ADMIN LAW - Carlota

Cielo Marjorie A. Goño | Jamie Katrina F. Chan Page 1 of 56

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER

Dean Salvador Carlota Second Semester, AY 2012-2013

“Ganyan ang kahalagahan ng batas – bawat kataga ay

mahalaga. Kaya dapat lagi kayong cutting edge – dapat

nakakasugat!” (Carlota, 2012)

I. HISTORICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL

CONSIDERATIONS1

A. DEVELOPMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AS A DISTINCT FIELD OF PUBLIC LAW (Jamie)

1. Factors why administrative laws have emerged in

the government

a. Lack of time - The trichotomy can no longer

cope with the complexities of modern society.

There were so many problems that the

government is unable to respond to these.

The solution the trichotomy came up with is

to create administrative agencies to provide

for delegation of authority

b. Lack of expertise – Due to the complexities of

modern society, new and highly technical or

very specific problems have emerged that

require expertise or specialization for its

solution.

c. Lack of organizational aptitude for effective

and continuing regulation of new

developments in society – The trichotomy is

too unwieldy to be able to concentrate on

specialized areas. This fostered an

environment for administrative agency

proliferation rather than stagnation/decline

2. The doctrine of separation of powers and the

constitutional position of administrative agencies

Doctrine of separation of powers delves into the

concept of the three branches of government do not

encroach on the powers of each other. With the

creation of administrative agencies, it has been

observed that there is no absolute separation between

these entities and the trichotomy because

administrative agencies have a hybrid of powers and

functions. Some of them are quasi-judicial, quasi-

1 Please pardon any error (grammatical, spelling, doctrinal

etc) that you may find in the Reviewer. Also, please secure

the permission of the authors before sharing to others.

Thanks and enjoy! -Ed

legislative, etc. However, this does not endanger the

separation of powers that the trichotomy possesses

Again, due to the complexities of modern life, these

administrative agencies have served as the catch basin

for the residual powers of the trichotomy. According to

some scholars, without the agencies, the system will

collapse, and there would be chaos, confusion and

anarchy

B. DEFINITION OF TERMS – ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY; TYPES

OF AGENCIES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – the law concerning the

powers and procedures of administrative agencies

including specially the law governing judicial review of

administrative actions

Powers correspond to executive, legislative and

judicial

Procedures are those that are adjudication, licensing,

rule making

ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY – any governmental

authority other than the court and other than a

legislative body, which affects the rights of private

parties through either adjudication or rule making

(Davis)

Administrative agencies can assume many labels such

as commission, board, authority, office. Therefore it is

not always labeled as an agency.

Types of administrative agency:

a. Statutory agencies – created by law

b. Constitutional agencies – created by the

Constitution. Since they are created by the

Congress, they are considered as independent

and can only be abolished or modified

through a constitutional amendment

Public officials in these administrative agencies are

provided with protective devices such as security of

tenure, impeachment as method of removal, fiscal

autonomy, prohibited from holding other office

standards

Administrative procedure as a mode of control

There are certain factors to be considered in

prescribing rules:

(a) Admin agencies are not bound by the same

technical rules of procedure and evidence followed in

regular courts; (b) Agencies are created to deal with

specific problems.

ADMIN LAW - Carlota

Cielo Marjorie A. Goño | Jamie Katrina F. Chan Page 2 of 56

Basic principle when it comes to the power of

administrative agencies to prescribe rules:

The legislature should only provide minimum

procedural guidelines and general principles

to be observed by all agencies in the

performance of their rule making and

adjudicative functions.

Ratio: This will assure sufficient room for the

agencies to come up with supplementary

rules that may be needed from time to time,

while at the same time, it will provide adequate protection to the individual’s constitutional right to due process.

Judicial review of administrative decision making:

The purpose of judicial review is to keep the

admin agency within its jurisdiction and

protect substantial rights of parties affected

by its decisions. It is part of the system of

checks and balances which restricts the

separation of powers and forestall arbitrary

and unjust adjudications.

Judicial review is the most effective form of

control because it provides an immediate

relief to complainant

If you will apply judicial review of the rules or

decisions made by administrative agencies,

we will see that it becomes a channel for

those complainants who feel that

administrative rules have affected their

constitutional rights. However, the court

chooses not to interfere unless there has been

a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the

administrative agency

C. CASES

Pangasinan Transportation Co v. PSC

Pursuant to Sec 1 of Commonwealth Act, PSC can issue

a "certificate of public convenience," or "certificate of

convenience and public necessity" to operators of

buses and trucks. However, the conditions were that

government may acquire the vehicle and the certificate

will be for a limited period only.

