ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Describe the Administrative Code of 1987.

Held: The Code is a general law and “incorporates in a unified document the major structural, functional and procedural principles of governance (Third Whereas Clause, Administrative Code of 1987) and “embodies changes in administrative structures and procedures designed to serve the people.” (Fourth Whereas Clause, Administrative Code of 1987) The Code is divided into seven (7) books. These books contain provisions on the organization, powers and general administration of departments, bureaus and offices under the executive branch, the organization and functions of the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional bodies, the rules on the national government budget, as well as guidelines for the exercise by administrative agencies of quasi-legislative and quasijudicial powers. The Code covers both the internal administration, i.e., internal organization, personnel and recruitment, supervision and discipline, and the effects of the functions performed by administrative officials on private individuals or parties outside government. (Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998 [Puno]) What is Administrative Power? Held: Administrative power 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. (Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998 [Puno]) What is an Administrative Order? Held: An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of government. It must be in harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy. (Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998 [Puno]) What is the Government of the Republic of the Philippines? Ans.: The Government of the Republic of the Philippines refers to the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of the government are exercised throughout the Philippines, including, save as the contrary appears from the context, the various arms through which political authority is made effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous regions, the provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions or other forms of local government. (Sec. 2[1], Introductory Provisions, Executive Order No. 292) What is an Agency of the Government? Ans.: Agency of the Government refers to any of the various units of the Government, including a department, bureau, office, instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled corporation, or a local government or a distinct unit therein. (Sec. 2[4], Introductory Provisions, Executive Order No. 292)

as in the case of department-wide regional offices. having or assigned the rank of a department. and vested by law with functions relating to specific constitutional policies or objectives. Executive Order No. This term includes state universities and colleges and the monetary authority of the State.What is a Department? Ans. 292) What is a Chartered Institution? Ans. Introductory Provisions. administer or adjudicate matters affecting substantial rights and interest of private persons. chartered institutions and governmentowned or controlled corporations. It may also refer to any position held or occupied by individual persons.: Bureau refers to any principal subdivision or unit of any department.: A government instrumentality refers to any agency of the national government. this shall include any instrumentality. 2[11].: Department refers to an executive department created by law. (Sec. not integrated within the department framework. (Section 2[12]. 2[7]. Introductory Provisions. Introductory Provisions.: A chartered institution refers to any agency organized or operating under a special charter. administering special funds. (Sec. 292) What is an Office? Ans. as herein defined. 292) What is a Government Instrumentality? What are included in the term Government Instrumentality? Ans. such as a commission. this shall include any principal subdivision or unit of any instrumentality given or assigned the rank of a bureau.: A regulatory agency refers to any agency expressly vested with jurisdiction to regulate. endowed with some if not all corporate powers. regardless of actual name or designation. vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law. For purposes of Book IV. whose functions are defined by law or regulation. vested with functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary . 2[9]. 292) What is a Government-Owned or Controlled Corporation? Ans. (Sec. Executive Order No. Executive Order No. Introductory Provisions. Executive Order No. (Sec. 2[10]. 2[8]. 292) What is a Regulatory Agency? Ans. Executive Order No. Introductory Provisions. Executive Order No. to any major functional unit of a department or bureau including regional offices. The term includes regulatory agencies. 292) What is a Bureau? Ans. board or council. usually through a charter. the principal powers of which are exercised by a collective body. within the framework of governmental organization.: Office refers. For purposes of Book IV. enjoying operational autonomy. (Sec. Introductory Provisions. regardless of its name or designation.: Government-owned or controlled corporation refers to any agency organized as a stock or nonstock corporation.

