CHAPTER 1

 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – that branch of modern law under which the executive department of the government, acting
in a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity, interferes with the conduct of the individual for the purpose of
promoting, the well-being of the community, as under the laws regulating public interest, professions, trades and
callings, rates and prices, laws for the protection of public health and safety, and the promotion of public convenience.
That part of public law which fixes the organization of the government and determines the competence of the
authorities who execute the law and indicates to the individual remedies for the violation of his rights. It is that branch
of law which deals with the field of legal control exercised by law-administering agencies other than courts, and the
field of control exercised by courts over such agencies.
 Primary function of the administrative agency: is to enforce the law, which it can actually perform even without
exercising either quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial power, which if conferred upon it, may be invoked or exercised by it
only for purposes of enhancing its enforcement prerogative, and only within the confines of the constitutional or
statutory grant of either.
 Two major powers of the administrative agency:
1. Quasi-legislative authority or rule-making power
2. Quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function
 Object and Scope of Administrative Law: regulation of private right for public welfare.
 Origin and development: the origin of administrative law is in legislation. Its justification is expediency. It is the result of
the pervasive proxility of the modern age.
 Doctrine of separation of powers: under this doctrine, all rules of conduct are supposed to be laid down directly by the
legislature, subject to the (likewise)direct enforcement of the executive department, and the application or
interpretation, also directly, by the judiciary,
 Blending of allocation of powers
 The legislature began authorizing certain specialized bodies to lay down the rules for the regulation of the matters
entrusted to their jurisdiction and, additionally, to apply these rules in the adjudication of factual issues relating to
these matters, subject only to certain broad policies intended to guide and limit them in the exercise of their delegated
power.
 Delegation has become the rule and non-delegation, the exception.
 By delegation, the legislature is able to relieve itself of the responsibility to legislature directly on relatively minor
matters and of attending as well to the adjudication of essentially factual questions that more properly pertain to the
executive authorities. In this manner, the legislature can concentrate on matter of national or greater significance.
 SOURCES:
1) Constitutional or statutory enactments creating administrative bodies. – Art. IX of the Constitution, Social Security
Act establishing the Social Security Commission, Administrative Code of 1987/1970 or E.O. No. 292, regular
departments and bureaus of the Executive Branch. All of these laws establish the aforementioned administrative
agencies and determine their organizational structures, provide for the functions and powers of their officers and
confer upon them authority over quasi-judicial matters or conflicts.
2) Decisions of courts interpreting the charters of administrative bodies and defining their powers, rights, inhibitions,
among others, and the effects of their determinations and regulations. (such as decisions of the Supreme Court)
3) Rules and regulations issued by the administrative bodies in pursuance of the purposes for which they were
created. (all of which are promulgated pursuant to the rule-making or quasi-legislative prerogatives usually
assigned to administrative bodies.
4) Determinations and orders of the administrative bodies in the settlement of controversies arising in their respective
fields. (adjudications of administrative agencies in the exercise of their quasi-judicial powers)
 Administration –
 as an institution, administration refers to the aggregate of individuals in whose hands the reins of government
are for the time being. It refers to the persons who actually run the government during their prescribed terms
of office. This includes all the personnel in the executive branch who are charged with the enforcement of the
law.
 as a function, administration means the actual running of the government by the executive authorities through
the enforcement of laws and the implementation of policies. Any activity outside of legislation, as when the
authorities collect taxes, drill an army, prosecute lawbreakers, enforce sanity rules, investigate certain
businesses and regulate the prices of prime commodities.
 Administration vis-à-vis Government: government is the agency or instrumentality through which the will of the State
is formulated, expressed and realized. It is the administration which is transitional in nature, which actually mans the
government, which in turn, is a more or less permanent fixture in every State.
 Administration as an activity is either:
 Internal: internal administration covers the rules defining the relations of public functionaries inter se and
embraces the whole range of the law of public officers, it consists, among others, of rules laid down in a
particular agency or office.
 External: external administration defines the relations of the public office with the public in general. The rules
prescribed are promulgated for observance by those who have dealings or transactions with said office. These
rules are promulgated by the administrative agency in the exercise of its quasi-legislative authority for the
regulation of specific matters placed under its jurisdiction.
 Administration vis-à-vis Law: Law is an impersonal command provided with sanctions to be applied in case of violation,
while administration is preventive rather than punitive and is accepted to be more personal than law. Its directive
 having been established, the law steps back, folds its arms and maintains a watchful eye on those who would violate its
order. Being impersonal, the law is concerned only with obedience to its mandate and not with the circumstances or
excuses of the violator. Administration on the other hand, has a more sympathetic regard for the individual and seeks
to spare him from the punishments of the law by persuading him to observe its commands.
CHAPTER 2 – ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
 Definition: An administrative agency may be described as a body endowed with quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial
powers for the purpose of enabling it to carry out laws entrusted to it for enforcement or execution.