Held: CONSTITUTIONAL because all that has been

delegated to the PSC is an administrative function,

involving the use discretion, to carry out the will of the

National Assembly having in view, in addition, the

promotion of "public interests in a proper and suitable

manner." In general, In fact the conditions can be

found in the constitution re: just compensation for

acquisition of public vehicles and the period was

limited. Moreover, Congress may delegate

administrative functions such as the use of discretion

to carry out the will of Congress. The ratio behind

Congress now being allowed to delegate is due to the

growing complexities of modern life wherein

Manila Electric Company v. Pasay Transportation

Company

Pursuant to Act No 1466, Sec 11 states that whenever

any franchise or right of way is granted to any other

person or corporation (such as MERALCO) the terms

and compensation shall be fixed by the members of

the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators,

the decision of a majority of whom shall be final.

Held: UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Supreme Court and

its members should not and cannot be required to

exercise any power or to perform any trust or to

assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with

the administering of judicial functions. Just think, if

anyone brings the case and it reaches the SC, the

justices who will review the case were the ones who

prescribed those terms and compensation.

Noblejas v. Teehankee

Pursuant to RA 1151 which states that he is "entitled

to the same compensation, emoluments and privileges

as those of a Judge of the Court of First Instance",

Noblejas should be investigated by the SC like a CFI

Judge.

Held: NO. There is no inherent power in the Executive

or Legislature to charge the judiciary with

administrative functions such as control and

supervision of administrative agencies except when

reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of judicial

duties. Control and supervision of administrative

agencies fall under the control and supervision of the

President.

Garcia v. Macaraig

Garcia was appointed as a judge but never assumed

office as judge so he accepted the job under the DOJ

Secretary.

Held: FROWNED UPON. According to the concurring

opinion: detailing justices has pernicious effects on the

independence and undermine interest of judiciary.

In Re: Rodolfo Manzano

Judge Manzano wrote to the SC if he can accept

appointment as a member of the Ilocos Norte

Provincial Committee on Justice (E.O. 326) that

perform administrative functions

Held: DISAPPROVED. Under the Constitution, the

members of the SC and other Courts established by law

shall not be designated to any agency performing

quasi-judicial or administrative functions (Art. VIII

(12)).

Puyat v. De Guzman

ADMIN LAW - Carlota

Cielo Marjorie A. Goño | Jamie Katrina F. Chan Page 3 of 56

Justice Estaislao A. Fernandez, then a member of the

interim Batasang Pambansa, orally entered his

appearance as counsel in a case on corporate elections.

Pursuant to Section 11m Art 8 of the 1973 Constitution, “No member of the Batasang Pambansa

shall appear as counsel before any court without appellate jurisdiction…or before any administrative body”. Held: UNCONSTITUTIONAL. No member of the

Batasang Pambansa shall appear as counsel before any

administrative body via Section 11, Article VIII of the

Constitution.

“This is elementary! Only Pepe and Pilar. If after this,

tinanong ka sa Bar at di mo nasagot, what should you

do? Go to the nearest Meralco post and hang yourself!” (Carlota, 2013)

II. CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

Notes: The different ways how administrative powers

may be checked

A. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND THE EXECUTIVE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT

Art. 7, Section 1. Executive Power

The executive power shall be vested in the President

of the Philippines.

Art. 7, Section 17. Control over admin agencies The

President shall have control of all the executive

departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure

that the laws be faithfully executed.

Class notes on Art 7, Sec 17: Last sentence is part of the

powers of the executive; according to Sir, take time to

reflect on how Art 7, Sec 17 can be connected to the

definition of administrative agencies

Executive power: To promulgate or execute laws

The two ways in which the President exercises his

disciplinary powers:

a. Control: Power to alter, modify or overturn

the judgment of the subordinates [in other

words, how to substitute]

