Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Philippine Administrative Law by Carlo L. Cruz General Considerations
Philippine Administrative Law by Carlo L. Cruz General Considerations
By
Carlo L. Cruz
Chapter 1
General Considerations
Nature
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.
Administrative law is a recent development, being a consequence of the
ever increasing complexities of society and the proliferation of problems
of government that cannot readily or effectively be addressed by the
public agencies or solved by other disciplines of public law.
It was felt that the legislative and judicial departments no longer had
either the time or the needed expertise to attend to these new problems.
Thus, the obvious solution was delegation of power.
Two major powers of the administrative agency:
1. Quasi-legislative authority or rule making power
2. Quasi-judicial power or adjudicatory function
Administration
Administration is understood in two senses:
1. Institution administration as the aggregate of individuals in whose
hands the reins of government are for the time being.
2. Function administration as the actual running of the government by
the executive authorities through the enforcement of laws and
implementation of policies.
Government (as distinguished from administration) is the agency or
instrumentality through which the will of the State is formulated,
expressed and realized.
Administration Distinguished from Law
Law is impersonal command provided with sanctions to be applied in
case of violation, while Administration is preventive rather punitive and
is accepted to be more personal than law.
Law maintains a watchful eye on those who would violate its order.
While administration on the other hand seeks to spare individuals from
punishments of the law by persuading him to observe its commands.
Chapter 2
Administrative Agencies
Definition
Administrative agency a body endowed with quasi-legislative and
quasi-judicial powers for the purpose of enabling it to carry out the laws
entrusted to it for enforcement or execution.
Administrative agency may be regarded as an arm of the legislature
insofar as it is authorize to promulgate rules. 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.
Creation and Abolition
The administrative body may be created by the Constitution or by a
Statute.
If created by the Constitution itself, the administrative body can be
altered or abolished only by Constitution. But where the body was
created 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.
Chapter 3
Powers of Administrative Agencies
Quasi-Legislative Power 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.
Quasi-Judicial Power 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.
Chapter 4
The Quasi-Legislative Power
It has already been remarked that 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 for the administrative body to transmit the active power of the
State from its source to the point of application, that is, apply the law
and so fulfill the mandate of the legislature.
Kinds of Administrative Regulations
(a) Legislative the administrative agency is acting in a legislative
capacity, supplementing the statute, filling in the details, or making the
law, and usually acting pursuant to a specific delegation of legislative
power.
(b) Interpretative are those which purport to do no more than
interpret the statute being administered, to say what it means. They
constitute the administrator's construction of a statute.
Chapter 5
The Quasi-Judicial Power
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 proper exercise of the quasi-judicial power requires 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
A. Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction may be simply defined as the competence of an office or
body to act on a given matter or decide a certain question.
Without jurisdiction, the determination made by the administrative
bodies are absolutely null and without any legal effect whatsoever.
It is the legislature that has the power to confer jurisdiction upon the
administrative body and so limit or expand its authority.
It can be said that each administrative body has its own peculiar
jurisdiction as conferred upon it by the specific provisions of its charter.
The law may allow some administrative bodies to award certain kinds of
damages while denying the same power, for no apparent reason, to other
administrative bodies.
For example, the SEC and NLRC are allowed to award damages virtually
to the same extent as a court of justice. Yet similar authority has not
been conferred by its charter to NTC.
It is a well-settled principle that unless expressly empowered,
administrative agencies are bereft of quasi-judicial power.
1. 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.
But to be valid, the rules must not violate fundamental rights or
encroach upon constitutional prerogatives.
2. The Subpoena Power
The power to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum is not inherent
in administrative bodies.
It is settled that administrative 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. Unless otherwise provided by law, the agency may, in case of
disobedience, invoke the aid or Regional Trial Court within whose
jurisdiction the contested case falls. The Court may punish customacy
or refusal as contempt.