 Agency – any department, bureau, office, commission, authority or officer of the National Government authorized by
law or executive order to make rules, issue licenses, grants rights or privileges and adjudicate cases; research
institutions with respect to licensing functions; government corporations with respect to functions regulating private
right, privilege, occupation or business; and officials in the exercise of disciplinary power as provided by law.
 Malaga v. Penachos, Jr. – SC explained that a government instrumentality refers to any agency of the National
Government not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law,
endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy,
usually through a charter. A chartered institution refers to any agency organized or operating under a special charter,
and vested by law with functions relating to specific constitutional policies or objectives.
 Government Agency/Agency – any of the various unites of the Government, including a department, bureau, office,
instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled corporation, or a local government or a distinct unit therein.
 Department – an executive department created by law.
 Bureau – any principal subdivision of any department.
 Office – refers within the framework of government organization, to any major functional unit of a department or
bureau, including regional offices. It may also refer to any position held or occupied by individual persons, whose
functions are defined by law or regulation.
 Instrumentality – any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested
with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special
funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. This term includes regulatory agencies, chartered
institutions and government-owned or controlled corporations.
 Government-owned or controlled corporation (GOCC) refers to any agency organized as a stock or non-stock
corporation, vested with functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned
by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly or, where
applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to the extent of at least a majority of its outstanding capital stock. GOCC
shall include GICP/GCE and GFIs.
 GFIs – refer to financial institutions or corporations in which the government directly or indirectly owns majority of the
capital stock and which are either: (1) registered with or directly supervised by the BSP; or (2) collecting or transacting
funds or contributions from the public and places them in financial instruments or assets such as deposits, loans, bonds
and equity including, but not limited to, the GSIS and the SSS.
 GICP (Government Instrumentalities with Corporate Powers)/ GCE (Government Corporate Entities) – refer to
instrumentalities or agencies of the government, which are neither corporations nor agencies integrated within the
departmental framework, but vested by law with special functions or jurisdiction, endowed with some if not all
corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy usually through a charter including,
but not limited to, the following: the MIAA, etc.
 Non-chartered GOCC – refers to a GOCC organized and operating under BP 68, or “The Corporation Code of the
Philippines.”
 Nature: it may be regarded as an arm of the legislature insofar as it is authorized to promulgate rules that have the
force of law by virtue of a valid delegation of legislative power. It may also be loosely considered a court because it
performs functions of a particular judicial character, as when it decides factual and sometimes even legal questions as
an incident of its general power of regulation. Basically, however, the administrative agency pertains to the executive
department because its principal function is the implementation of the law in accordance with the policies and
instructions laid down by the legislature. Theoretically, the administrative agency is composed of persons who are, at
the outset, or at least eventually, experts in the particular field of specialization under its jurisdiction. They are
“appointed by law and informed by experience.”
 Creation and Abolition
 The administrative body may be created by the Constitution or by statute. If created by the Constitution itself,
the administrative body can be altered or abolished only by constitutional amendment. But where the body
was crated only by statute, the legislature that breathed life into it can amend or even repeal its charter,
thereby resulting in its abolition, which is justified if made in good faith and not attended by grave abuse of
discretion. An administrative body created by law may be reorganized pursuant to said law providing for its
establishment or another law authorizing said organization.
 Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency – the power of the President to reorganize the National Government
may validly be delegated to his cabinet members exercising control over a particular executive department.
 Banda v. Ermita – the President has the power to reorganize the offices and agencies in the executive
department in line with his constitutionally granted power of control over executive offices and by virtue of
previous delegation of the legislative power to reorganize executive offices under existing statutes. The
Administrative Code of 1987 gives the President continuing authority to reorganize and redefine the functions
of the Office of the President.
CHAPTER 3 – POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
  Quasi-legislative: power of subordinate legislation and permits the body to promulgate rules intended to carry out the
provisions of particular laws. Quasi-legislative in prescribing a rule for the future. This is in its nature private.
 Quasi-judicial: its power of adjudication, enables the administrative body to resolve, in a manner essentially judicial,
factual and sometimes even legal questions incidental to its primary power of enforcement of the law. The jurisdiction
of the administrative body is quasi-judicial in applying a rule for the past. The latter is in its public nature.
A. The Quasi-Legislative Power
 Definition: administrative authorities are vested with the power to make rules and regulations because it is
impracticable for the lawmakers to provide general regulations for various and varying details of management. The
quasi-legislative power 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 a law and implement legislative policy. While not
proceeding directly from the legislature, these regulations are regarded as “little laws” possessed of the same legal
force and, perhaps, with even more efficacy than the statutes they are supposed to implement.
 Distinguished from Legislative Power: the power to issue administrative rules and regulations is different from the
power to promulgate laws. Administrative regulations are intended only to implement the law and to carry out the
legislative policy.
 Source: the power to promulgate administrative regulations is derived from the legislature. By virtue of a valid
delegation. This may be either expressed or implied although it is usually effected explicitly, through a specific
authorization. To be valid, the delegation must not create what the US Supreme Court calls a “roving commission” but
should be “not canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing.” There must not be a total abdication of legislative
power to the delegate. The delegation must be circumscribed by legislative restrictions.
