Admin 2B • EXCEPT:
o Levy & Distraint of Delinquent Taxpayer
June 10 2020 / Wed o Grant of Provisional Authority for increase of rates
o Nuisance per se
Review o Preventive Suspension (not a penalty, a protective
measure)
Powers of Administrative Agencies
Can Administrative Regulations impose penal sanctions?
Quasi-Legislative v Quasi-Judicial
• Remember: The power to define and punish crimes is an exclusive
Validity of Administrative Regulation power of the Legislative Dept. and CANNOT be delegated to the
Administrative Bodies.
• Promulgation is authorized by legislature
• Hence, violation cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution unless
• The regulation must be within the scope of the authority given by
the law itself makes such violation punishable
the legislative department
• Law should provide for sanctions, such cannot be done by
• Consistent with the prescribed procedure(Notice & Hearing;
administrative bodies
Publication)
• Reasonable
Publication
Clarification on Notice & Hearing (Not Publication)
• REMEMBER
Promulgation of Admin Regulations
o Tanada v Tuvera
• Generally not required
• EXCEPT: (1) The court held that all statute including those
o Mandated by Law of local application shall be published as condition
o Settlement of a controversy between parties for their effectivity, which shall begin 15 days after
o Subordinate Legislation (Implementing a Law by IRR) publication unless a different effectivity date is
fixed by the legislature.
Exercise of Quasi-Judicial Power
(2) The publication must be full or no publication
• Generally Required at all since its purpose is to inform the public of
the content of the laws.
Take note of Sec 1, Art. 3 of the 1987 Constitution. There might be
deprivation of Life, Liberty, and Property. Therefore due process o Article 2, NCC
must be observed
• EXCEPTIONS
o Interpretative Rules
o Internal Rules Due Process in Administrative Hearings
o Letters of Instructions by Superior
As provided in the case of Ang Tibay v CIR
Philippine Association of Service Yaokasin v. Commissioner of
Exporters v. Torres Customs • Right to hearing
• Independent consideration by the tribunal of evidence presented
• The assailed administrative • The Customs Memorandum • Decision is based on law and evidence presented
circulars applied to Orders were addressed to a • Substantial Evidence
Philippine and Hong Kong particular class of persons.
Famous Doctrines
recruitment agencies • Publication was NOT
• Publication was REQUIRED Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
REQUIRED • “Persons” affected by the
CMO were Customs • All administrative appeals must be availed of before court
collectors and subordinates intervention can be availed of.
of the BOC Chief • Applies only to quasi-judicial powers
Prior Resort
Conditions sine qua non for proper exercise of Quasi-Judicial • If primary jurisdiction is vested in an admin body, courts will not
power take cognizance of the case particularly if the special skill,
knowledge, or services of the AA is necessary.
1. Jurisdiction
a. Competence of an office or body on a given Effect of failure to exhaust all administrative remedies
matter as defined by law
b. BP 129 • Dismissal (Rule 16, ROC)
2. Due Process Exceptions
Inherent Not Inherent • Violation of DP
• No plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
• Promulgate Rules (If vested • Subpoena (Summons) • Issue is a purely legal question
with quasi-judicial powers) • Contempt • Patently illegal or unlawful actions/orders
• Grave and irreparable injury
• Qualified Political agency cases
• Matters of urgent public necessity requiring judicial intervention What may be subject to review
• Writ of Amparo
• All orders, rules, licenses, sanction, relief, whether the grant or
deprivation thereof, to the prejudice of the Complainant
• Thus, it may be non-judicial (legislative rule) or quasi-judicial
Main Topic (interpretative rule)
Judicial Review What can a court do relative to administrative actions?
• Determination by a judicial tribunal as to the validity of an action, Legislative Rule Interpretative Rule
or propriety of a ruling, or decision by an administrative body.
• Determine if within the • Concur and give effect to
Basic Principles in Judicial Review delegated authority the rule
• Reasonableness • Overturn and substitute its
• Burden rests upon the complainant who is a proper party relative
• Proper Procedure judgment
to the assailed administrative action;
• Give some intermediate
o NOTE: Complainant MUST be the proper party
degree of weight to the
rule.