See to it that subordinates are doing their jobs

Limited to executive departments, bureaus,

offices

This is the greater power

b. Supervision: Ensure that laws are faithfully

executed

More encompassing than control – no

qualification

Can the President control ALL admin agencies? It

depends on whether the enabling statute has given

power of review to the President

Under Sec. 17, Art 7, the President has control

over agencies created by statutes

o Power of legislature over agencies

must be subordinate to Sec. 17,

unless the law expressly says

otherwise

If the law is silent as to who is silent, then

there is a presumption that the Congress did

not intend for the President to have control

over the administrative agency

Constitutional agencies (i.e. Comelec and CoA)

are not controlled by the President because

they are independent constitutional creations

o Note: go back to definition of

constitutional agencies in Part I

B. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT POWER

It is a tool for controlling/checking the

exercise of power/acts of administrative

agencies

Seeing to it that the agencies follow legislative

intention

Part of Congress’ prerogative in delegating powers of Congress to agencies

Scrutiny, investigation, legislative supervision

This is to show that the Congress is being

proactive

What is the purpose of oversight?

a. To monitor the laws created by

administrative agencies

b. To look at the application by an

administrative agency of a statute

Macalintal v. Comelec (Dissenting/Concurring

Opinion of Puno)

The power of oversight embraces all activities

undertaken by congress to enhance its

understanding of and influence over the

implementation of legislation it has enacted

Oversight concerns post-enactment measures

undertaken by Congress: (a) to monitor

bureaucratic compliance with program objectives;

(b) to determine whether agencies are properly

administered; (c) to eliminate executive waste and

dishonesty; (d) to prevent executive usurpation of

legislative authority; and (e) to assess executive

conformity with the congressional perception of

public interest.

ADMIN LAW - Carlota

Cielo Marjorie A. Goño | Jamie Katrina F. Chan Page 4 of 56

Categories of congressional oversight functions:

a. Scrutiny – primary purpose is to determine

economy and efficiency of the operation of

government activities. Based primarily on the

power of appropriation and power of

confirmation

b. Investigation – recognized under Sec 21, Art.

6 of 1987 Constitution

a. This power has to be in aid of

legislation and in accordance with

duly published rules of procedure

c. Supervision – connotes a continuing and

informed awareness regarding executive

operations in a given administrative area.

Exercised thru the veto power.

C. ARTICLE: LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL

CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION-MAKING (CARLOTA)

Class note: The Ombudsman goes hand in hand with

judicial review in order to become a wide and

powerful range of control mechanisms of

administrative agencies

Legislative control over Admin agencies:

1. Power of creation, appropriation and

investigation)

a. Creation – congress creates rather than

abolishes as society becomes more

complex. State is compelled to create

admin agencies to deal with problems

brought by social and economic change.

a. Also carries with it the power to

abolish as it is similar to the

power to create.

b. In reality, this power to abolish

is an empty threat because

without administrative agencies,

the trichotomy will not be able

to function properly for they do

not have the time, specialization

and appropriate organization

structure

b. Appropriation – Congress has the power

to withhold funds for the agencies but at

the end of the day it is reluctant in

wielding such power because is

recognizes that is it does, it will affect

public interest.

c. Investigation – limited tool to provide as

effective regular control of improper

exercise of admin power.

2. Non-delegation doctrine and the requirement

of legislative standards which is ancillary to

the principle of separation of powers

The more specific the standards are, the

greater are the chances of confining

administrative discretion within proper

limits. If the standards are too broad or

vague, the administrator is virtually left

to his own devices, thereby allowing him

to exercise discretion in the performance

of his functions.

o This also refers to the

unbridled/unfettered discretion

that could lead to grave abuse of

discretion

A review of the cases decided by the SC

shows that in many instances of

delegation, the legislature is unable to

provide definite of specific standards.

o The power to make laws should

be exercised/performed by

Congress

Congress does not

abdicate its

responsibility by

delegating this power

to administrative

agencies

o Dean Carlota opines that the

legislation of the Administrative

Code of 1987 has led to a better

lay down of what standards

should be recognized. The

Admin Code statutorily

recognizes the minimum

standards that administrative

agencies should follow when

promulgating rules, etc. In fact,

administrative agencies through

this Code may make their own

house rules which uniquely

conform to and are required in

their specific area of concern.

Administrative procedure as a mode of

control

o This is the most promising

checking mechanism

o There are certain factors to be

considered in prescribing rules:

(a) admin agencies are not

bound by the same technical

rules of procedure and evidence

followed in regular courts; (b)

agencies are created to deal with

specific problems.

o Even if it is possible, which is

not, to impose uniform rules of

procedure in all levels of all

ADMIN LAW - Carlota

Cielo Marjorie A. Goño | Jamie Katrina F. Chan Page 5 of 56

agency operations, such a move

is clearly unsound

The effect of this is to

curb abuses

o Legislature should only provide

minimum procedural guidelines

and general principles to be

observed by all agencies in the

performance of their rule

making and adjudicative

functions. This will assure

sufficient room for the agencies

to come up with supplementary

rules that may be needed from

time to time, while at the same

time, it will provide adequate protection to the individual’s constitutional right to due

process.