 Tests of Delegation: the tests of a valid delegation of the power to promulgate administrative regulations, as well as of
legislative power in general, are the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. Ideally, the law must be
complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature so that when it reaches the delegate, it will have
nothing to do but enforce it. Additionally. The law must offer a sufficient standard to specify the limits of the delegate’s
authority, announce the legislative policy, and specify the conditions under which it is to be implemented. The standard
is usually embodied in the law itself. If not, the courts will usually bend over backwards to discover it in the
circumstances surrounding the exactment of the delegating statute. Among the accepted sufficient standards are
“public interest”, “simplicity, economy and efficiency”, and “public welfare.” In every case of permissible delegation,
there must be a showing that the delegation itself is valid. It is valid only if the law (a) is complete in itself, carried out
or implemented by the delegate; and (b) fixes a standard – the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or
determinable – to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. A sufficient standard is one
which defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. It
indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected. Both tests are intended to prevent a
total transference of legislative authority to the delegate, who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature
and exercise a power essentially legislative.
B. The Quasi-Judicial Power (power of adjudication)
 Definition: the power of the administrative authorities to make determinations of facts in the performance of their
official duties and to apply the law as they construe it to the facts so found. The exercise of this power is only incidental
to their main function, which is the enforcement of the law. The judicial process focuses on the question of law, with
the questions of fact being regarded as of secondary importance only. Even if not judges, administrative officers can
interpret and apply the law to the facts as ascertained by them because this function is necessary to the discharge of
their primary function of regulation. However, as they are not judges, their determination of legal questions is subject
to review by the courts of justice.
 Source: this power is incidental to the power of regulation vested in the administrative body but is often expressly
conferred by the legislature through specific provisions in the charter of the agency. The power is needed to enable the
administrative officers to perform their executive duties. The use of the term “quasi-judicial” is merely a convenient
way of approving the exercise of judicial power by an administrative officer.
 Determinative Powers:
 Enabling powers – are those that permit the doing of an act which the law undertakes to regulate and which
would be unlawful without government approval. The most common example is the issuance of licenses to
engage in a particular business or occupation, like the operation of a liquor store or restaurant.
 Directing powers – order the doing of performance of particular acts to ensure compliance with the law and
are often exercised for corrective purposes.
a. Dispensing power – allows the administrative officer to relax the general operation of a law or exempt
from the performance of a general duty, as when a student is excused from physical education
requirements for health reasons.
b. Examining power – which enables it to inspect the records and premises, and investigate the activities, of
persons or entities coming under its jurisdiction. This will include, among others, the following powers: 1)
issuance of subpoenas; 2) swearing in of witnesses; 3) interrogation of witnesses; 4) calling for production
of books, papers and records; 5) requiring that books, papers and records be made available for inspection;
6) inspection of premises; 7) requiring written answers to questionnaires; 8) requiring periodic or special
reports; and 9) requiring the filing of statements.
c. Summary powers – are those involving the use by administrative authorities of force upon persons or
things without the necessity of previous judicial warrant. Examples are the padlocking by the mayor’s office
of filthy restaurants or movie houses exhibiting obscene movies, the shooting down of a mad dog on the
 loose, the take-over by the BSP of mismanaged banks, and the confiscation by the customs authorities of
articles which are prohibited per se.
 Exercise of Powers: the duties of the administrative body are generally considered discretionary, especially as they
involve the interpretation or construction and enforcement of the law and the appreciation of factual questions that
may be submitted to it for resolution. Some administrative duties are merely ministerial, however, which means that no
judgment or discretion is required or allowed in their exercise. In any event, the jurisdiction and powers of
administrative agencies are limited to those expressly granted or necessarily implied from those granted in the
legislation creating such bodies.
CHAPTER 4 – THE QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWER
 The rule-making power of the administrative body is intended to enable it to implement the policy of the law and to
provide for the more effective enforcement of its provisions. Through the exercise of this power of subordinate
legislation it is possible to apply the law and so fulfill the mandate of the legislature.
 It is an elementary rule in administrative law that administrative regulations and policies enacted by administrative law
that administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce, have the force of law, are entitled
to great respect, and have in their favor a presumption of legality.
 Kinds of Administrative Regulations (according to its nature and substance):
a. Interpretative – the interpretative rule is designed to provide guidelines to the law which the administrative agency
is in charge of enforcing. Interpretative regulations are those which purport to do no more than interpret the
statute being administered, to say what it means. They are performing a judicial function rather than a legislative
function. The interpretative regulation is issued by the administrative body as an incident of its power to enforce
the law and is intended merely to clarify its provisions for proper observance by the people.
b. Legislative – a legislative rule is in the matter of subordinate legislation by providing the details thereof. Legislative
rules or regulations are accorded by the courts or by express provisions of statute the force and effect of law
immediately upon going into effect. A legislative rule is in the nature of subordinate legislation, designed to
implement a primary legislation by providing the details thereof. The legislative regulation is issued by the
administrative body pursuant to a valid delegation of legislative power and is intended to have the binding force
and effect of a law enacted by the legislature itself. Legislative regulation is further classified into the
supplementary and the contingent.