Is it created by its own charter for the exercise of a public function. 6. taxes. No. 1st Div. G. 2[13]. Executive Order No. 95. the same may not be invoked by the government in this case since it is no longer interested in the subject matter. the function is proprietary. Alcala. has it been “impliedly converted to a private corporation”? Held: The test to determine whether a corporation is government owned or controlled. Consequently. If the purpose is to obtain special corporate benefits or earn pecuniary profit. N-361. and owned by the Government directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly. where applicable as in the case of stock corporations. the function is governmental. be exempted from payment of all duties. or private in nature is simple. it is the Bases Conversion and Development Authority. Republic Act No. 295 SCRA 366. Introductory Provisions. Aug. 292) When is a Government-Owned or Controlled Corporation deemed to be performing proprietary function? When is it deemed to be performing governmental function? Held: Government-owned or controlled corporations may perform governmental or proprietary functions or both. X x x With the transfer of Camp Wallace to the BCDA. to the extent of at least fifty-one (51) per cent of its capital stock. If it is in the interest of health. etc. however. fees and other charges. Nor may it raise the defense of imprescriptibility. [Pardo]) When may the Government not validly invoke the rule that prescription does not run against the State? Illustrative Case. as amended. Its charter. depending on the purpose for which they have been created. (Camporedondo v. 1999. With the amendnt of its charter. Being the owner of the areas covered by Camp Wallace. or. be exempted from payment of all duties. No. (Blaquera v. and its employees are under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. The PNRC was not “impliedly converted to a private corporation” simply because its charter was amended to vest in it the authority to secure loans. the same being applicable only in cases where the government is a party in interest.A. Sept. the government no longer has a right or interest to protect. While Camp Wallace may have belonged to the government at the time Rafael Galvez’s title was ordered cancelled in Land Registration Case No. 129049. NLRC. x x x (Sec. or by incorporation under the general corporation law? Those with special charters are government corporations subject to its provisions. not the Government. .R. created the Bases Conversion and Development Authority. etc. affecting the public in general. the Republic is not a real party in interest and it may not institute the instant action. 425. otherwise known as the Base Conversion and Development Act of 1992. Held: While it is true that prescription does not run against the State. 1998. fees and other charges. x x x. 7227. 11. which stands to be benefited if the land covered by TCT No. safety and for the advancement of public good and welfare. Powers classified as “proprietary” are those intended for private advantage and benefit. the same no longer holds true today.in nature. T-5710 issued in the name of petitioner is cancelled. En Banc [Purisima]) The Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) is a government-owned and controlled corporation with an original charter under R. was amended to vest in it the authority to secure loans. taxes.

B. whose title to the disputed property it continues to recognize. must not lose sight of the fact that the BCDA is an entity invested with a personality separate and distinct from the government. once collected by the Republic of the . directly exercising the commission it had earlier conferred on the latter as its agent. the former being the real party in interest. the promotion of the economic and social development of Central Luzon. do not make the BCDA equivalent to the Government. Inc. Marcha Transport Co. It is consequently asserted that the Republic remains to be the real party in interest and the Conversion Authority merely its agent. E. in general. yet it is certain that the functions performed by the BCDA are basically proprietary in nature. it has been posited that the transfer of military reservations and their extensions to the BCDA is basically for the purpose of accelerating the sound and balanced conversion of these military reservations into alternative productive uses and to enhance the benefits to be derived from such property as a measure of promoting the economic and social development. the Republic of the Philippines did not intend to retain the said rentals for its own use. Marcha. While public benefit and public welfare. Having the capacity to sue or be sued. Other corporations have been created by government to act as its agents for the realization of its programs. but simply a recognition of the need to create a body corporate which will act as its agent for the realization of its program.Nonetheless. Republic Act No. in general. NAWASA and the NIA. not the Republic. the Republic of the Philippines. One having no right or interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as a party plaintiff in an action. the Court ruled: It can be said that in suing for the recovery of the rentals. the Philippine Ports Authority.. may be attributable to the operation of the BCDA. and yet. the Court has ruled that these entities.B. A suit may be dismissed if the plaintiff or the defendant is not a real party in interest. however. x x x However. the country’s goal for enhancement (Section 2. v. 1974. In E. not supplant. It may thus be said that the BCDA is not a mere agency of the Government but a corporate body performing proprietary functions. The Republic of the Philippines had simply sought to assist. the SSS. are not government-function corporations invested with governmental attributes. in particular. and the country’s goal for enhancement. We may expect the that the said rentals. 7227). acted as principal of the Philippine Ports Authority. it should thus be the BCDA which may file an action to cancel petitioner’s title. particularly. to count a few. by doing so. We may presume that. GSIS. although performing functions aimed at promoting public interest and public welfare. The promotion of economic and social development of Central Luzon. We. IAC is cited as authority that the Republic is the proper party to sue for the recovery of possession of property which at the time of the installation of the suit was no longer held by the national government body but by the Philippine Ports Authrotiy. particularly of Central Luzon and. It is contended that the transfer of these military reservations to the Conversion Authority does not amount to an abdication on the part of the Republic of its interests. X x x It may not be amiss to state at this point that the functions of government have been classified into governmental or constituent and proprietary or ministrant. considering that by its voluntary act it had transferred the land in question to the Philippine Ports Authority effective July 11.

