You are on page 1of 13

Describe the Administrative Code of 1987.

Ople v Torres: 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 quasilegislative and quasi-judicial 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.

What is an administrative order?

EO 292 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.

What is administrative power?

EO 292 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.

What is the government of the Philippines?

Sec. 2(1) of EO 292: "Government of the Republic of the Philippines" refers to the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of 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.

this shall include any instrumentality. the Civil Service Commission. or. or a local government or a distinct unit therein. and owned by the Government directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly. including a department. to theextent of at least fifty‐one(51) per cent of its capital stock: Provided. instrumentality. vested with functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature. functions and responsibilities with respect to such corporations. where applicable as in the case of stock corporations. This term includes the state universities and colleges and the monetary authority of the State.What is a department? Sec. or government-owned or controlled corporation. regardless of its name or designation. office. What is an agency of the government? EO 292 Agency of the Government refers to any of the various units of the Government. having or assigned the rank of a department. and vested by law with functions relating to specific constitutional policies or objectives. and the Commissio on Audit for purposes of the exercise and discharge of their respective powers. What is a government owned and controlled corporation? Sec 2(13) of EO292: "Government‐owned or controlled corporation" refers to any agency organized as a stock or non‐stock corporation. For purposes of Book IV. 2(7) of EO 292: "Department" refers to an executive department created by law. . That government‐owned or controlled corporations may be further categorized by the Department of the Budget. What is a chartered institution? Sec 2(12) of EO 292: "Chartered institution" refers to any agency organized or operating under a special charter. bureau. as herein defined.

the function is governmental. it being said that when the title of the Republic has been divested. . this admits of exceptions in the interest of justice and fair play. safety and for the advancement of public good and welfare.When is a GOCC performing a regulatory function? Blaquera v." In the case at bar. CA. Powers classified as “proprietary” are those intended for private advantage and benefit When does government estoppel apply? Uy vs COA: We subscribe to the time-honored doctrine that estoppel will not lie against the State. as where injustice will result to the taxpayer. Court of Appeals: 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 (ex. are in the same category as ordinary persons. In the case of CIR v. its grantees. however. But like other principles of law. depending on the purpose for which they have been created. although artificial bodies of its own creation. If the purpose is to obtain special corporate benefits or earn pecuniary profit. we held that "admittedly the government is not estopped from collecting taxes legally due because of mistakes or errors of its agents. a stringent application of the rule exempting the state from the equitable principle of estoppel will prejudice petitioners who are lowly employees of government. When does prescription apply against the government? Shipside Incorporated v. Alcala: Government-owned and controlled corporations may perform governmental or proprietary functions or both. If it is in the interest of health. affecting the public in general. the function is proprietary. GOCC).

Municipal corporations. whether a local state or a foreign state. the doctrine is available to foreign States insofar as they are sought to be sued in the courts of the local State. like provinces and cities. they are subject to suit even in the performance of such functions because their charter provides that they can sue and be sued. which states that “the State may not be sued without its consent. as the principal that may ultimately be held liable. 217-225 Title VII of EO 292 . the Bureau of Mines and the Government Printing Office. the test of its suability is found in its charter. owing to provisions in their charters manifesting their consent to be sued. These include the National Irrigation Administration. The simple rule is that it is suable if its charter says so. the former Central Bank. are agencies of the State when they are engaged in governmental functions and therefore should enjoy the sovereign immunity from suit. Discuss the nature and functions of: NLRC DOLE Labor Code 213. is reflected in Section 9. necessary as it is to avoid “unduly vexing the peace of nations. Nevertheless. it must be ascertained whether or not the State. like the Social Security System. Article XVI of the Constitution. State immunity from suit may be waived by general or special law. like the Department of Justice. By contrast. for example. the unincorporated agency is so called because it has no separate juridical personality but is merged in the general machinery of the government. An incorporated agency has a charter of its own that invests it with a separate juridical personality. This ascertainment will depend in the first instance on whether the government agency impleaded is incorporated or unincorporated. and this is true regardless of the functions it is performing.” Where suit is filed not against the government itself or its officials but against one of its entities. and the City of Manila. the University of the Philippines.When may a state invoke immunity? GTZ vs CA: The principle of state immunity from suit. The special law can take the form of the original charter of the incorporated government agency. If the agency is incorporated.” Who or what consists of “the State”? For one. Jurisprudence is replete with examples of incorporated government agencies which were ruled not entitled to invoke immunity from suit. has given its consent to be sued. the SSS and the National Power Corporation.

telephone and telegraph systems. the NTC’s function were merely those of the defunct Public Service Commission (PSC). It assumed the functions formerly assigned to the Board of Communications and the Communications Control Bureau. which were both abolished under the said Executive Order. upon notice and hearing. Specifically. the NTC has the sole authority to issue Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the installation. considering that the Board of Communications was the successor-in-interest of the PSC. operation. 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. Under Executive Order No. the NTC became an attached agency of the Department of Transportation and Communications. Section 16[a]) The procedure governing the issuance of such authorizations is set forth in Section 29 of the said Act BIR DSWD DOH Title II Chapter 4 of EO 292 Title XVI of EO 292 Titiel IX of EO 292 . as amended. 146. Such power includes the authority to determine the areas of operations of applicants for telecommunications services. issued in April 1987. 146. In the regulatory communications industry.NTC Republic vs Express Telecommunication Co Inc: The NTC was created pursuant to Executive Order No. 125-A. and maintenance of communications facilities and services. radio communications systems.” (Commonwealth Act No. Previously. created under Commonwealth Act No. 546 x x x. otherwise known as the Public Service Act. Section 16 of the Public Service Act authorizes the then PSC.