 Supplementary regulation – is intended to fill in the details of the law and “to make explicit what is only
general.” Its purpose is to enlarge upon a statute, subject only to the standards fixed therein, to ensure its
effective enforcement in accordance with the legislative will.
 Contingent regulation – it is issued upon the happening of a certain contingency which the administrative
body is given the discretion to determine or “to ascertain, under and pursuant to the law, some
circumstances on which the law, by its own terms, makes its own action depend, or to find the facts or
conditions properly prescribed under which a law is passed will or will not operate, that is, for putting in
effect, applying or suspending a law.” Administrative agencies are allowed to ascertain he existence of
particular contingencies and on the basis thereof enforce or suspend the operation of a law. Such
contingent regulations have the force and effect of law.
 To be valid, the administrative regulation must comply with the following requisites:
(1) Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature. – authority to promulgate the regulation is usually
conferred by the charter itself of the administrative body or by the law it is supposed to enforce. There are
limitations on the rule-making power of administrative agencies. A rile shaped out by jurisprudence is that when
Congress authorizes the promulgation of administrative rules and regulations to implement given legislation, all
that is required is that the regulation be not in contravention with it, but conform to the standards that the law
prescribes. A regulation is binding on the courts as long as the procedure foxed for its promulgation is followed. It is
nonetheless valid provided that its scope is within the statutory authority or standard granted by the legislature. By
virtue of his constitutional power of control, the President can exercise the rule-making power conferred by the
above provisions upon his subordinates in the executive department.
(2) It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature. – assuming a valid delegation, it is still
necessary that the authority delegated be properly exercised, which means simply that the regulation promulgated
must not be ultra vires or beyond the limits of the authority conferred. An administrative agency cannot amend an
act of Congress. The power of administrative officials to promulgated rules and regulations in the implementation
of a statute is necessarily limited only to carrying into effect what is provided in the legislative enactment.
Administrative rules and regulations are intended to carry out, not supplant or modify the law. The rule-making
power of a public administrative body is a delegated legislative power, which it my not use either to abridge the
authority given by Congress or the Constitution or to enlarge its power beyond the scope intended. The law cannot
be amended by a mere regulation. A regulation that operates to create a rule out of harmony with the statute is a
mere nullity; it cannot prevail. The administrative agency issuing these regulations may not enlarge, alter or restrict
the provisions of the law it administers; it cannot engraft additional requirements not contemplated by the
legislature. In case of conflict, the law must prevail. A statute is superior to an administrative directive and the
former cannot be repealed not amended by the latter. Administrative issuances seeking to carry into effect an Act
of Congress must be in harmony with the provisions of the law; they cannot modify nor supplant the same.
 People v. Maceren: The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources was authorized to promulgate
regulations to carry into effect the provisions of the Fishing Law, which prohibited, among others acts,
fishing using obnoxious or poisonous substances. In the exercise of this authority, he issued, on
recommendation of the Commissioner of Fisheries, a regulation prohibiting “electro-fishing.” The accused
 in this case successfully challenged the regulation on the ground that it exceeded the powers conferred
upon the Secretary since the law did not prohibit fishing by electricity. It was argued that electricity was
neither poisonous nor obnoxious nor was it a substance but a form of energy. In sustaining the accused, the
SC noted that nowhere in the law was electro-fishing prohibited; hence, the Secretary of Agriculture and
the Commissioner of Fisheries were powerless to penalize it.
As a general rule, letters of instruction are simply directives of the President of the Philippines, issued in the
exercise of his administrative power of control, to heads of departments and/or offices under the executive branch
of the government for observance by the officials and/or employees thereof. Being administrative in nature, they
do not have the force and effect of a law and, thus, cannot be a valid source of obligation.
The President is confined to his so-called residual powers, i.e. unless Congress provides otherwise, the President
shall exercise such other powers and functions vested in the President which are provided for under the laws and
which are not delegated by the President in accordance with law, which would include administrative power, which
is concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental
organs. It enables the President to fix a uniform standard of administrative efficiency and check the official conduct
of his agents. To this end, he can issue administrative orders, rules and regulations; and his administrative orders,
which are acts of the President which relate to particular aspects of governmental operation in pursuance of his
duties as administrative head (and which) shall be promulgated in administrative orders; an ordinance issued by the
President which relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of government. The President does not
have the authority to promulgate decrees. The President is granted Ordinance Powers and may issue any of the
following: Executive Orders, which are acts of the President providing for rules of a general or permanent character
in implementation or execution of constitutional statutory powers; Administrative Orders, or acts of the President
which refer to particular aspects of governmental operations in pursuance of his duties as administrative heads;
Proclamations, which are acts of the President fixing a date or declaring a status or condition of public moment or
interest, upon the existence of which the operation of a specific law or regulation is made to depend, and which
shall have the force of an executive order; Memorandum Orders, defined as acts of the President on matters of
administrative detail or of subordinate or temporary interest which only concern a particular officer or office of the
Government; Memorandum Circulars, which refer to acts of the President on matters relating to internal
administration, which the President desires to bring to the attention of all or some of the departments, agencies,
bureaus or offices of the Government, for information and compliance; and General or Special Orders, which refer
to acts and commands of the President in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the AFP.