Judicial review of Admin decision making:

The purpose of judicial review is to keep the

administrative agency within its jurisdiction

and protect substantial rights of parties

affected by its decisions. It is part of the

system of checks and balances which restricts

the separation of powers and forestall

arbitrary and unjust adjudications.

Judicial review is the most effective form of control –

provides immediate relief to complainant

Part of police power

Channel for adversely affected parties to

vindicate constitutional rights

Judicial review is limited or restrained:

For policy choices: court does not interfere

with agencies

Discretion: no interference

UNLESS there is grave abuse of discretion

D. ARTICLE: THE OMBUDSMAN: ITS

EFFECTIVITY AND VISIBILITY AMIDST BUREAUCRATIC ABUSE AND IRREGULARITY

(CARLOTA)

Essential characteristics of an Ombudsman:

a. Political independence – fiscal autonomy,

prohibition to practice profession,

removable only by impeachment, can

appoint all officers and employees of his

office

- He should promote the cause of

good governance

- He is the protector of the people

therefore given broad

investigatory powers

b. Accessibility and expedition – within the

reach of ordinary citizens; as opposed to

the courts which are not easily within

reach of poor

- This is why the Ombudsman

should have as many officer as

possible

c. Investigatory power – the Ombudsman

not only has the power to investigate but

also the power to prosecute on his own

initiative or upon complaint by any

person, any act or omission of any public

officer or employee, office or agency,

when such act or omission appears to be

illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient

d. Absence of revisory jurisdiction –

Ombudsman cannot modify or overturn

decisions of admin agencies performing

rule making or adjudicative functions. He

may not exercise the function for an

appellate or reviewing court It is not an

appellate tribunal

Is the Ombudsman institution workable in the

Philippines? – NO

The perception that the Ombudsman’s role as Protector of the People has not been

satisfactorily performed can be reversed by

adopting measures designed to correct

perceived shortcomings.

E. CASES

Concerned Officials of MWSS v. Vasquez

The ombudsman assumed jurisdiction over the

complaint of illegal bidding in the MWSS even if

apparently it is outside his jurisdiction under the

Ombudsman Act.

Held: NO JURISDICTION. The Ombudsman Act makes

says that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman

encompasses 'all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance,

and nonfeasance that have been committed by any

officer or employee as mentioned in Section 13 hereof,

during his tenure of office. He also has no veto or

revisory power over an exercise of judgment or

discretion by an administrative agency or its officer

upon whom that judgment or discretion is lawfully

vested.

Note: The powers, functions and duties of the

Ombudsman have generally been categorized into:

Investigatory Power; Prosecutory Power; Public

Assistance Functions; Authority to Inquire and Obtain

Information; and Function to Adopt, Institute and

Implement; the issue in controversy is technical in

nature which means that it requires the specialization

of agencies so the agencies should handle it

ADMIN LAW - Carlota

Cielo Marjorie A. Goño | Jamie Katrina F. Chan Page 6 of 56

Lastimoza v. Vasquez

An administrative complaint was filed against the

Municipal Mayor for immoral acts, abuse of authority

and grave misconduct.

Held: Ombudsman has the power to investigate and

prosecute crimes committed by public officials even if

they are not related to his public office.

BIR v. Office of the Ombudsman

Ombudsman investigated anomalous tax refunds of a

company.

Held: The Ombudsman can validly exercise its power

to investigate even when there exist an appropriate

case. The power to investigate and to prosecute all

officers granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary

and unqualified; the 1987 Constitution provides that it

shall have the power to investigate encompasses all

kinds of acts and omissions committed by any public

official

Class notes: The Ombudsman may even investigate the

president and then submit his/her report to Congress

to be studied as grounds for impeachment

Office of the Ombudsman v. ENOC

Employees of office of the southern cultural

communities were charged with 11 counts of

malversation through falsification. It was investigated

by the ombudsman. It was claimed by the accused that

the ombudsman has no authority to prosecute graft

cases falling within the jurisdiction of regular courts.

HELD: The office of the Ombudsman has powers to

prosecute not only graft cases within the jurisdiction of

the Sandiganbayan but also those cognizable by the

regular courts.

Fuentes v. Office of the Ombudsman – Mindanao

A judge, was charged by the Ombudsman before the

Sandiganbayan.