a claim which is not available to the BCDA. 3rd Div. It assumed the functions formerly assigned to the Board of Communications and the Communications Control Bureau. a course of action proscribed by said case. although artificial bodies of its own creation. Under Executive Order No. 20.Philippines. to recognize the Government as a proper party to sue in this case would set a bad precedent as it would allow the Republic to prosecute. By raising the claim of imprescriptibility. Feb. on the pretext that the Government is the real party in interest against whom prescription does not run. Such power includes the authority to determine the areas of operations of applicants for . Marcha is. and analyze its powers and authority as well as the laws. In the regulatory communications industry. the NTC became an attached agency of the Department of Transportation and Communications. and maintenance of communications facilities and services. said corporations having been created merely as agents for the realization of government programs. shall be turned over by it to the Philippine Ports Authority conformably to the purposes of P. [Melo]) Discuss the nature and functions of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC). the NTC has the sole authority to issue Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the installation. radio communications systems. causes of action which have already prescribed. 146.B. otherwise known as the Public Service Act. as it did in E. Held: The NTC was created pursuant to Executive Order No. It should also be noted that petitioner is unquestionably a buyer in good faith and for value. In the former. created under Commonwealth Act No. having acquired the property in 1963. however. 2001. 125-A. Such is not the case here since to allow the government to sue herein enables it to raise the issue of imprescriptibility. the NTC’s function were merely those of the defunct Public Service Commission (PSC). rules and regulations that govern its existence and operations. petitioner must be afforded some measure of protection. as a third transferee. E. the Court considered the Republic a proper party to sue since the claims of the Republic and the Philippine Ports Authority against the petitioner therein were the same.B. telephone and telegraph systems. Marcha would have brought needless delay in the settlement of the matter since the PPA would have to refile the case on the same claim already litigated upon. on behalf of government-owned or controlled corporations. To dismiss the complaint in E. Marcha. The rule that prescription does not run against the State does not apply to corporations or artificial bodies created by the State for special purposes. its grantees. (Shipside Incorporated v. are in the same category as ordinary persons. Moreover. operation. as amended. issued in April 1987. it being said that when the title of the Republic has been divested. or 5 years after the issuance of the original certificate of title.B. not on all fours with the case at bar. 352 SCRA 334. a claim which cannot be raised by the BCDA.D. the Government not only assists the BCDA. which were both abolished under the said Executive Order. No. considering that the Board of Communications was the successor-in-interest of the PSC. 546 x x x. it even supplants the latter. Previously. If only not to do violence and to give some measure of respect to the Torrens System. Court of Appeals. 857.

which provides: Sec. to issue Certificates of Public Convenience for the operation of public services within the Philippines “whenever the Commission finds that the operation of the public service proposed and the authorization to do business will promote the public interests in a proper and suitable manner. Specifically. Respondent Extelcom. through the Secretary of the Commission. In answer to this argument. complaint or petition or at any stage thereafter. issued a certification to the effect that inasmuch as the 1993 Revised Rules have not been published in a newspaper of general circulation. coupled with the certification by the Commissioner of the NTC stating that the NTC was still governed by the 1987 Rules. – Upon the filing of an application. – (1) Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by it.telecommunications services. Inc. Section 16 of the Public Service Act authorizes the then PSC. without prejudice to a final decision after completion of the hearing which shall be called within thirty (30) days from grant of authority asked for. Chapter 2. however. [Ynares-Santiago]) Is the filing of the administrative rules and regulations with the UP Law Center the operative act that gives the rules force and effect? Held: In granting Bayantel the provisional authority to operate a CMTS. .” (Commonwealth Act No. Book VII. the NTC. clearly indicate that the 1993 Revised Rules have not taken effect at the time of the grant of the provisional authority to Bayantel. Section 16[a]) The procedure governing the issuance of such authorizations is set forth in Section 29 of the said Act x x x.. contends that the NTC should have applied the Revised Rules which were filed with the Office of the National Administrative Register on February 3. the NTC has been applying the 1978 Rules. 3. 146. Section 3 of its 1978 Rules of Practice and Procedure. the NTC applied Rule 15. The fact that the 1993 Revised Rules were filed with the UP Law Center on February 3. the relief prayed for. Express Telecommunication Co. or his equivalent functionary. 2002. Section 3 thereof merely states: Filing. Jan. Provisional Relief. (2) The records officer of the agency. shall carry out the requirements of this section under pain of disciplinary action. upon notice and hearing. 1993. (Republic v. accordingly. There is nothing in the Administrative Code of 1987 which implies that the filing of the rules with the UP Law Center is the operative act that gives the rules force and effect. the Board may grant on motion of the pleader or on its own initiative. Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed within three (3) months from the date shall not thereafter be the basis of any sanction against any party or persons. These Revised Rules deleted the phrase “on its own initiative”. together with the affidavits and supporting documents attached thereto. 373 SCRA 316. The absence of publication. based on the pleading. a provisional authority may be issued only upon filing of the proper motion before the Commission. 1993 is of no moment.. 1st Div. 15.