The Supreme Court distinguished between the power to investigate and
the power to adjudicate:
The purpose of investigation, of course, is to discover, to find out, to
learn, and obtain information. Nowhere included or intimated is the
notion of settling, deciding or resolving a controversy involve in the facts
inquired into by application of the law x x.
In the legal sense, adjudicate means to settle in the exercise of judicial
authority x x. Adjudge x x implies a judicial determination of a fact,
and the entry of judgment.
3. The Contempt Power
Like the subpoena power, the power to punish for contempt is essentially
judicial and cannot be claimed as an inherent right by the administrative
body.
9
10
D. 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, i.e.
revocation of or refusal to renew licenses, destruction of unlawful
articles, summary closure of stores, refusal to grant clearances, issuance
of cease and desist orders, detention and deportation of aliens, and
imposition of fines.
Significantly, many administrative bodies, such as the SEC and the
NLRC, have been vested with authority to grant provisional reliefs, such
as writs of preliminary attachment or injunction, intended to ensure the
enforcement of their adjudications.
It is established that administrative agencies who have not been
conferred the power to enforce their quasi-judicial decisions may invoke
court action for the purpose.
E. Res Judicata
The general rule is that an administrative decision is not considered res
judicata so as to preclude its subsequent reconsideration or revocation.
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. The effect of res judicata
attaches to the judgment of the reviewing court rather than to the
administrative judgment.
This rule has however been modified in this jurisdiction.
It is now well-settled in our jurisprudence that the decisions and orders
of administrative agencies, rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial
authority, have upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final
judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata.
This principle is, however, not applicable to all administrative
proceedings, such proceedings that are non-litigious and summary in
nature without regard to legal technicalities obtaining in courts of la
12
Chapter 6
Judicial Review
General Rules
An administrative decision may be appealed to the courts of justice only
if the Constitution or the law permits it or if the question to be reviewed
is a question of law.
However, jurisprudence is replete with cases where the Supreme Court
has applied the exceptions rather than the rule.
In the case of the constitutional commission, i.e., the Commission on
Elections, the Commission on Audit, and the Civil Service Commission, it
is provided that any decision order or ruling of each Commission may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within
30 days from receipt of a copy thereof.
On the basis of Sec. 16 of the Interim Rules and Guideline implementing
Sec. 9 (3) of BP Blg. 129, the Court of Appeals may review final
decisions, orders, awards or resolutions or regional trial courts and of all
quasi-judicial bodies, except the Commission on Elections, the
Commission on Audit, the Sandiganbayan, and decisions issued under
the Labor Code of the Philippines and by the Central Board of
Assessment Appeals.
Other appeals are prescribed by special laws, such as RA No. 1125,
providing for appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals of any decision rendered
by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs,
or any provincial or city board of assessment appeals.
Methods of review
The methods of judicial review are prescribed by the Constitution,
statutes or the Rules of the Court. These methods may be specific or
general.
13
15
16
Two kinds of questions are reviewable by the courts of justice, to wit: the
question of fact and the question of law.
On the question of fact, review of the administrative decision lies in the
discretion of the legislature, which may or may not permit it as it sees fit.
But when it comes to the question of law, the administrative decision
may be appealed to the courts of justice independently of legislative
permission or even against legislative prohibition. The reason is that the
judiciary cannot be deprived of its inherent power to review all decisions
on questions of law, whether made initially by lower courts and more so
by an administrative body.
A. Questions of fact
Even if allowed to review administrative decisions on questions of fact,
courts of justice generally defer to such decisions and will decline to
disturb them except only where there is a clear showing of arbitrariness
or grave abuse of discretion.
The Supreme Court ruled in Osias Academy vs. DOLE that findings
of administrative agencies which have acquired expertise because
their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally
accorded not only respect but finality.
B. Questions of Law
Administrative bodies may be allowed to resolve questions of law in the
exercise of their quasi-judicial function as an incident of their primary
power of regulation.
However as a rule, it is only the judicial tribunal that can interpret
and decide the question of law with finality.
17
18