Administrative rules and regulations which contravene the Constitution are void.
(3) It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure. – as in the enactment of laws, the
promulgation of administrative regulations of general application does not require previous notice and hearing, the
only exception being where the legislature itself requires it and mandates that the regulation shall be based on
certain facts as determined at an appropriate investigation. According to the SC, “quasi-legislative power is
exercised by administrative agencies through the promulgation of rules and regulations within the confines of the
granting statutes and the doctrine of non-delegation of certain powers flowing form the separation of the great
branches of the government. As a general rule, prior notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of rules and
regulations promulgated to govern future conduct. Prior notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of rules
or regulations issued in the exercise of quasi-legislative powers since there is no determination of past events or
facts that have to be established or ascertained. But where the regulation is in effect a settlement of a controversy
between specific parties, it is considered an administrative adjudication and so will require notice and hearing. In
any events, it has been ruled that every party subject to administrative regulation deserves an opportunity to know,
through reasonable regulations promulgated by the agency, of the objective standards that have to be met, a rule
integral to due process, as it protects substantive rights.
(4) It must be reasonable. – like statutes, administrative regulations promulgated thereunder must not be
unreasonable or arbitrary as to violate due process. Administrative authorities should not act arbitrarily and
capriciously in the issuance of rules and regulations. To be valid, such rules and regulations must be reasonable and
fairly adapted to secure the end in view. The regulation must involve the public welfare and the method employed
must be reasonably related to the purposes of the rule and, as previously noted, not arbitrary.
 Penal Regulations: the power to define and punish crime is exclusively legislative and may not be delegated to the
administrative authorities. Violation of administrative regulations cannot give rise to criminal prosecution unless the
legislature makes such violation punishable and imposes the corresponding sanctions. The administrative authorities
themselves cannot prescribe such penalties.
 Special requisites of a valid administrative regulation with a penal sanction are:
(1) The law itself must make a violation of the administrative regulation punishable.
(2) The law itself must impose and specify the penalty for the violation of the regulation.
(3) The regulation must be published.
 The effectivity of laws or rules published in the Official Gazette is determined from the date of the release for
circulation of the edition of the Official Gazette in which said law or rule appears.
 Construction and Interpretation: regulation should be read in harmony with the statute and not in violation of the
authority conferred on the administrative authorities. Statutes including administrative rules and regulations, operate
prospectively only, unless the legislative intent to the contrary is manifest by express terms or by necessary implication.
The administrative regulation that contravenes the statute is, invalid. As in the case of the statute, the intention of the
authors must be sought and given effect, and this intention may usually be discovered in the measure itself or through
the use of extrinsic aids. Administrative regulations are prospective in operation unless the contrary is clearly intended.
 It has been ruled that the opinions of the Secretary of Justice are material in the construction of statutes in pare
materia. The interpretation given to a rule or regulation by those charged with its execution is entitled to the greatest
weight by the court construing such rule or regulation, and such interpretation will be followed unless it appears to be
clearly unreasonable or arbitrary. The SC will not hesitate to set aside an executive interpretation if there is an error of
law, abuse of power, lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with the letter and spirit of the
law. The basic guidelines in resolving disputes concerning the interpretation by an agency of its own rules and
regulations are (1) whether the delegation of power was valid; (2) whether the regulation was within that delegation;
(3) whether it was a reasonable regulation under a due process test. When an administrative or executive agency
renders an opinion or issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets a preexisting law and the administrative
interpretation is at best advisory for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means.
 Doctrine of respect for administrative or practical construction – in applying said doctrine, courts often refer to several
factors which may be regarded as bases thereof – factors leading the courts to give the principle controlling wight in
particular instances, or as independent rules in themselves. These factors include the respect due the governmental
agencies charged with administration, their competence, expertness, experience, and informed judgment and the fact
that they frequently are the drafters of he law they interpret; that the agency is the one on which the legislature must
rely to advise it as to the practical working out of the statute, and practical application of the statute presents the
agency with unique opportunity and experiences for discovering deficiencies, inaccuracies, or improvements in the
statute. An administrative officer may revoke, repeal or abrogate the acts or previous rulings of his predecessor in
office. The construction of a statute by those administering it is not binding on their successors if, thereafter, the latter
becomes satisfied that a different construction should be given.
 Enforcement: the power to promulgate administrative regulations carries with it the implied power to enforce them.