in Tanada v. The National Administrative Register is merely a bulletin of codified rules and it is furnished only to the Office of the President. Chapter 2. Neither is publication required of the so-called letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties. however. X x x” The fact that the amendments to Administrative Order No. The questioned Administrative Order. under which the respondents filed their applications for importations. thus: “We hold therefore that all statutes. P. at present. The original Administrative Order issued on August 30. shall be published as a condition for their effectivity. Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature. the National Library. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette (or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines). was not published in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation.. 1071. including those of local application and private laws. that is.e. Book VII. other public offices or agencies as the Congress may select. is invalid within the context of Article 2 of Civil Code. and published by the UP Law Center in the National Administrative Register. unless it is otherwise provided. Congress. 1989.(3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the issuing agency and shall be open to public inspection.” The Administrative Order under consideration is one of those issuances which should be published for its effectivity. Section 7). SOCPEC 89-08-01 were filed with. which reads: “Article 2. which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity is fixed by the legislature. . Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative power or. until it is published. We agree that the publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the laws. Administrative Rules and Regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation. we held: This does not imply.D. In a similar case. since its purpose is to enforce and implement an existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public. directly conferred by the Constitution. legally. need not be published. Tuvera stated. and to other persons at a price sufficient to cover publication and mailing or distribution costs (Administrative Code of 1987. i. in relation to LOI 444 and EO 133. all appellate courts. does not cure the defect related to the effectivity of the Administrative Order. This Court. that the subject Administrative Order is a valid exercise of such quasilegislative power.

which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. the 1993 Revised Rules should be published in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation before it can take effect. This is explicit from Executive Order No. [Ynares-Santiago]) May a person be held liable for violation of an administrative regulation which was not published? Held: Petitioner insists. The Rules of Practice and Procedure of the NTC. Express Telecommunication Co. including those of local application and private laws. Jan. directly conferred by the Constitution. Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or. which implements Section 29 of the Public Service Act. that it cannot be held liable for illegal exaction as POEA Memorandum Circular No. which enumerated the allowable fees which may be collected from applicants. shall be published as a condition for their effectivity. 2001. There is merit in the argument. II. the Court held. 1st Div. 200. however. Section 1). fall squarely within the scope of these laws. v. In Tanada v. No.. and which states that: Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. Hence. 2002. rules or regulations can take effect. Inc. The only exception are interpretative regulations. 373 SCRA 316. 200. those merely internal in nature. 15. therefore. or those so-called letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules and guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties (PHILSA International Placement & Services Corp. . (Republic v. Even the 1993 Revised Rules itself mandates that said Rules shall take effect only after their publication in a newspaper of general circulation (Section 20 thereof). it is the 1978 Rules that govern. which repealed Article 2 of the Civil Code. Secretary of Labor. Tuvera. G. as follows: “We hold therefore that all statutes. at present. 103144. Our pronouncement in Tanada v.O. April 4. Administrative rules and regulations must be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation.Thus. unless it is otherwise provided (E. Tuvera is clear and categorical. In the absence of such publication. Series of 1983. is void for lack of publication. Tuvera. Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation..R. 356 SCRA 174). publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation is a condition sine qua non before statutes. as explicitly mentioned in the case of Tanada v.