HELD: INVALID. The ombudsman may not initiate or

investigate a criminal or administrative complaint

against a judge and must indorse the case to the

supreme court, for appropriate action. Article VIII,

Section 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests in the

supreme court administrative supervision over all

courts and court personnel, from the presiding justice

of the court of appeals to the lowest municipal trial

court clerk

Ledesma v. CA

The fact finding and intelligence bureau (FIIB) of the

Office of the Ombudsman conducted an investigation

on anomalies regarding visa transactions. These

reports were used by the FIIB to file a case against the

public officials involved. Held: VALID. The Ombudsman’s administrative investigations’ results are not merely advisory but has a binding effect upon the officer to which the decision

is directed to. Under Section 13(3) of Article XI of the

constitution, the ombudsman has the power to

recommend the sanction which is binding. This means that when the Ombudsman “recommends” the action to be taken against an erring officer/employee, the

implementation of the action should be complied with

or, simply, is mandatory.

Estarija v. Ranada

Respondent was adjudged guilty of dishonesty by the

ombudsman and was thereafter dismissed.

Held: INVALID. The powers/reports of the

Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. In fact,

the Ombudsman is given the authority to enforce its

decisions thru dismissals because the intention of the

constitution, and consequently, the congress thru the

Ombudsman Act, is to give the Ombudsman powers

that are not only persuasive or recommendatory in

character.

Office of the Ombudsman v. Masing

A principal and an officer clerk were administratively

charged before the Office of the Ombudsman for

allegedly collecting unauthorized fees, failing to remit

authorized fees, and to account for public funds. It was

contended that DECS has jurisdiction over the case and

not the Ombudsman.

HELD: INVALID CONTENTION. The law gives the

Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority

over erring officials.

“This could be asked in the bar! The bar can be about the

rule, or the exceptions, or it can be about anything!” (Carlota, 2013)

III. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

A. LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS (cielo)

1. Non-delegation doctrine

Potestas delegata non delegare potest. – What has

been delegated cannot be delegated.

Requisites for a valid delegation:

1. The law must be complete in itself; it must

set forth the policy to be executed.

2. The law must fix a standard, the limits of

which are sufficiently determinate or

determinable, to which the delegate must

conform in the performance of his functions

CASES:

ADMIN LAW - Carlota

Cielo Marjorie A. Goño | Jamie Katrina F. Chan Page 7 of 56

Compania General de Tobaco v. Board of Public

Utility Commission

Power delegated: Pursuant to Act No. 2307, the Board

of Public Utility can require every public utility to

furnish annual detail report of finances and operations

Held: INVALID delegation. The law is very general and

comprehensive as to the kind and content of the

reports. The Legislature should have specified the

policy and rules that the Board will follow. The

standard requirement was strictly interpreted.

U.S. v. Ang Tang Ho

Power delegated: Based on Act No. 2868, the Governor

General is authorized to prescribe the standard price

of rice for any cause. Violation of the price ceiling

would result to criminal liability

Held: INVALID delegation. Decision is left to the governor general’s discretion and the law does not specify the conditions under which the price can be

increased. There is also strict interpretation of

standard. Note also that power to define a criminal act

is essentially legislative and cannot be delegated

People v. Vera

Power delegated: Based on Act 4221 or the Probation

Law, the provincial boards can determine whether

funds should be appropriated for the salary of a

probation officer

Held: INVALID delegation. The provincial boards have

the full discretion to determine whether the probation

law, a general legislation, can apply to their

jurisdiction.

Note also the exceptions to non-delegation

doctrine:

a. Local legislation

b. Delegation of emergency powers in times of

national emergency

c. Permissible delegation (with ascertainment of

facts only)

Pelaez v. Auditor General

Power delegated: Based on Section 68 of the old

Revised Admin Code, the President issed Eos to create

33 municipalities

Held: INVALID Delegation. The power to create

municipal corporations is essentially legislative in

nature. The power to fix such common boundary, in

order to avoid or settle conflicts of jurisdiction, may

partake of an administrative nature, the authority to

create municipal corporations is a power of Congress.

Note that this case enunciates the Test for

valid delegation:

a. The law must be complete in itself and sets

forth the policy

b. The law fixes the standard and limits

Edu v. Ericta

Power delegated: Based on the Reflector Law, Land

Transportation Commissioner issued Administrative

Order 2 requiring the use of early warning device by

vehicles

Held: VALID Delegation. There is a standard here,

albeit implied, which makes the delegation valid. The

policy of the state to ensure public safety is the

objective of the law.