This may be effected through judicial action, as in petitions for mandamus and injunction, or through sanctions that the
stature itself may allow the administrative body to impose. The power to enforce administrative regulations likewise
includes the power to issue opinions and rulings to enable the administrative agency to property execute said
regulations.
 Amendment or Repeal: the administrative regulation made thereunder is subject to amendment or repeal by the
authorities that promulgated them in the first place. Administrative regulation may be charged directly by the
legislature. As for the administrative body itself, its power to issue regulations is not, once exercised, deemed
exhausted. On the contrary, this power may eb exercised as often as it becomes necessary to adjust the regulation to
the changing circumstances surrounding the subject thereof or the problem sought to be solved or alleviated by the
rule. The requirement that the implementing rules of a law be subjected to approval by Congress as a condition for
their effectivity violates the cardinal constitutional principles of bicameralism and the so-called rule on presentment.
From the moment the law becomes effective, any provision of law that empowers Congress or any of its members to
play any role in the implementation or enforcement of the law violates the principle of separation of powers and is thus
unconstitutional. Under this principle, a provision that requires Congress or its members to approve the implementing
rules of a law after it has already taken effect shall be unconstitutional. Express grant of rule-making power necessarily
includes the power to amend, revise, alter, or repeal the same. This is to allow administrative agencies flexibility in
formulating and adjusting the details and manner by which they are to implement the provisions of a law, in order to
make it more responsive to the times. Hence, it is a standard provision in administrative rules that prior issuances of
administrative agencies that are inconsistent therewith are declared repealed or modified.
CHAPTER 5 – THE QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER
 The quasi-judicial power is the power of the administrative agency to determine questions of fact to which the
legislative policy is to apply, in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself. The administrative body
exercises the quasi-judicial power when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is essentially of an executive or
administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner is incidental to, or reasonably necessary for, the
performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it. The Administrative Code of 1987 defines the
power of adjudication simply as an agency process for the formulation of a final order. The power to determine what
the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are, and then undertakes to determine these questions and
adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. Ministerial function is one which an officer or tribunal performs in the context
of a given set of facts, in prescribed manner and without regard for the exercise of his/its own judgment upon the
propriety or impropriety of the act done.
 Section 15 of the Bill of Rights, that “all persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all
judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies.”
 Lopez v. Office of the Ombudsman – the constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases is not limited to the
accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, including civil and administrative cases, and in all
proceedings, including judicial and quasi-judicial hearings. Under the Constitution, any party to a case may demand
expeditious action on all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice.
 Quasi-judicial function is a term that applies to the actions or discretion of public administrative officers or bodies, that
are required to investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, holds hearings and draw conclusions from them, as
a basis for their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature. Administrative agencies are not considered
courts; they are neither part of the judicial system nor are they deemed judicial tribunals. Each department being co-
equal and coordinate and supreme in its own sphere.
 A preliminary investigation is not a quasi-judicial proceeding.
 The proper exercise of the quasi-judicial power required compliance with two conditions, to wit:
(1) Jurisdiction must be properly acquired by the administrative body.
(2) Due process must be observed in the conduct of the proceedings.
 Jurisdiction: competence of an office or body to act on a given matter or decide a certain question. Such acts are
subject to direct and even collateral attack and may be assailed at any time since they are regarded as invalid ab
ignition. Jurisdiction can be conferred upon the administrative agency by the Constitution.
 CSC – possessing authority over all employed of all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies of the
Government, including original charters.
 COMELEC – possesses exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving
elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided
by trial courts of limited justice.
 COA – power, authority, and duty to examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of,
and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of
its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including GOCCs with original charters, and on a post-audit basis: (1)
constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution; (b)
autonomous state colleges and universities; (c) other GOCCs and their subsidiaries; and (d) such non-governmental
entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the Government.
 Section 20 of Art. XII of the Constitution: The Congress shall establish an independent central monetary authority,
which shall provide policy direction in the areas of money, banking, and credit.
 CHR – shall have the following powers and functions:
(1) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political
rights;
(2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance
with the ROC;
(3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons within the Philippines, as well
as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged
whose human rights have been violated or need protection…
 The legislature also has the power to confer jurisdiction upon the administrative body and so limit or expand its
authority.
 Cariño v. CHR – speaking on the power to adjudicate claimed to be possessed by the respondent, SC declared that the
CHR to have no such power, and that it was not meant by fundamental law to be another court or quasi-judicial agency
in this country, or duplicate or, much less, take over the functions of the latter. The most that may be conceded to the
Commission in the way of adjudicative power is that it may investigate. But fact-finding is not adjudication, and cannot
be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or official.
 Rules of Procedure – where an administrative body is expressly granted the power of adjudication, it is deemed also
vested with the implied power to prescribe the rules to be observed in the conduct of its proceedings.
