So before we discuss several doctrine or principles of law, we adhere to in our

jurisdiction. Let us lay down for the basic rule that courts often observe or adhere
to in resolving controversies involving questions which are within the
jurisdiction of an administrative agency or tribunal. So what is this rule?
The rule is very basic,. Courts will not, they will not and cannot. Or should I say
they cannot and will not resolve an issue or a controversy involving a question
which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal and this is especially
true when the question demands the exercise of found administrative discretion
requiring the special knowledge and experience and services as well as expertise of
the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.
In fact, this doctrine is applied to cases involving matters that demand special
competence of administrative agents even if the question involves is also
judicial in character.
It also applies class where a claim is originally recognizable by the courts and comes
into play whenever enforcement of that claim requires the resolution of issues which
under regulatory skin have been placed within the special competence or expertise
of an administrative agency or body in which case the judicial process is suspended
pending the referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view.
So in cases where the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is clearly applicable the
court cannot arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve the controversy because
jurisdiction over which is lodged with an administrative body of special competence.
So that is your jurisdiction or doctrine of primary jurisdiction or what you call the
doctrine of prior resort
How about the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and is this
doctrine absolute or do we make exceptions to such doctrine? I asked you to digest
the case of Paat vs CA. I recently that and I wondered I just gave piece digest and
written up. So in this case of part where to see the court reiterated the rule or laid
down the general rule that before a party may seek the intervention of the court
he should first avail of all the means afforded him by administrative process or
processes.
The issues which administrative agencies are authorized to decide should not be
summarily taken from them and submitted to a court without first giving such agency
or administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due
deliberation. And colllorary to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is
of course your doctrine's prior resort or primary jurisdiction. That is courts cannot or
will not determine a controversy involving a question which I said which is within the
jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of the question by that
administrative tribunal or where the question would demand the exercise of sound
administrative discretion requiring special knowledge experience and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact in which
case courts must refrain from resolving the controversy.
So just like I said is this is the application of these two doctrines the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction of prior resort and the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies absolute or inflexible? the court rule in the negative class. Another case
which I asked you to digest is the case of lack of okay in republic at all versus lack of
at all the courts have or rule that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies and the court of law read doctrine of primary jurisdiction which are based
solely on the sound public which is based on sound public policy and practical
considerations are not inflexible rules.
In short they would admit exceptions okay so there are many accepted exceptions in
fact many accepted exceptions such as one when there is of course this is very
basic then there is a estoppel in the part of the party involving or invoking such
doctrine. Second where the challenge administrative act is part of the legal
amounting to lack of jurisdiction as is an expanded power of judicial review. Third
when there is an reasonable delay of a or official inaction that will get a cleavantly
prejudiced the complainant. Fourth when the amount involved is relatively small so
as to make the rule impractical and appraising. Fifth where the question involves or
when the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately help to be decided by
the courts of justice. Sixth where judicial intervention is urgency. In short or is urgent
other? In short there's an urgency of judicial intervention okay when it would result to
irreparable damage etc. Seven when its application may cause great irreparable
damage. Eight for the controversial acts violate due process. Nine when the issue of
non-exhaustions of administrative remedies has been rendered moot. Ten when
there is no other plain speedy and adequate remedy. Eleven when strong public
interest is involved in lastly in quo warranto proceeding. In the very nature of the
proceeding would require judicial intervention.
So according to citing the case of the being versus honorable masqueriness cast.
Elicitated in this manner that the underlying principles of the rule and exhaustion of
administrative remedies rests on the presumption that the administrative agency
involved if afforded the complete chance to pass upon the matter before it not will
decide the same correctly. These are both legal and practical reasons for the
principle. Because the very nature of administrative process or yes is that it is
intended to provide less expensive and speedier solutions to disputes.
So where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for administrative or when a
particular statute no provides a procedure for administrative review and provides a
system of administrative bill or reconsideration. The courts for reason of law,
committee and convenience will not entertain a case unless the available
administrative remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate authorities have
been given an opportunity to act and correct the errors committed in the
administrative for rule.
So under this doctrine the administrative decision must first be appealed to the
administrative superiors up to the highest level before it may be elevated to court of
justice for review.
Reasons why we should adhere first to the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention. One is to enable the
administrative superiors of course to correct the errors committed by various
subordinates.
Okay just like in labor cases you go first to the labor arbiter and then you appeal to
the annular seat. Okay second court should refrain from disturbing the findings of
administrative bodies in deference to the doctrine of separation of powers. Third
court should not be saddled with review of administrative cases and lastly judicial
review of administrative cases is usually affected through special civil action which
are available only if there is no other plain speedy and adequate remedy.