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). which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity is fixed by the legislature. In a similar case. which reads: “Article 2. other public offices or agencies as the Congress may select. – (1) Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by it. was not published in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation. Chapter 2. or his equivalent functionary. does not cure the defect related to the effectivity of the Administrative Order. is invalid within the context of Article 2 of Civil Code. This Court. 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. (3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the issuing agency and shall be open to public inspection. thus: “We hold therefore that all statutes. 1989. Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative power or. Book VII. coupled with the certification by the Commissioner of the NTC stating that the NTC was still governed by the 1987 Rules. all appellate courts. however. Section 3 thereof merely states: Filing. 1993 is of no moment. shall be published as a condition for their effectivity. and published by the UP Law Center in the National Administrative Register. we held: This does not imply. including those of local application and private laws. unless it is otherwise provided. under which the respondents filed their applications for importations. (2) The records officer of the agency. clearly indicate that the 1993 Revised Rules have not taken effect at the time of the grant of the provisional authority to Bayantel. directly conferred by the Constitution. Section 7). Congress. The questioned Administrative Order. SOCPEC 89-08-01 were filed with. Tuvera stated. and to other persons at a price sufficient to cover publication and mailing or distribution costs (Administrative Code of 1987. Chapter 2. that the subject Administrative Order is a valid exercise of such quasi-legislative power. Book VII. shall carry out the requirements of this section under pain of disciplinary action. legally. The fact that the 1993 Revised Rules were filed with the UP Law Center on February 3. the National Library. at present.When can a regulation be enforced? (operative act) The absence of publication. The original Administrative Order issued on August 30. until it is published. in Tanada v. . X x x” The fact that the amendments to Administrative Order No. The National Administrative Register is merely a bulletin of codified rules and it is furnished only to the Office of the President. 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.

Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature. 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. 2001. Section 1). The only exception are interpretative regulations. No.. i. 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. 200. (Republic v. as explicitly mentioned in the case of Tanada v. 15. therefore. Tuvera. which implements Section 29 of the Public Service Act. since its purpose is to enforce and implement an existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. 2002. 1071. fall squarely within the scope of these laws. Tuvera is clear and categorical. 103144. April 4. 373 SCRA 316. In the absence of such publication.” The Administrative Order under consideration is one of those issuances which should be published for its effectivity. G. 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). which repealed Article 2 of the Civil Code. Jan. unless it is otherwise provided (E. 356 SCRA 174)..Administrative Rules and Regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation. The Rules of Practice and Procedure of the NTC. [Ynares-Santiago]) . those merely internal in nature. 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. Administrative rules and regulations must be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation.O. in relation to LOI 444 and EO 133.. it is the 1978 Rules that govern. This is explicit from Executive Order No. 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. P. 200. rules or regulations can take effect. the 1993 Revised Rules should be published in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation before it can take effect. need not be published. that is. Hence.e. Secretary of Labor. Thus. Inc.R.D. 1st Div. Express Telecommunication Co. publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation is a condition sine qua non before statutes. Our pronouncement in Tanada v. regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public. v.

SOCPEC 89-08-01 issued by the Philippine International Trading Corporation regulating applications for importation from the . II. 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. 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 enumerated the allowable fees which may be collected from applicants. namely Philippine and Hong Kong agencies engaged in the recruitment of workers for Hong Kong. May a person be held liable for an administrative regulation not published? Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation v. the said circulars may not be enforced or implemented. the administrative circulars questioned therein were addressed to an even smaller group. shall be published as a condition for their effectivity. Association of Service Exporters vs. directly conferred by the Constitution. Tuvera. does not take it away from the ambit of our ruling in Tañada vs. d) Administrative Order No. Secretary of Labor and Employment: Held: Petitioner insists. Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and the public. for lack of proper publication.The fact that the said circular is addressed only to a specified group. which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. and still the Court ruled therein that. need not be published. that it cannot be held liable for illegal exaction as POEA Memorandum Circular No. is void for lack of publication. at present. Torres[29]. Series of 1983. In Tanada v. as follows: “We hold therefore that all statutes. Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature. namely private employment agencies or authority holders. medical clinics and laboratories. b) Letter of Instruction No. c) Memorandum Circulars issued by the POEA regulating the recruitment of domestic helpers to Hong Kong. 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. that is. There is merit in the argument.” Applying this doctrine. the Court held. 416 ordering the suspension of payments due and payable by distressed copper mining companies to the national government. In the case of Phil. including those of local application and private laws. however. Tuvera.