POEA Memorandum Circular No. Series of 1983 must likewise be declared ineffective as the same was never published or filed with the National Administrative Register. need not be published.500. April 4. 2. d) Administrative Order No. the administrative issuances questioned therein were uniformly struck down as they were not published or filed with the National Administrative Register as required by the Administrative Code of 1987. regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and the public. . The said circular was apparently issued in compliance with the provisions of Article 32 of the Labor Code x x x. b) Letter of Instruction No. [Gonzaga-Reyes]) Does the publication requirement apply as well to administrative regulations addressed only to a specific group and not to the general public? Held: The Office of the Solicitor General likewise argues that the questioned administrative circular is not among those requiring publication contemplated by Tanada v. Considering that POEA Administrative Circular No. 10 issued by the Department of Budget and Management discontinuing the payment of other allowances and fringe benefits to government officials and employees. Secretary of Labor and Employment. (Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation v.. POEA Memorandum Circular No. the same is ineffective and may not be enforced. and e) Corporate Compensation Circular No. we have previously declared as having no force and effect the following administrative issuances: a) Rules and Regulations issued by the Joint Ministry of Health-Ministry of Labor and Employment Accreditation Committee regarding the accreditation of hospitals.” Applying this doctrine. since its purpose is to enforce and implement an existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. that is. Tuvera as it is addressed only to a specific group of persons and not to the general public.00. It is thus clear that the administrative circular under consideration is one of those issuances which should be published for its effectivity. 416 ordering the suspension of payments due and payable by distressed copper mining companies to the national government. 2001. the maximum amount which may be collected from prospective Filipino overseas workers is P2. Series of 1983 has not as yet been published or filed with the National Administrative Register. 2. Under the said Order. c) Memorandum Circulars issued by the POEA regulating the recruitment of domestic helpers to Hong Kong. Again. medical clinics and laboratories. In all these cited cases. SOCPEC 89-08-01 issued by the Philippine International Trading Corporation regulating applications for importation from the People’s Republic of China. Neither is publication required of the so-called letter of instructions issued by the administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties. Series of 1983 provides for the applicable schedule of placement and documentation fees for private employment agencies or authority holders. there is no merit in this argument.Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature. 3rd Div. 356 SCRA 174. 2.

April 4. who were also the subordinates of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs. Using this as our premise. namely private employment agencies or authority holders. or those so-called letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules and guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties. (Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation v. [Gonzaga-Reyes]) May a successful bidder compel a government agency to formalize a contract with it notwithstanding that its bid exceeds the amount appropriated by Congress for the project? Held: Enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution is the mandate that “no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. the Solicitor General’s reliance on the case of Yaokasin v.” (Sec. 3rd Div.” however. upon notice of the award to the bidder. Association of Service Exporters v. the administrative circulars questioned therein were addressed to an even smaller group. Series of 1983 has not been shown to fall under any of these exceptions. a circumstance which does not obtain in the case at bench. the customs collectors.. The only exceptions are interpretative regulations. the validity of certain Customs Memorandum Orders were upheld despite their lack of publication as they were addressed to a particular class of persons. those merely internal in nature. the precise import of this constitutional restriction is to require the various agencies to limit their expenditures within the appropriations made by law for each fiscal year. In this regard. Our pronouncement in Tanada v.The fact that the said circular is addressed only to a specified group. for lack of proper publication. such statement would be inconsequential in a government where the acceptance . namely those dealing with instructions from an administrative superior to a subordinate regarding the performance of their duties. does not take it away from the ambit of our ruling in Tanada v. As such. 2. petitioner should be absolved from the three (3) counts of exaction as POEA Administrative Circular No. Administrative rules and regulations must be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. the said circulars may not be enforced or implemented. Torres. Administrative Circular No. While we held in Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Tuvera. 2. It is quite evident from the tenor of the language of the law that the existence of appropriations and the availability of funds are indispensable pre-requisites to or conditions sine qua non for the execution of government contracts. we cannot accede to PHOTOKINA’s contention that there is already a perfected contract. In the said case. The obvious intent is to impose such conditions as a priori requisites to the validity of the proposed contract. 356 SCRA 174. namely Philippine and Hong Kong agencies engaged in the recruitment of workers for Hong Kong. Series of 1983 could not be the basis of administrative sanctions against petitioner for lack of publication. Article VI of the 1987 Constitution) Thus. In the case of Phil. Secretary of Labor and Employment. Jancom Environmental Corporation that “the effect of an unqualified acceptance of the offer or proposal of the bidder is to perfect a contract. 29[1]. in the execution of government contracts. X x x To summarize. and still the Court ruled therein that. 2001. Tuvera is clear and categorical. the said Memorandum Orders clearly fall under one of the exceptions to the publication requirement. Commissioner of Customs is misplaced.

