REPUBLIC VS DRUGMAKER’S LAB (GR NO.

190837 MARCH 5, 2014) (satisfactory

bioavailability/bioequivalence (BA/BE) test)

Extent of the delegated rule-making power

Administrative agencies may exercise quasi-legislative or rule-making power only if there exist a law
which delegates these powers to them. Accordingly, the rules so promulgated must be within the
confines of the granting statutes and must not involve discretion as to what the law shall be, but merely
the authority to fix the details in the execution or enforcement of the policy set out in the law itself, so
as to conform with the doctrine of separation of powers and as an adjunct, the doctrine of non-
delegability of legislative powers.

Classification of Administrative regulation

An administrative regulation may be classified as a legislative rule, an interpretative rule or a contingent

rule. Legislative rules are in the nature of subordinate legislation a d designed to implement a primary
legislation by providing the details thereof. They usually implement existing law, imposing general,
extra-statutory obligations pursuant to authority properly delegated by the congress and effect a change
in existing law or policy which affect individual rights and obligations. Meanwhile, interpretative rules
are intended to interpret, clarify or explain existing statutory regulations under which the administrative
body operates. Their purpose or objective is merely to construe the statue being administered and
purpory to do no more than interpret the statute. Simply, they try to say what the statute means and
refer to no single person or party in particular but concern all those belonging to the same class which
may be covered by the said rules. Finally, contingent rules are those issued by an administrative
authority based on the existence of certain facts or things upon which the enforcement of the law
depends.

HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY vs. SOUTHWING HEAVY INDUSTRIES, INC. ( importation of used cars in
free port)

Rule-making power delegated to the president

Police power is inherent in a government to enact laws, within constitutional limits, to promote the
order, safety, health, morals, and general welfare of society. It is lodged primarily with the legislature.
By virtue of a valid delegation of legislative power, it may also be exercised by the President and
administrative boards, as well as the lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels, including the barangay.

Such delegation confers upon the President quasi-legislative power which may be defined as the
authority delegated by the law-making body to the administrative body to adopt rules and regulations
intended to carry out the provisions of the law and implement legislative policy provided that it must
comply with the following requisites:

(1) Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature;

(2) It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure;
(3) It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature; and
(4) It must be reasonable.
LOKIN JR. VS COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS(validity of substitution of nominee)

Limitation of the delegated rule-making power of COMELEC

The COMELEC, despite the role as implementing arm of the government in the enforcement and
administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, has neither the
authority nor the license to expand, extend, or add anything to the law it seeks to implement. The IRRs
the COMELEC issues for that purpose should always accord with the law to be implemented, and should
not be override, supplant or modify the law. It is basic that the IRRs should remain consistent with the
law they intend to carry out.

Requisites for a valid delegation of rule-making power.

Under certain circumstances, the legislature can delegate to executive officers and administrative
boards the authority to adopt and promulgate IRRs. To render such delegation lawful, the legislature
must declare the policy of the law and fix the legal principles that are to control in given cases. The
legislature should set a definite or primary standard to guide those empowered to execute the law. For
as long as the policy is laid down and a proper standard is established by statute, there can be no
unconstitutional delegation of legislative power when the legislature leaves to selected instrumentalities
the duty of making subordinate rules within the prescribed limits, although there is conferred upon the
executive officer or administrative board a large measure of discretion. There is a distinction between
the delegation of power to make a law and the conferment of an authority or a discretion to be
exercised under and in pursuance of the law, for the power to make laws necessarily involves a
discretion as to what it shall be.

To be valid, therefore, the administrative IRRs must comply with the following requisites to be valid:

1. Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature;

2. It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature;
3. It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure;
4. It must be reasonable.

ABELLA, JR. V. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION(permanent to temporary status for failure to meet
established qualification)

Classification of positions in Career Service

The classification of positions in career service was a quasi-legislative, not a quasi-judicial, issuance.
Quasi-legislative power is exercised by administrative agencies through the promulgation of rules and
regulations within the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegation of certain
powers flowing from the separation of the great branches of the government. Prior notice to and
hearing of every affected party, as elements of due process, are not required since there is no
determination of past events or facts that have to be established or ascertained. As a general rule, prior
notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of rules or regulations promulgated to govern future
conduct.
SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ET. AL. VS. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

1. Administrative bodies had (a) quasi-legislative or rule-making powers and (b) quasi-judicial or
administrative adjudicatory powers. Quasi-legislative or rule-making power is the power to make rules
and regulations which results in delegated legislation that is within the confines of the granting statute
and the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of powers. To be valid, such rules and regulations
must conform to, and be consistent with, the provisions of enabling statute.

Quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power is 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 laid down by
law itself in enforcing and administering the same law. In carrying out their quasi-judicial functions, the
administrative officers or bodies are required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold
hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from them for their official action and exercise of
discretion in a judicial.

2. The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by an administrative body
contravenes the law or the constitution is within the judicial power as defined by the Constitution which
is “ the duty of the Courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there haw been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.” The NTC circular was issued pursuant to its quasi-legislative or rule-making power. Hence,
the action must be filed directly with the regular courts without requiring exhaustion of administrative
remedies.

3. Where the act of administrative agency was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial function,
exhaustion of administrative remedy is required, before going to court.

4. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies only where the administrative agency exercises its quasi-
judicial or adjudicatory function. Thus, in cases involving specialized disputes, the same must be referred
to an administrative agency of special competence pursuant to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. This
doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies where the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a
regulatory scheme, has been placed within the special competence of an administrative body. In such
case, the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its
view.

GMA NETWORK, INC. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205357 (September 2, 2014)

The Fair Election Act does not justify a conclusion that the maximum allowable airtime should be based
on the totality of possible broadcast in all television or radio stations, and the COMELEC has no authority
to provide for rules beyond what was contemplated by the law it is supposed to implement. When it
comes to election and the exercise of freedom of speech, of expression and of the press, the latter must
be properly viewed in context as being necessarily made to accommodate the imperatives of fairness by
giving teeth and substance to the right to reply requirement. Broadcast companies have standing to
question a COMELEC Resolution on airtime limits in view of the direct inquiry they may suffer relative to
their ability to carry out their tasks of disseminating information because of the burdens imposed on
them. Broadcast companies have standing to assert the constitutional freedom of speech and of the
right to information of the public in addition to their own freedom of the press. Section 9 (a) of
COMELEC Resolution No. 9615, with its adoption of the “aggregate-based” airtime 93 limits
unreasonably restricts the guaranteed freedom of speech and of the press. The reporting requirement
for broadcast companies in COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 does not constitute prior restraint; it is a
reasonable means adopted by the COMELEC to ensure that parties and candidates are afforded equal
opportunities to promote their respective candidacies. There is no restriction on dissemination of
information before broadcast. COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 adopting the aggregate-based airtime
limit required prior hearing before adoption since it introduced a radical change in the manner in which
the rules on airtime for political advertisements are to be reckoned.