2001. It is thus clear that the administrative circular under consideration is one of those issuances which should be published for its effectivity. Secretary of Labor and Employment. Series of 1983 provides for the applicable schedule of placement and documentation fees for private employment agencies or authority holders. Series of 1983 must likewise be declared ineffective as the same was never published or filed with the National Administrative Register. 2. POEA Memorandum Circular No. In all these cited cases. 10 issued by the Department of Budget and Management discontinuing the payment of other allowances and fringe benefits to government officials and employees. The said circular was apparently issued in compliance with the provisions of Article 32 of the Labor Code x x x.00. April 4.. the same is ineffective and may not be enforced.People’s Republic of China. POEA Memorandum Circular No. 3rd Div. Considering that POEA Administrative Circular No.500. the maximum amount which may be collected from prospective Filipino overseas workers is P2. Under the said Order. and e) Corporate Compensation Circular No. 356 SCRA 174. Series of 1983 has not as yet been published or filed with the National Administrative Register. 2. (Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation v. 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. since its purpose is to enforce and implement an existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. 2. [Gonzaga-Reyes]) .

A writ of preliminary injunction is an ancillary remedy. 1994. the Constitution would have expressly said so. Not being a court of justice. It is available only in a pending principal action. 125. the CHR itself has no jurisdiction to issue the writ. ‘Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or by law. properly speaking. the Commission does not have. and cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice. or of the Supreme Court. finally and definitively. But fact finding is not adjudication. Jan. (Simon. to repeat. Jr. receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards claimed human rights violations involving civil and political rights. or even a quasi-judicial agency or official. i. 5. En Banc [Vitug.]) “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. for the preservation or protection of the rights and interest of a party thereto. To be considered such. or by a Justice of the Court of Appeals. “The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative power is that it may investigate. subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. if that were the intention. 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. The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function. and for no other purpose. J. v.. its findings and recommendations to any appropriate agency of government. 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. or duplicate much less take over the functions of the latter.” “Evidently.What are the powers of the CHR? Can it adjudicate? Issue injunctive writs? Execute its own decision? “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.’ It is never derived by implication.” The Commission does have legal standing to indorse. Commission on Human Rights. 229 SCRA 117. x x x. This function.e. for appropriate action. 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]. .

is not investigatorial in character but prescinds from an adjudicative power that it does not possess. must be used only in connection with its quasi-judicialas distinguished from its purely administrative or routinary functions. in case of disobedience. Unless otherwise provided by law. however. and to impose the appropriate penalties in accordance with the procedure and sanctions provided for in the Rules of Court. The “order to desist” (a semantic interplay for a restraining order) in the instance before us. x x x When do administrative agencies have contempt powers? Subpoena powers? The power to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum is not inherentin administrative bodies.On its contempt powers. To be validly exercised. the CHR is constitutionally authorized to “adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure.It is settled that administrative bodies may summon witnesses andrequire the production of evidence only when duly allowed by law. the CHR acted within its authority in providing in its revised rules. the agency may. its power “to cite or hold any person in direct or indirect contempt.” Accordingly. the power to punish for contempt is essentially judicial and cannot be claimed as an inherent right by the administrativebody. The Court may punish customacyor refusal as contempt. should be understood to apply only to violations of its adopted operational guidelines and rules of procedure essential to carry out its investigatorial powers. or who decline to honor summons.” That power to cite for contempt. it must be expressly conferred upon the bodyand. in pursuing its investigative work. and cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court. To exemplify. and the like. andalways only in connection with the matter they are authorized toinvestigate. or who unduly withhold relevant information. Like the subpoena power. the power to cite for contempt could be exercised against persons who refuse to cooperate with the said body. . invoke the aid or Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case falls. additionally. however.

The premature invocation of court’s jurisdiction is fatal to one’s cause of action. the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view. In recent years. availment of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies. under a regulatory scheme. 3rd Div. 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. 1992. and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which. have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body. especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge. absent any finding of waiver or estoppel the case is susceptible of dismissal for lack of cause of action. Before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court.What is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction Courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal. the jurisdiction over which is lodged with an administrative body of special competence. . for one thing. 9. the court cannot arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy. 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. experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. in such case.” In cases where the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is clearly applicable. [Panganiban]) What is the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies? 1. (Villaflor v. 280 SCRA 297. Hence. it is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him. 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. This doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies was not without its practical and legal reasons. Oct. CA. Accordingly. It applies “where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts.

i. (9) when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceeding. (7) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable. This doctrine is disregarded: (1) when there is a violation of due process.. and (11) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention. (2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question. (8) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim. [Paat vs CA] . (10) when the rule does not provide a plain.e. (6) 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.Non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is not jurisdictional. (4) when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned. (5) when there is irreparable injury. speedy and adequate remedy. It only renders the action premature. 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. (3) when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.