So in a work in a site or in a nation to the uh exceptions are enumerated class no on
exhaustion of admits that the remedies um the court has admitted additional
exceptions now please take note of the following. One when the subject of the
controversy is a private land. Okay when there is long continued and a reasonable
delay when no administrative review is provided and when respondent is a
department secretary because under the doctrine of this is under the doctrine of
qualified political agency or the alter ego doctrine so how would you expect
him uh to rule against his office okay uh this is especially true class where the act
of the administrative agency was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial function in
which case exhaustion of administrative remedies is required before going to court
otherwise actions may be filed directly uh he be filed directly with the regular courts.
So um assuming there is a case now there was failure to exhaust all available
administrative remedies is the defect jurisdictional in Karala versus Abarrientos class
the court uh decided or ruled in the negative that non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies is not jurisdictional but renders the action premature okay the written claim
cause of action is not quite for judicial determination and for the prison party has no
cause of action to ventilate in court.
Let's move to the doctrine of finality. So under the doctrine of finality courts are
reluctant to interfere with actions of an administrative agency prior to its completion
or finality.
So the reason being uh the absent final order or decision from that
administrative agency power has not the power of that agency has not been
fully and finally exercise and there can uh usually be no irreparable harm.
Again this doctrine of finality admits certain exceptions those involving interlocutory
orders affecting the marriage of the controversy. Second when there is a need to
preserve status quo ending further action by the administrative agency in which case
you may go directly to the court. Third essential to the protection of the rights
asserted from the injured it written. Fourth officer assumes to act in violation of the
constitution and other laws. This involves among ultra-vires acts okay. Fifth order is
not provable in any other way unless we the order was issued in excess of or made
in excess of power.
So before this administrative agency's class remember they have been decided or
resolved controversies involving questions which are within their
administrative competence. What kind of evidence are usually taken into
consideration? Do they observe the same quantum of evidence required in an
ordinary civil action or do they require the quantum of evidence which is proved
beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases. Last take note that in uh administrative
cases what is considered only is substantial evidence okay.
This means that uh it is not evidence which is not necessarily preponderant proof of
supporting ordinary civil cases but such kind of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Under doctrine of qualified political agency. When uh this doctrine always apply
especially when it involves acts performed by cabinet secretaries.
If you remember the case of Konstantino and the freedom from their coalition you
discussed this in a political law one. This case class involves the execution of the
additional debt relief contracts on foreign barrowings in connection with the uh
Philippine Comprehensive Financing Program for 1992 which uh petitioner seek to
seek to petitioners seek to stop and compel the secretary of justice to institute
criminal and administrative case or cases against the respondents.
So just to far more refresh your memory. In this case respondents young happy
respondents negotiated with the foreign commercial bank with uh they negotiated
with foreign commercial bank creditors. For a multi option financing package in
connection with the countries foreign debt this would include your ma'am cash
buyback of portions of the Philippine foreign debt at a discount. The other option was
to allow credit towards the convert existing Philippine debt instruments into bonds or
securities. So the petitioners they would characterize the financing program as
beyond the powers of the president under article seven section 20 of the
constitution the power of the president to contract foreign loans. So in resolving the
following by the way two major issues now. In this case whether the petitioners have
the personnel t to sue and second may the respondents in this case secretary of
finance squisha in the central bank lover nor contract in guarantee foreign loans on
behalf of the president of the republic or in short or if stated otherwise may the
president delegate such power to her subordinates. So on the first issue a locus
standi on legal standing so according to the court the petitioners as taxpayers have
the personality to sue. In fact they are suing not only as taxpayers but as citizens.
And the recent trend of course if you still remember your power of judicial review one
of the requisites is it must be brought by the proper party.
The court said that petitioners have locus the standing. In fact we have veered
towards liberal treatment in tax payers sued. I think that that versus Garcia the
Supreme Court held that taxpayers are allowed to question contracts entered into by
the national government or by government under controlled corporations allegedly in
contraversion in contravention with the law or with the constitution or with the law. On
the second issue the court was constrained to dismiss the case and held that
petitioners claim that the president alone because he not claimed the light. It is only
the president who can validly bind the country in contracting foreign debt under
section 20 of Article 7.
The court said that your claim is without merit because section the secretary of
finance rather as an alter ego of the president of an alter ego of the president in
charge with the sound and the efficient management of the financial resources of the
government has the power to implement the policy which was publicly expressed by
the president herself and this is in connection with the doctrine of qualified political
agency and while there are instances where the president must act personally and
not through his secretaries, Alhamdulillah, those which powers which are
constitutionally conferred upon the president alone like in the proclamation of martial
law, the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the pardoning
power of the president, negotiations with foreign credit or may be done by the
secretary of finance or the governor of central bank.
Okay, so there are also some we will discuss links below on nepotism, the doctrine
of forgiveness and condonation. I hope I know we have read the case of the
Abandonment of office and other important principles in our administrative law.