i. p.”(Implementing Rules and Regulations [IRR] for Executive Order No. Even the draft contract submitted by Commissioner Sadain that provides for a contract price in the amount of P1.In the implementation of multi-year projects. Clearly. under Republic Act No.588 Billion Pesos.referred to is yet to meet certain conditions. under Section 33 of R.). the BAC should have rejected the bid for being excessive or should have withdrawn the Notice of Award on the ground that in the eyes of the law. The BAC shall rate a bid “passed” only if it complies with all the requirements and the submitted price does not exceed the approved budget for the contract. the issuance of identification cards for only 1.e.the only fund appropriated for the project was P1 Billion Pesos and under the Certification of Available Funds (CAF) only P1.) Extant on the record is the fact that the VRIS Project was awarded to PHOTOKINA on account of its bid in the amount of P6. In effect. .A. it is also disadvantageous to the COMELEC because of the uncertainty that will loom over its modernization project for an indefinite period of time. within the certified available funds. thus: “SECTION 33. Contracting Multi-Year Projects. declined the COMELEC’s request for the issuance of the Notice of Cash Availability (NCA) and a multi-year obligatory authority to assume payment of the total VRIS Project for lack of legal basis. the amount appropriated is insufficient to cover the cost of the entire VRIS Project. the project failed “to sell” with the Department of Budget and Management. In the case at bar. 1018. Thus.2 Billion Pesos was available. Not only is such arrangement disallowed by our budgetary laws and practices. This is a dangerous precedent. no agency shall enter into a multi-year contract without a multi-year obligational authority. the implementation of the VRIS Project will be “segmented” or “chopped” into several phases.2 Billion and. thus. 262. The first step of a Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) is to determine whether the bids comply with the requirements. To hold otherwise is to allow a public officer to execute a binding contract that would obligate the government in an amount in excess of the appropriations for the purpose for which the contract was attempted to be made. 8760 (General Appropriations Act. FY 2000. There is no way that the COMELEC could enter into a contract with PHOTOKINA whose accepted bid was way beyond the amount appropriated by law for the project. Notwithstanding the issuance of the multiyear Obligational Authority. Should Congress fail to appropriate the amount necessary for the completion of the entire project.. the same covers only Phase I of the VRIS Project. no agency shall enter into a multi-year contract without a multi-year Obligational Authority issued by the Department of Budget and Management for the purpose. the same is null and void. However.000. what good will the accomplished Phase I serve? As expected. Secretary Benjamin Diokno. This being the case. Corollarily. shall in no case exceed the amount programmed for implementation during said calendar year. No. 2000. per his letter of December 1. 8760.2 Billion Pesos is unacceptable. supra. supra. the obligation to be incurred in any given calendar year. x x x While the contract price under the draft contract is only P1. there seems to be an oversight of the legal requirements as early as the bidding stage.” .000 voters in specified areas.

