ADMIN LAW INTEGRATION

I. HISTORICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Admin law did not exist at the time when society was less complex. It is precisely
because of the complexities of modern life and multiplication of subjects of
regulation that agencies were created. As society became more complex, the
traditional three-branch government was unable to cope on account of lack of
time, expertise, and attitude to deal with these changes. It emerged by reason of
necessity.

Constitutional position of agencies vis-à-vis separation of powers (Where is there

place in the constitutional scheme?)
• support mechanism roles to the trichotomy (to avoid collapse of system
due to overload and to make viable the doctrine of separation of powers)
• it cannot anymore be argued that admin agencies are unconstitutional
because of the doctrine of separation of powers
• agencies are given hybrid powers to be effective
• the focus should be on how to control admin behavior that are abusive,
instead of questioning their constitutionality (executive, legislative, and
judicial branches have modes of checking admin actions, the last being
the most effective)
o office of the ombudsman is also there to prevent irregularities in
performance of admin duties

II. CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

III. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

Agencies perform hybrid functions.

2 Major Functions: Legislative/Rule-Making and Judicial/Quasi-Judicial.

Minor: Licensing, etc.

Non-delegation Doctrine: For the delegation of power to the agency to be valid, it

must satisfy the completeness test (law has policy, law has fixed a standard). In
many cases however, the standards found in statutes are broad/vague (e.g.
equity, justice, public good). This gives much leeway to the agencies to pursue a
particular course of action, which in their discretion fulfills such policy, but in
reality does not. This opens the possibility of abuse. In White v. Roughton, the
court held that in cases where congress cannot come up with more specific and
definite standards, the admin agencies should be forced to come up with their
own written specific standards. This can be compelled through: due process,
void-for-vagueness doctrines. In the Philippines, we have yet to see these
developments because we are still traditional in ruling. In the ABAKADA case, the
court still used the completeness test. The White ruling has not been applied yet.

Limits of Rule-Making Function

• rule must not be inconsistent with the law
• rule must be authorized by the law
• rule must be germane to the purpose of the law
• rule must not change the law
 • rule must not be inconsistent with the Consti
• publication and filing requirements

But attitude of SC when it comes to rule-making power of agencies and

determining sufficiency of standards is one of liberality, even if such standards
are broad or vague.

Tanada v. Tuvera (good law until now): requires that all rules must be published
before they become effective. Except: interpretative and internal rules. “Unless
otherwise provided by law” refers only to the number of days required before
effectivity of law after publication. This changed the interpretation that the
phrase applies to both number of days and publication itself.

However, Book VII requires that it also be filed with ONAR. Therefore there are
now 2 requirements: publication (Tanada) and filing (Code).

Rate-fixing also requires publication.

These provisions maximize public participation which is important in

administrative rule-making.

Judicial/Quasi-judicial Power:
• Subpoena Power: implied if performing quasi-judicial function. Otherwise,
such power becomes inutile.
• Contempt Power: since this is a purely judicial power, it must be expressly
granted to the agency and cannot arise by implication. However, many
agencies are expressly given this power. In such cases, they need not apply
to the RTC.
• Power to Issue Search Warrants and Warrants of Arrest: usually takes place in
area of immigration law.
o Can a person be arrested administratively for purposes of investigation
to find probable cause?
 Qua Chee Gan: Under the Consti, only a judge can issue a
warrant of arrest if the purpose of the arrest is for purposes of
investigation to determine probable cause. Therefore, a person
who is going to be charged administratively for purposes of
deporation cannot be arrested by the issuance of an
administrative warrant of arrest. However, if there already is a
final order of deportation, then the agency can issue a warrant
of arrest. The difference is that if there is already a final order of
deportation, it will not fall under the Consti requirement as it is
not anymore for finding of probable cause
 Harvey: muddled the Qua Chee Gan ruling.
• Power to Impose Fines and Penalties: Requirements
o Subject matter must be within the control of congress
o Expressly authorized
o Must not be criminal/punitive

IV. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

Adjudicative Powers
• Ang Tibay v. CIR/Book VII: 7 cardinal rights of a party in an admin
proceeding. Agencies are still bound by the Consti requirement of procedural
 due process.
• Agencies are not courts of justice and created to act with dispatch and
respond with flexibility, which is why their procedures can sometimes deviate
from the technical rules of evidence and procedure. They can resort to
informal procedures (e.g. position papers). However, if justice requires that
technical rules apply in a suppletory way, they must be respected.
• Judge Frankfurter: fair play must be practiced by the agency
• What is the process due?
o If the law prescribes the procedure, that is the due process.
o When the law is silent, the principle that procedural due process is
not written on stone applies. This gives the flexibility to the agency.

Jurisdiction
• Primary: There is concurrent jurisdiction but the court will yield to the agency
because the latter has expertise and to be able to achieve uniformity in
rulings.
• Exclusive: do not apply Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
• Same set of facts, 3 Proceedings: Criminal, Civil, Admin (What is the
relationship?)
o Independent of each other, can proceed at the same time, result of one
does not affect result of the other
 Different degrees of proof (beyond reasonable doubt,
preponderance of evidence, substantial evidence)
 Different causes of action

V. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMIN DECISIONS

Issue of Availability
Issue of Appropriate Mode
Issue of Scope

Availability
• Switchmen: Legislative history and nature of subject matter must be taken
into account
• Chevron: If policy choice, judiciary must not interfere
• : What has been already resolved can no longer be re-opened. Otherwise,
there will be no end to controversy.
• Uy: Even if law is silent on judicial review, it is still available if what is
involved is a question of law because judiciary is the final interpreter of law.

Exhaustion of Admin Remedies Doctrine

Locus Standi/Standing to Challenge

• Taxpayer’s suit: challenging disbursements of public funds
• Law already specifies who can be parties
• Injury in fact/threatens in a very imminent way an injury (must not be purely
speculative, can be economic or otherwise)
• Data Processing Case
• Unique situation in Phils where SC in many cases disregards the technical
rules of locus standi if in its opinion what is involved is issue of transcendental
importance. SC does not adequately explain and has not developed a
framework in determining what is transcendental importance.
Ripeness
• Fitness Test: question involved is question of law
• Hardship Test: by withholding court consideration, party would suffer
hardships
• v. Exhaustion, which applies to quasi-judicial functions. Ripeness focuses on
policy matters

VI. MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

VII. EXTENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

Importance of law-fact distinction because of the substantial evidence rule

(findings of fact of agencies if supported by substantial evidence as found in the
records of the case as a whole, is binding on the courts).

When it comes to questions of law, it is always subject to judicial review.

Court will not interfere in exercise of discretion unless there is grave abuse.

Policymaking is non-judicial business, except when agency makes a policy that is

ultra vires or against the Consti, in which case court may interfere. Questioning
the wisdom of the rule is also non-judicial.

VIII. ENFORCEMENT OF AGENCY ACTION