 Doctrine of implication – it is a settled rule of construction that where a general power is conferred or duty enjoined,
every particular power necessary for the exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also conferred. (Angara
case)
 Where the statute does not require any particular method of procedure to be followed by an administrative agency,
the agency may adopt any reasonable method to carry out its functions.
 The Subpoena Power – the power to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum is not inherent in administrative
bodies. It is settled that these bodies may summon witnesses and require the production of evidence only when duly
allowed by law, and always only in connection with the matter they are authorized to investigate. This power may be
expressly granted in the charter of the administrative body.
 The Contempt Power – the power to punish for contempt is essentially judicial and cannot eb claimed as an inherent
right by the administrative body. To be validly exercised, it must be expressly conferred upon the body and,
additionally, must be used only on connection with its quasi-judicial as distinguished from tis purely administrative or
routinary functions.
 Notice and Hearing – the right to notice and hearing is essential to due process and its non-observance will as a rule
invalidate the administrative proceedings. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity
to explain one’s side or a chance to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Some of the accepted
exceptions are the summary abatement of a nuisance per se, like a mad dog on loose, which can be killed outright
under the ancient law of self-defense; the preventive suspension of a public servant facing administrative charges; the
padlocking of filthy restaurants or theaters showing obscene movies, which are immediate threats to public health and
decency; the cancellation of a passport of a person sought for criminal prosecution; the summary distraint and levy of
the properties of a delinquent taxpayer; and the replacement of a temporary or acting appointee.
 Administrative Due Process – while administrative determinations of contested cases are by their nature judicial, there
is no requirement for strict adherence to technical rules as are observed in truly judicial proceedings.
 In administrative proceedings, procedural due process has been recognized to include the following: (1) the right to
actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a respondent’s legal rights; (2) a real
opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in one’s favor,
and to defend one’s rights; (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person
charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a finding by said tribunal
which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records
or made known to the parties affected.
 Where a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot complain of
deprivation of due process.
  Administrative Appeals and Reviews – unless otherwise provided by law or executive order, an appeal from a final
decision of the administrative agency may be taken to the Department Head, whose decision may further be brought to
the regular courts of justice, in accordance with the procedure specified by law. The appellate administrative agency
may even conduct additional hearings in the appealed case, if deemed necessary.
 Enforcement of Decision – in the absence of any statute providing for the enforcement of an administrative
determination, the same cannot be enforced except possibly by appeal to the force of public opinion. Usually, however,
the administrative body is allowed certain sanctions that it may impose directly for the enforcement of its own
decisions.
 Res Judicata – the general rule is that an administrative decision is not considered res judicata so as to preclude its
subsequent reconsideration or revocation. Administrative decision-making is a continuing process. Decisions of the
previous incumbents of the administrative body may be modified or reversed by their successors in the exercise of their
own powers of adjudication. Where the administrative decision has been affirmed by a court decision, the doctrine of
res judicata is applicable and the administrative authorities are thereafter precluded from modifying their own
determination. In such a case, the effect of res judicata attaches to the judgment of the reviewing court rather than to
the administrative judgment.
CHAPTER 6 – JUDICIAL REVIEW
 An administrative decision may be appealed to the courts of justice only if the Constitution or the law permits it or if
the issues to be reviewed involve questions of law. The right to appeal is not a constitutional right nor is it embraced in
the right to be heard as guaranteed by due process. As a rule, therefore, the administrative decision may be validly
rendered final and inappealable at the administrative level without allowing the aggrieved party a final resort to the
courts of justice. Only final orders, rulings and decisions of these constitutional commissions rendered in the exercise of
their adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers may eb subject to such appeals.
 On the basis of Sec. 16 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines implementing Sec. 9(3) of BP 129, the CA may review final
decisions, orders, awards or resolutions of RTCs and of all quasi-judicial bodies except the COMELEC, the COA, the
Sandiganbyan, and decisions issued under the Labor Code of the Philippines and by the Central Board of Assessment
Appeals.
 Appeals to the CTA from the decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or the Commissioner of Customs are
limited to rulings made by the latter in the exercise of their quasi-judicial power.
 When it comes to questions of law, administrative decisions thereon are appealable to the courts of justice even
without legislative permission; indeed, even against legislative prohibition. Judicial tribunals cannot be deprived of their
inherent authority to decide questions of law, initially or by way of review of administrative decisions. Being inherent,
the power cannot be withdrawn by the legislature through a law making such a decision final and inappealable. Even
decisions of administrative agencies which are declared “final” by law are not exempt from judicial review when so
warranted.