Agustin v. Edu

Power delegated: Based on the Marcos-issued Letter of

Instruction 229, the Land Transpo Commissioner

imposed the Early Warning Device as a registration

requirement for vehicles

Held: VALID delegation. Public safety is also upheld as

a valid standard, even if not expressed in the law.

Sir also noted that Vienna Convention on

Road Safety and Signs, to which the Philippines is a

signatory, must also be followed considering the

doctrine of incorporation.

Free Telephone Workers Union

Power delegated: Based on BP 130, amending Article

264 of the Labor Code, the Ministry of Labor can

assume jurisdiction and/or certify strikes for

voluntary arbitration to the NLRC

Held: VALID delegation. Although the power to assume

jurisdiction was originally given to the President, by

virtue of the Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency

(Villena v. Exec. Sec.), the Minister is the alter ego of

the President, hence, he can exercise his power.

Philcomsat v. Alcuaz

Power delegated: Based on EO 546, NTC ordered

Philcomsat to impose a reduced rated

Held: VALID delegation. There is an implied standard

here, that is public safety and interest, that empowers

NTC to reduce rates being charged by telecom

companies. BUT! NTC lost the case on due process

grounds for failure to give Philcomsat notice and

hearing.

Sir discussed the Vigan Electric case: two

types of rate fixing: quasi legislative and quasi judicial.

If it applies to all, that is quasi legislative. But if it calls

for the determination of certain facts and applies only

to one specific entity, it is quasi-judicial and the body

affected is entitled to notice and hearing

Chiongbian v. Orbos

Power delegated: Based on RA 6734, the President

merged territories in administrative regions

Held: VALID delegation. The power delegated to the

President is administrative. Administrative regions are

not political subdivisions but mere groupings of

contiguous provinces for administrative purposes, not

for political representation. The standard is found in

another law: RA 5435 Promote simplicity, economy,

efficiency in the government.

ADMIN LAW - Carlota

Cielo Marjorie A. Goño | Jamie Katrina F. Chan Page 8 of 56

Santiago v. Comelec

Power delegated: Comelec claims that RA 6735 gives it

the power to formulate rules in conducting initiatives

to amend the constitution. It issued Resolution 2300 to

give way to the Delfin petition

Held: INVALID delegation. The law is not sufficient to

enable the constitutional provision on initiatives,

hence, the Comelec has no power.

The recognized exceptions to the rule of non

delegation are as follows:

a. Delegation of tariff powers to the President

under Section 28(2) of Article VI of the

Constitution;

b. Delegation of emergency powers to the

President under Section 23(2) of Article VI of

the Constitution;

c. Delegation to the people at large;

d. Delegation to local governments; and

e. Delegation to administrative bodies.

J. Puno, concurring and dissenting:

1.) There is sufficient standard expressed in

the law

2.) Law should be upheld on the argument

that substantive right to initiative trumps non-

delegation argument; intent of framers

3.) Liberal policy of the courts in deciding

delegation of powers to admin bodies - courts will

bend backwards to find a standard

Panama Refining v. Ryan

Power delegated: Sec 9c of the NIRA authorized the

President to prohibit transportation of hot oil (those in

excess of state quota). The President issued EOs to

implement this provision

Held: INVALID delegation. The law does not provide

sufficient standards or policy but left the decision to

the discretion of the President.

Cardozo dissent: there is sufficient policy in the law

like the conservation of the environment, elimination

of unfair competition and fullest utilization of

production capacity.

Abakada Guro Party List v. Executive Secretary

Power delegated: RA 9337 gave the President stand-

by authority to increase the VAT rate on account of the

recommendatory power granted to the Secretary of

Finance

Held: VALID delegation. What is involved here is

merely ascertainment if the factual conditions exist to

enable the President to raise the tax rates. It will be

ministerial on the part of the Executive and not

discretionary.

Review Center Association v. Ermita

Power delegated: The President issued EO 566 which

authorized the CHED to supervise the establishment of

review centers. CHED subsequently issued a

Memorandum implementing the EO.

Held: INVALID exercise of rule-making power. The law

creating CHED, RA 7722, does not authorize it to

regulate review center which is not an institution of

higher education or degree-granting program.

A.F.A Schecter Poultry Corp. v. U.S.

Power delegated: Sec 3 of NIRA allows trade

associations of industries to recommend to the

President Codes of Fair Competition that can be

applied to their industries. In this case, the Live

Poultry Code was adopted in New York.

