRTIVE REMEDIES
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, direct
recourse to court does not prosper until after all administrative remedies
are first exhausted.
23 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G
Garcia v. Court of Appeals
Facts: A complaint was filed against an administrator of the Philippine
Coconut Authority (PCA) for alleged irregularities. The PCA Governing
Board created an Investigation Committee which recommended
administrative charges against and preventively suspending the
administrator.
But the administrator filed several motions and pleadings that unduly
delayed the case hence the Investigation Committee ruled that the delay
be not counted in the period of preventive suspension.
He went to court for injunctive relief.
Held: The immediate recourse to the court is premature and precipitate
(rushed). Apart from the fact that the investigation was still ongoing,
there is still an administrative remedy from the decision of the PCA
Governing Board, that is, an appeal to the CSC.
Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, direct
recourse to court does not prosper until after all administrative remedies
are first exhausted. The remedy is not to halt the proceedings but to
take part, assert and vindicate the rights in administrative proceedings
Atty Guji: It could also be a ground for dismissal because of prematurity. You
have to exhaust all available administrative remedies before going to court. The
reason there is to screen filing of cases before the court because of clogged court
dockets.
Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, direct
recourse to court does not prosper until after all administrative
remedies are first exhausted.
Atty Guji: This is actually a live defense against the clogging of the court dockets.
Why do we have the administrative agencies? To declog the court dockets. Usa ka
kalusot.
So if specialized cases gane na ----- Administrative agencies.
So in other words, if still you have a remedy available before you reach the
administrative agencies, imoha gyud ng gamiton. You have to exhaust that
before going to court.
The remedy is not to halt the proceedings but to take part, assert
and vindicate the rights in administrative proceedings.
Atty Guji: Except of course, the following exceptions:
EXCEPTIONS TO DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
1. Due process is violated
2. Issue involves pure question of law
3. Administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction
4. Estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned
5. There is irreparable injury
6. Respondent is a department secretary whose acts, as an alter ego
of the president, bears implied and assumed approval of the latter
Atty Guji: Kay if you are a department secretary, you are the alter ego of
the President. So you are more or less, co-equal of the President. If you
are more or less, co-equal to the President, wala na’y laing taas. Where do
you go after that? So you go to court.
7. Exhaustion is unreasonable
8. Exhaustion amounts to nullification of claim
9. Subject matter is a private land in land case proceeding
10. The rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy
11. There are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial
intervention.
Atty Guji: Again, if there’s “urgency”, it might result to irreparable
damage, you can go directly to court. However, what is very important is
you must allege the urgency.
Otherwise, it will be dismissed.
Dismissed jud na if wala ka ni-justify why you did not resort to other
administrative remedies. Justify why in fact it shows.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde | Notes by EH407 2015-16 | Updated by EH407 2016-17

12. When strong public interest is involved

13. In quo warranto proceedings
14. When the claim involved is small

When is there strong public interest?

Buklod ng Kawani ng EIIB v. Zamora
When it involves question relating to the status and existence of a public
office, it must be settled without delay.

Dario v. Mison
When it involves question relating to validity of reorganization, its
serious implications in the administration of civil service and rights of
public servants, which resolution is needed for stability in public service.

Atty Guji: Public Interest is not exactly defined under the law and jurisprudence
so it is case to case basis. Public interest involves the common good.

Take note that the key phrase “public interest” is vague. So it’s a case to case
basis. You have to establish and convince the court that the case involves strong
public interest. Take note, not only “public interest” but qualified by “strong”
public interest.

When is there pure question of law?

When doubt or differences arise as to what the law is on certain state
of facts. What is the law applicable to the set of facts.

Atty Guji: In other words, there is no more argument in so far as the facts are
concerned.

“But what is the law applicable?” If that is the question, that is now the remedy
of pure question of law. But if maglalis pa gane mo sa facts, then that is not pure
question of law.

When is there question of fact?

There is question of fact when the doubt or differences arise as to the
truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Here, there is still a debate as to the
facts.

Castro v. Gloria
Facts: A public school teacher was dismissed for disgraceful and immoral
conduct. But he argues it warrants suspension only for first time
offenders

HELD: When the issue asks what the applicable law is, it is a pure
question of law. As such, it is an exception to the doctrine of exhaustion
of administrative remedies.

Atty Guji: In this case, he is not actually questioning the findings of facts. He is
actually trying to say that he is a first time offender and therefore only merits
suspension, not dismissal. That is a question of law. We are now trying to discern
what penalty is applicable for established set of facts. Take note about this ha.
This is very important.

The challenge here is how to decipher whether or not it invokes

questions of fact or questions of law.

FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, EFFECTS

1. It renders the action premature, meaning the claimed cause of
action is not ripe for judicial determination hence there is no cause
of action to ventilate in court.
Atty Guji: In which case, the court will outrightly dismiss that. Moto proprio
the court can dismiss for failure to resort to administrative remedies. But
sometimes, the court may play safe and wait for the other party to bring that
up as an affirmative defense or motion to dismiss

2. Results in lack of cause of action.

3. It results in dismissal for failure to comply with a condition
precedent. ( Sec. 1, Rule 16, Revised Rules of Court)

Atty Guji: Bottomline here is that, the very purpose by which you establish
resorting to administrative remedies is to help declog the court dockets. And if you
cut short the administrative remedies available to you, the court will refuse, it will
dismiss the case.

24 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G