• Substantial evidence is NECESSARY as part of the complaint to
be afforded respect upon judicial review
Limitations on Judicial Interference
• Grave abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of law are sound legal
• Technical / Special Skill or Knowledge of Administrative Bodies
bases to set aside an administrative order
• Presidential Discretion (ex: Pardon)
• Finality by failure to appeal
Important Doctrines ***Judicial Interference on Technical Matters
Emphasis on adherence to the Doctrines: • Section 1 of Presidential Decree 605
• Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies “No court of the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining
• Doctrine of Prior Resort order, preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction in any
case involving or growing out of the issuance, approval or disapproval,
Generally, the law itself provides for the mode of judicial review revocation or suspension of, or any action whatsoever by the proper
administrative official or body on concessions, licenses, permits, patents,
or public grants of any kind in connection with the disposition, exploitation,
utilization, exploration, and/or development of the natural resources of the
Philippines.”
***If a court issues a TRO, is it valid? (In re: Sec 1, PD 605)
Rule 43 v Rule 65
Qualify
• The prohibition in PD 605 ONLY applies to the technical aspect Petition for Review Petition for Certiorari
and not to questions of law or non-technical matters, such as • Mode of Appeal • Original Petition for
violation of other laws like RA 9184, or the procurement law. from decisions/ Certiorari,
final orders of Prohibition and
President’s Discretionary Power quasi-judicial Mandamus against
agencies: any:
In re: Wilfredo Sumulong Llamas vs Orbos
o CSC o Tribunal,
Torres
o CBAA Corporation,
o SEC Board,
• The President’s revocation • The constitutionality of the o Office of Officer, or
of a conditional pardon and President’s grant of the Person
reinstatement to prison of executive clemency to the President o Acting
the grantee was NOT governor was SUBJECTED o LRC without or in
SUBJECTED TO JUDICIAL TO JUDICIAL REVIEW o ERB excess of
REVIEW • Exercises discretionary o NTC jurisdiction
• Exercises discretionary power TAKE NOTE: o No Appeal,
power • Grant of Executive COMELEC & nor any
• This is the General Rule Clemency not the issue COA are plain,
subject to Judicial Review under Rule 64 speedy, and
• Court intervened because adequate
the clemency did not only • Questions of fact remedy is
apply to the crime but also and law may be available
to the corresponding raised and • Does not involve
administrative penalty assigned as errors correction of errors
• SC looked into the validity in the assailed in the evaluation or
of the act. final order or appreciation of
decision since it is evidence
an ordinary mode
of appeal • Questions of facts
cannot be raised in How to determine?
• Exhaustion of an original action for
Administrative certiorari Question of fact Question of Law
Remedies is a
requisite before • “No appeal, nor any o The truth or falsehood of a o The question revolves
Appeal via Rule 43 plain, adequate, or statement taking into around the proper
can be availed of speedy remedy is consideration the credibility interpretation of law given a
available in the of a witness, the veracity of certain set of facts
ordinary course of the evidence, and their
law.” interrelation with one o The probative value of the
another relative to matters evidence remains
• Matters of of consistency and other untouched or irrelevant.
Transcendental standards of evidence.
Importance
Substantial Evidence will proscribe courts from deviating from the
facts determined
o EXCEPT:
a. Conflicting findings
b. Findings are based on speculation
c. Impossibility of findings
d. Grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation
of facts
e. Misapprehension of facts
f. Omission of material facts
g. Failure to state the factual or legal basis of the
judgment
h. When evidence is contradicted by thos on
record.
Certiorari Prohibition Mandamus Rule 45 (Appeal by Certiorari) Rule 65
o Without or in o Without or in o Neglects the
excess of excess of performance o Ordinary Appeal from a • Original Petition for
jurisdiction or jurisdiction or in of an act decision of the CA or Certiorari, Prohibition
in grave grave abuse of which the law Sandiganbayan within and Mandamus
abuse of discretion enjoins as a 15 days from receipt of against any:
discretion o No appeal, nor duty or decision or of the denial o Tribunal,
o No appeal, any plain, excludes of the MR Corporation,
nor any plain, speedy or another from o Corrects errors of Board, Officer,
speedy or adequate an office or a judgment or Person
adequate remedy right o Availabilty of appeal o Acting without
remedy o A preventive o No appeal, under Rule 45 will or in excess of
o Sole purpose remedy and its nor any plain, negate a remedy under jurisdiction
is correction function is to speedy or Rule 65 o No Appeal, nor
of errors of restrain or adequate o Only questions of law any plain,
jurisdiction; prevent. remedy can be raised speedy, and
not errors of o Accomplished o “We adequate
judgment acts are not command” remedy is
o Effect: covered by o Applies to available
Nullification prohibition ministerial • Does not involve
or acts not correction of errors in
modification discretionary. the evaluation or
of assailed appreciation of
act or ruling evidence
• Questions of facts
cannot be raised in an
original action for
certiorari