Held: INVALID delegation. There are no standards or

policy in the law that allows private entities to make

the recommendation. Says Cardozo, this is delegation

running riot.

FEA v. Algonquin

Power delegated: Based on Sec 232 of the Trade

Expansion Act, the President, upon recommendation of

the Secretary of Treasury, allows the President to take

such action as he deems necessary to adjust the

importation the article if their quantities threaten to

impair national security. The President adjusted

petroleum imports and imposed license fees

Held: VALID delegation. The use of a license system to

control the quantities of articles may be allowed under

the law.

White v. Roughton

Facts: Roughton determined eligibility of welfare

recepients based on his and his staff’s unwritten personal standards.

Held: INVALID delegation standard must be fair and

consistent and based on written standards and

regulations.

2. Permissible Delegation

a. Ascertainment of fact

Panama Refining, supra

Lovina v. Moreno

F: Residents of Macabebe petitioned Moreno, Secretary

of Public Works to remove the obstructions imposed

by the Lovina spouses at Sapang Bulati creek. By the

power RA 2056 gave to Moreno, he found the river to

be navigable and that the obstructions are public

nuisance which should be removed.

H: VALID delegation to Moreno. RA 2056 validly

delegated the judicial power to the Secretary to

remove unauthorized obstructions. It requires only

ascertainment of facts and apply the law which is what

the Secretary did in this case.

ADMIN LAW - Carlota

Cielo Marjorie A. Goño | Jamie Katrina F. Chan Page 9 of 56

b. Filing in of details

Alegre v. Collector of Customs

Power delegated: Act 2380 requires a certificate from

the Fiber Standardization Board before an abaca

exporter (like Alegre) would be allowed to export. The

Administrative Code provides for grading, inspection

and certification standards.

Held: VALID delegation. The law provides for specific

standards that the admin agency should observe in

issuing the certificate.

c. Administrative Rule Making

Book VII, Administrative Code of 1987

Section 1. Scope. - This Book shall be applicable to all

agencies as defined in the next succeeding section,

except the Congress, the Judiciary, the Constitutional

Commissions, military establishments in all matters

relating exclusively to Armed Forces personnel, the

Board of Pardons and Parole, and state universities

and colleges.

Section 2. Definitions. - As used in this Book:

(1) "Agency" includes any department,

bureau, office, commission, authority or

officer of the National Government

authorized by law or executive order to

make rules, issue licenses, grant rights or

privileges, and adjudicate cases; research

institutions with respect to licensing

functions; government corporations with

respect to functions regulating private right,

privileges, occupation or business; and

officials in the exercise of disciplinary

power as provided by law.

(2) "Rule" means any agency statement of

general applicability that implements or

interprets a law, fixes and describes the

procedures in, or practice requirements of,

an agency, including its regulations. The

term includes memoranda or statements

concerning the internal administration or

management of an agency not affecting the

rights of, or procedure available to, the

public.

(3) "Rate" means any charge to the public

for a service open to all and upon the same

terms, including individual or joint rates,

tolls, classifications, or schedules thereof, as

well as commutation, mileage, kilometerage

and other special rates which shall be

imposed by law or regulation to be

observed and followed by any person.

(4) "Rule making" means an agency process

for the formulation, amendment, or repeal

of a rule.

(5) "Contested case" means any proceeding,

including licensing, in which the legal rights,

duties or privileges asserted by specific

parties as required by the Constitution or by

law are to be determined after hearing.

(6) "Person" includes an individual,

partnership, corporation, association, public

or private organization of any character

other than an agency.

(7) "Party" includes a person or agency

named or admitted as a party, or properly

seeking and entitled as of right to be

admitted as a party, in any agency

proceeding; but nothing herein shall be

construed to prevent an agency from

admitting any person or agency as a party

for limited purposes.

(8) "Decision" means the whole or any part

of the final disposition, not of an

interlocutory character, whether

affirmative, negative, or injunctive in form,

of an agency in any matter, including

licensing, rate fixing and granting of rights

and privileges.

(9) "Adjudication" means an agency process

for the formulation of a final order.

(10) "License" includes the whole or any

part of any agency permit, certificate,

passport, clearance, approval, registration,

charter, membership, statutory exemption

or other form of permission, or regulation of

the exercise of a right or privilege.

(11) "Licensing" includes agency process

involving the grant, renewal, denial,

revocation, suspension, annulment,

withdrawal, limitation, amendment,

modification or conditioning of a license.

