1st case: Guiterrez vs DBM

In 1989, congress enacted RA 6758, compensation and position classification act of 1989 to
ratonalize the compensation of government employees. Pursuant to this law, the department of
Budget and management (DBM) issued NCC 59 which enumerated the specific allowances and
additonal compensations which were deemed integrated in the basic salaries and these included
the Cost of Living Allowance ( COLA ) and inflation connected allowance ( ICA ). The DBM also
issued Corporate Compensation Circular ( CCC ) covering all government-owned or controlled
corporations and government financial institutions. the Commission on Audit (COA) disallowed the
payments of honoraria and other allowances which were deemed integrated into the standardized
salary rates. the petitioner now questions the propreity of integrating their COLA into their
standardize salary rates contending that respondent DBM as an administrative agency does not
have the power to make rules and regulations to implement a given legislation and effectuate its
Whether the DBM as an administrative agency has the power to promulgate NCC 59 and CCC 10?
Yes. the court ruled that, in this case, instead of identifying some of the additional exclusions that
section 12 of RA 6758 permits it to make, the DBM made a list of what allowances and benefits are
deemed integrated into the standardized salary rates. The drawing up of the above list is consistent
with Section 12 above. R.A. 6758 did not prohibit the DBM from identifying for the purpose of
implementation what fell into the class of all allowances. With respect to what employees benefits
fell outside the term apart from those that the law specified, the DBM, said this Court in a case,[12]
needed to promulgate rules and regulations identifying those excluded benefits. This leads to the
inevitable conclusion that until and unless the DBM issues such rules and regulations, the
enumerated exclusions in items (1) to (6) remain exclusive. Thus so, not being an enumerated
exclusion, COLA is deemed already incorporated in the standardized salary rates of government
employees under the general rule of integration.


Delegated rule-making is a practical necessity in modern governance because of the
increasing complexity and variety of public functions. Congress has endowed
administrative agencies like respondent DBM with the power to make rules and regulations
to implement a given legislation and effectuate its policies.[10] Such power is, however,
necessarily limited to what the law provides. Implementing rules and regulations cannot
extend the law or expand its coverage, as the power to amend or repeal a statute belongs
to the legislature. Administrative agencies implement the broad policies laid down in a law
by filling in only its details. The regulations must be germane to the objectives and
purposes of the law and must conform to the standards prescribed by law.

respondent teachers suddenly learned of their replacements as teachers. although circular No. however. the court ruled that. 20 was not published in the official gazette prior to the act or omission imputed to the appellant. Through their representatives. the teachers participating in the mass actions were served with an order of the Secretary of education to return to work in 24 hrs or face dismissal. for it was not binding at the time he was found to have failed to sell the foreign exchange in his possession thereof. hence no force and effect. it was not published until November 1951. complainants counsel contends that they were deprived of due process and contends that even a quasi-judicial agency has no jurisdiction or adjudicatory powers concerning them. No. In the present case. appellant could not be held liable for its violation. . the petitioner. 4th case: Carino vs CHR 800 public school teachers undertook what they described as “mass concerted actions” to express their dismay on denying their demands. they were then administratively charged on the baiss of the principals report and given 5 days to answer their charges and they were preventively suspended. The Solicitor General answering this contention says that Commonwealth Act. Subsequently. issue: whether the publication of Circular no. 638 and 2930 do not require the publication in the Official Gazette of said circular issued for the implementation of a law in order to have force and effect. 20 of the Central Bank was issued in the year 1949. the private respondents failed to heed the return-to-work order. under the Revised Administrative Code section 11. about 3 months after appellant's conviction of its violation. take effect at the beginning of the fifteenth day after the completion of the publication of the statute in the Official Gazette.20. particularly its penal provision. that is. did not have any legal effect and bound no one until its publication in the Official Gazzette or after November 1951.000 but failed to sell the same to the central bank through its agents within one day following the receipt of such foreign exchange as required by circular no. in the absence of special provision. through the Office of the Solicitor General. In other words. it provides that statutes passed by Congress shall.2nd case: P vs Que po Lya the appellant was in possession of foreign exchange consisting of US dollars worth $7. he claims that said circular no. It is clear that said circular.2 is necessary to have force and power? ruling: yes. allegedly without notice and consquently for reasons completely unknown to them.

to search into. means to adjudge." cannot and should not "try and resolve on the merits”. Hence it is that the Commission on Human Rights. determine." issue: whether a quasi-judicial agency such as CHR has adjudicatory powers towards the private respondents? Ruling. to examine and inquire into with care and accuracy while adjudicate. To trace or track.Secretary Cariño sought and was granted "that the complaint states no cause of action and that the CHR has no jurisdiction over the case. No. rule on. resolve. having merely the power "to investigate. commonly or popularly understood. decide. the CHR has only the power to investigate. arbitrate. settle. the court ruled that.The legal meaning of "investigate" is essentially the same: "(t)o follow up step by step by patient inquiry or observation. judge. .