2002. In fine. cannot be validated either by lapse of time or ratification. It would be as if the contract in such case were a private one. 18. Sept. This is to say that the proposed contract is without force and effect from the very beginning or from its incipiency.R.” So when the contracting officer transcends his lawful and legitimate powers by acting in excess of or beyond the limits of his contracting authority. (Commission on Elections v. the proposed contract is not binding upon the COMELEC and is considered void x x x. Luisa Quijano-Padilla. 18. to act otherwise would be a futile exercise for the contract would inevitably suffer the vice of nullity. In Carino v. (Commission on Elections v.Petitioners are justified in refusing to formalize the contract with PHOTOKINA. G. however. the proposed contract is unenforceable as to the Government. 292 explicitly provides that any contract entered into contrary to the above-mentioned requirements shall be void. the constitutional mandate cited above constrains us to remind all public officers that public office is a public trust and all public officers must at all times be accountable to the people. No. While this is not the proceeding to determine where the culpability lies. 151992. cannot compel the COMELEC to formalize the contract. and hence.R. therefore. has not heretofore been shared by this Court. is inexistent and void ab initio (Article 1409 of the Civil Code of the Philippines). Definitely. No. as expressly declared by law. assumes personal liability thereunder. This view. as if it had never been entered into. they should be the first judges of the legality. propriety and wisdom of the contract they entered into. In the exercise of their contracting prerogative. and “the officers entering into the contract shall be liable to the Government or other contracting party for any consequent damage to the same as if the transaction had been wholly between private parties. x x x Verily. Prudence dictated them not to enter into a contract not backed up by sufficient appropriation and available funds.O. Judge Ma. the contract. No. void ab initio? Held: Of course. Sept. however. and thus. En Banc [Sandoval-Gutierrez]) What is the remedy available to a party who contracts with the government contrary to the requirements of the law and. G. 151992. Commission on Human Rights. the CHR theorizes that the intention of the members of the Constitutional Commission is to make CHR a quasi-judicial body. En Banc [Sandoval-Gutierrez]) Does the Commission on Human Rights have the power to adjudicate? Held: In its Order x x x denying petitioners’ motion to dismiss. whereupon. They must exercise a high degree of caution so that the Government may not be the victim of ill-advised or improvident action. Luisa Quijano-Padilla. Otherwise stated. we are not saying that the party who contracts with the government has no other recourse in law. Since PHOTOKINA’s bid is beyond the amount appropriated by Congress for the VRIS Project. he binds himself. Judge Ma. we rule that PHOTOKINA. though the winning bidder. Section 48 of E. the Government is not bound under the contract. The law itself affords him the remedy. 2002. the Court x x x has observed that it is “only the first of the enumerated powers and functions . The authority of public officers to enter into government contracts is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility.

J.” The Commission does have legal standing to indorse. the Court x x x explained: “The constitutional provision directing the CHR to ‘provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection’ may not be construed to confer jurisdiction on the Commission to issue a restraining order or writ of injunction for. the faculty of receiving evidence and making factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying the law to those factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or determined authoritatively. the ‘preventive measures and legal aid services’ mentioned in the Constitution refer to extrajudicial and judicial remedies (including a writ of preliminary injunction) which the CHR may seek from the proper courts on behalf of the victims of human rights violations. Commission on Human Rights.]) Does the Commission on Human Rights have jurisdiction to issue TRO or writ of preliminary injunction? Held: In Export Processing Zone Authority v.]) . Jr.that bears any resemblance to adjudication of adjudgment. subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards claimed human rights violations involving civil and political rights. its findings and recommendations to any appropriate agency of government. v. 5. or even a quasi-judicial agency or official. finally and definitively. the Commission does not have. 134-135. En Banc [Vitug.” “Evidently. 229 SCRA 117.” but that resemblance can in no way be synonymous to the adjudicatory power itself. (Simon. 125. (Simon. x x x. or of the Supreme Court. “The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative power is that it may investigate. It is available only in a pending principal action. 229 SCRA 117. v. This function. 1994. the CHR itself has no jurisdiction to issue the writ. for a writ of preliminary injunction may only be issued ‘by the judge of any court in which the action is pending [within his district]. To be considered such. Not being a court of justice. J. 5. ‘Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or by law. if that were the intention. for appropriate action. The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function. But fact finding is not adjudication. and for no other purpose. for the preservation or protection of the rights and interest of a party thereto.e. Jan. Commission on Human Rights. or duplicate much less take over the functions of the latter. properly speaking.’ It is never derived by implication.. and cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice. A writ of preliminary injunction is an ancillary remedy. Jan. The Court explained: “x x x [T]he Commission on Human Rights x x x was not meant by the fundamental law to be another court or quasi-judicial agency in this country. En Banc [Vitug. to repeat. 1994. Jr. i. the Constitution would have expressly said so. or by a Justice of the Court of Appeals. Commission on Human Rights.

and cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court. the Commission also has direct control and supervision over all personnel involved in the conduct of election. register political parties. or who decline to honor summons. revise and reverse the actions of the board of canvassers and. peaceful and credible elections. however. acting as quasi-judicial tribunal. En Banc [Vitug. In addition. Jan. the CHR acted within its authority in providing in its revised rules. . v. and recommend to the President the removal of or imposition of any other disciplinary action upon any officer or employee it has deputized for violation or disregard of its directive. however. should be understood to apply only to violations of its adopted operational guidelines and rules of procedure essential to carry out its investigatorial powers. is not investigatorial in character but prescinds from an adjudicative power that it does not possess. and the like. organizations or coalition. the resolution of this issue calls for the exercise by the COMELEC of its quasi-judicial power. G. justifies non-observance of procedural due process. It behooves the Commission to hear both parties to determine the veracity of their allegations and to decide whether the alleged error is a manifest error. Commission on Human Rights. accredit citizen’s arms of the Commission. The COMELEC therefore. However. 5.” That power to cite for contempt. or does it involve the exercise of the COMELEC’s quasi-judicial function? Held: Taking cognizance of private respondent’s petitions for annulment of petitioner’s proclamation. so that it is of judicial nature or character. the CHR is constitutionally authorized to “adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure. The “order to desist” (a semantic interplay for a restraining order) in the instance before us. but does not involve the exercise of functions of a judge. 2000 [Puno]) Discuss the contempt power of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). Jr.Does the petition for annulment of proclamation of a candidate merely involve the exercise by the COMELEC of its administrative power to review. Hence. and to impose the appropriate penalties in accordance with the procedure and sanctions provided for in the Rules of Court. honest. 134. 229 SCRA 117. It has been said that where a power rests in judgment or discretion.” Accordingly. No. therefore. 133842. appoint election officials and inspectors. 1994. The administrative powers of the COMELEC include the power to determine the number and location of polling places. conduct registration of voters. Jan.R. the power to cite for contempt could be exercised against persons who refuse to cooperate with the said body. 26. or who unduly withhold relevant information. it is deemed quasi-judicial. or is conferred upon an officer other than a judicial officer. COMELEC was not merely performing an administrative function. orderly. x x x (Simon. Held: On its contempt powers. deputize law enforcement agencies and governmental instrumentalities to ensure free. COMELEC. its power “to cite or hold any person in direct or indirect contempt. order or decision. cannot ignore the requirements of procedural due process in resolving the petitions filed by private respondent. (Federico S.]) Discuss the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction (or Prior Resort). J. the resolution of the adverse claims of private respondent and petitioner as regards the existence of a manifest error in the questioned certificate of canvass requires the COMELEC to act as an arbiter. prosecute election offenses. When may it be validly exercised. Sandoval v. in pursuing its investigative work. To exemplify.

especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge. [Panganiban]) Discuss the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies. 9. if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction then such remedy should be exhausted first before the court’s judicial power can be sought. it has been the jurisprudential trend to apply this doctrine to cases involving matters that demand the special competence of administrative agencies even if the question involved is also judicial in character. 3rd Div. It applies “where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts. . This doctrine is disregarded: when there is a violation of due process. in such case. Hence. The premature invocation of court’s jurisdiction is fatal to one’s cause of action. In recent years. It is no less true to state that the courts of justice for reasons of comity and convenience will shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed and complied with so as to give the administrative agency concerned every opportunity to correct its error and to dispose of the case. have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body. This doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies was not without its practical and legal reasons. and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which.” In cases where the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is clearly applicable. when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned. when there is irreparable injury. the jurisdiction over which is lodged with an administrative body of special competence. (Villaflor v. for one thing. experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. 280 SCRA 297. the court cannot arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy. when the issue involved is purely a legal question. absent any finding of waiver or estoppel the case is susceptible of dismissal for lack of cause of action. What are the exceptions thereto? Held: 1. when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. under a regulatory scheme. Oct. CA. 1992. the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view.Held: Courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal. it is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him. Before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court. availment of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies. Accordingly.

1997. i. 269 SCRA 132. when the rule does not provide a plain.when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bears the implied and assumed approval of the latter. claimed cause of action is not ripe for judicial determination and for that reason a party has no cause of action to ventilate in court. speedy and adequate remedy. Abarintos.. It only renders the action premature.e. when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceeding. (Paat v. [Davide]) . CA. 3rd Div. when it would amount to a nullification of a claim. (Carale v. 266 SCRA 167 [1997]) 2. March 3. when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable. and when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention. Non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is not jurisdictional.