(12) "Sanction" includes the whole or part

of a prohibition, limitation or other

condition affecting the liberty of any person;

the withholding of relief; the imposition of

penalty or fine; the destruction, taking,

seizure or withholding of property; the

assessment of damages, reimbursement,

restitution, compensation, cost, charges or

fees; the revocation or suspension of

license; or the taking of other compulsory or

restrictive action.

(13) "Relief" includes the whole or part of

any grant of money, assistance, license,

authority, privilege, exemption, exception,

or remedy; recognition of any claim, right,

immunity, privilege, exemption or

exception; or taking of any action upon the

application or petition of any person.

(14) "Agency proceeding" means any

ADMIN LAW - Carlota

Cielo Marjorie A. Goño | Jamie Katrina F. Chan Page 10 of 56

agency process with respect to rule-making,

adjudication and licensing.

1. "Agency action" includes the whole

or part of every agency rule, order,

license, sanction, relief or its

equivalent or denial thereof.

CHAPTER 2

RULES AND REGULATIONS

Section 3. Filing. -

(1) Every agency shall file with the

University of the Philippines Law Center

three (3) certified copies of every rule

adopted by it. Rules in force on the date of

effectivity of this Code which are not filed

within three (3) months from that date shall

not thereafter be the basis of any sanction

against any party or persons.

(2) The records officer of the agency, or his

equivalent functionary, shall carry out the

requirements of this section under pain of

disciplinary action.

(3) A permanent register of all rules shall be

kept by the issuing agency and shall be open

to public inspection.

Section 4. Effectivity. - In addition to other rule-

making requirements provided by law not

inconsistent with this Book, each rule shall become

effective fifteen (15) days from the date of filing as

above provided unless a different date is fixed by

law, or specified in the rule in cases of imminent

danger to public health, safety and welfare, the

existence of which must be expressed in a statement

accompanying the rule. The agency shall take

appropriate measures to make emergency rules

known to persons who may be affected by them.

Section 5. Publication and Recording. - The

University of the Philippines Law Center shall:

(1) Publish a quarter bulletin setting forth

the text of rules filed with it during the

preceding quarter; and

(2) Keep an up-to-date codification of all

rules thus published and remaining in

effect, together with a complete index and

appropriate tables.

Section 6. Omission of Some Rules. -

(1) The University of the Philippines Law

Center may omit from the bulletin or the

codification any rule if its publication would

be unduly cumbersome, expensive or

otherwise inexpedient, but copies of that

rule shall be made available on application

to the agency which adopted it, and the

bulletin shall contain a notice stating the

general subject matter of the omitted rule

and new copies thereof may be obtained.

(2) Every rule establishing an offense or

defining an act which, pursuant to law, is

punishable as a crime or subject to a penalty

shall in all cases be published in full text.

Section 7. Distribution of Bulletin and Codified Rules.

- The University of the Philippines Law Center shall

furnish one (1) free copy each of every issue of the

bulletin and of the codified rules or supplements to

the Office of the President, Congress, all appellate

courts and the National Library. The bulletin and the

codified rules shall be made available free of charge

to such public officers or agencies as the Congress

may select, and to other persons at a price sufficient

to cover publication and mailing or distribution

costs.

Section 8. Judicial Notice. - The court shall take

judicial notice of the certified copy of each rule duly

filed or as published in the bulletin or the codified

rules.

Section 9. Public Participation. -

(1) If not otherwise required by law, an

agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or

circulate notices of proposed rules and

afford interested parties the opportunity to

submit their views prior to the adoption of

any rule.

(2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final

order shall be valid unless the proposed

rates shall have been published in a

newspaper of general circulation at least

two (2) weeks before the first hearing

thereon.

(3) In case of opposition, the rules on

contested cases shall be observed.

(1) Limits of Rule Making Power

Olsen v Aldanese (1922)

Law: Act 2613 empowers the Collector of Internal

Revenue to establish rules for the classification of

tobacco for domestic sale or export

Rule: CIR issued Admin Order 35 which, among others,

requires that tobacco must come from Cagayan,

Isabela and Nueva Viscaya

Held: INVALID provision. There is nothing in the law

that requires that tobacco must only come from those

provinces. CIR exceeded its authority.

Syman v Jacinto (1953)

Law: Administrative Code provisions, particularly Sec

1393, only requires assessment cases to be subject to Commissioner’s review even if not appealed.