 Doctrine Primary Jurisdiction or Prior Resort – does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a
controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. Courts will
not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of the government agency entrusted with the
regulation of activities coming under the special and technical training and knowledge of such agency. This doctrine
simply calls for the determination of administrative questions, which are ordinarily questions of fact, by administrative
agencies rather than courts of justice. This doctrine applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and
comes into play whenever enforcement of the 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 of such issues to the administrative body for its view. The application of the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction, however, does not call for the dismissal of the case. It need only be suspended until after the
matters within the competence of the BED are threshed out and determined. Uniformity and consistency in the
regulation of business entrusted to an administrative agency are secured, and the limited function of review by the
judiciary are more rationally exercised, by preliminary resort, for ascertaining and interpreting the circumstances
underlying legal issues, to agencies that are better equipped than courts by specialization. This doctrine precludes the
courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged in an administrative body of special
competence. When an administrative agency is conferred quasi-judicial functions, all controversies relating to the
subject matter pertaining to its specialization are deemed to be included within its jurisdiction. Split jurisdiction is not
favored. This quasi-judicial function is exercised by them as an incident of the principal power entrusted to them of
regulating certain activities falling under their particular expertise.
 Where two administrative agencies share concurrent jurisdiction with respect to a particular issue, the settled rule is
that the body or agency that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the
others.
 Office of the Ombudsman v. Rodriguez – SC held that the Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction with the
sangguniang bayan, based on its disciplinary authority under the LGC, over administrative cases against elective
barangay officials occupying positions below salary grade 27. The SC stressed that, in “administrative cases involving
the concurrent jurisdiction of two or more disciplining authorities, the body in which the complaint is filed first, and
which opts to take cognizance of the case, acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of other tribunals exercising concurrent
jurisdiction.” The option to refer certain complaints to the proper disciplinary authority for the institution of
appropriate administrative proceedings against erring public officers or employees.
 A statute may vest exclusive original jurisdiction in an administrative agency over certain disputes and controversies
falling within the agency’s special expertise
 Observance of this doctrine is required to ensure consistency in administrative findings and also because of the
conceded expertise of the administrative body, as compared to the judicial tribunal, in resolving administrative
questions in general.
 The SC has emphasized that this doctrine applies only to the exercise by an administrative agency of its quasi-judicial
function. This doctrine applies only where the administrative agency exercises its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory
function. The courts will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the
administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the question
demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services.
 The objective of this doctrine is to guide a court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction
until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the
proceeding before the court.
 When what is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by the administrative agency in
the performance of its quasi-legislative function, the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the same. The
determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by an administrative agency contravenes the law or the
Constitution is within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
 Once initial action is taken by the administrative agency in accordance with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the
administrative process must continue up to the highest level before resort to judicial tribunals may be sought. This is
required under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
 Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies – this doctrine calls for resort first to the appropriate
administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction before the same may be
elevated to the courts of justice for review. Non-observance of the doctrine results in lack of a cause of action, which is
one of the grounds allowed by the ROC for the dismissal of the complaint.
 Under this doctrine, an administrative decision must first be appealed to the administrative superiors up to the highest
level before it may be elevated to a court of justice for review. Review may be sought only if the appeal is first made of
a decision…
 This doctrine provides that where the enabling state indicates a procedure for administrative review, and provides for a
system of administrative appeal, or reconsideration, the courts, for reasons of law, comity and convenience, will not
entertain the case unless the available administrative remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate authorities
have been given an opportunity to act and to correct the errors committed in the administrative forum.
 Under this doctrine, recourse through court action cannot prosper until after all such administrative remedies would
have first been exhausted. The courts must allow the administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge
their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence. Hence, premature resort to the Court
necessarily become fatal to the cause of action of the petitioner. Hence, when the law provides for remedies against
the action of an administrative board, body or officer, as in the case at bar, relief to the courts can be made only after
exhausting all remedies provided therein. Otherwise stated, before seeking the intervention of the courts, it is a
precondition that petitioner should first avail of all the means afforded by the administrative processes.
 The exhaustion principle applies when the ruling court or tribunal is not given the opportunity to re-examine its findings
and conclusions because of an available opportunity that a party seeking recourse against the court or the tribunal’s
ruling omitted to take. Thus, the exhaustion principle is based on the perspective of the ruling court or tribunal while
due process is considered from the point of view of the litigating party, against whom a ruling was made.
 Reasons for the doctrine:
(1) The administrative superiors, if given the opportunity, can correct the errors committed by their subordinates.
(2) Courts should as much as possible refrain from disturbing the findings of administrative bodies in deference to the
doctrine of separation of powers.
(3) On practical grounds, it is best that the courts, which are burdened enough as they are with judicial cases, should
not be saddled with the review of administrative cases.
(4) Judicial review of administrative cases is usually effected through the special civil actions of certiorari, mandamus
and prohibition, which are available only if there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
 Availment of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies.
 Exceptions – there are instances when it may be dispensed with and judicial action may be validly resorted to
immediately:
1) Where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;
2) Where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction;
3) Where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant;
4) Where the amount involved is relatively small as to make the rule impractical and oppressive;
5) Where the question raised is purely legal and will ultimately have o be decided by the courts of justice of justice;
6) Where judicial intervention is urgent;
7) Where its application may cause great and irreparable damage;
8) Where the controverted acts violate due process;
9) When the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot;
10) Where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
11) In quo warranto proceedings.