QUASI-JUDICIAL

CHAPTER 3 - Adjudication

Section 10. Compromise and Arbitration. - To expedite administrative proceedings involving
conflicting rights or claims and obviate expensive litigations, every agency shall, in the
public interest, encourage amicable settlement, comprise and arbitration.

Section 11. Notice and Hearing in Contested Cases. - (1) In any contested case all parties
shall be entitled to notice and hearing. The notice shall be served at least five (5) days
before the date of the hearing and shall state the date, time and place of the hearing.

(2) The parties shall be given opportunity to present evidence and argument on all issues. If
not precluded by law, informal disposition may be made of any contested case by
stipulation, agreed settlement or default.

(3) The agency shall keep an official record of its proceedings.

Section 12. Rules of Evidence. - In a contested case:

(1) The agency may admit and give probative value to evidence commonly accepted by
reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs.

(2) Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts, if the original
is not readily available. Upon request, the parties shall be given opportunity to compare the
copy with the original. If the original is in the official custody of a public officer, a certified
copy thereof may be accepted.

(3) Every party shall have the right to cross-examine witnesses presented against him and to
submit rebuttal evidence.

(4) The agency may take notice of judicially cognizable facts and of generally cognizable
technical or scientific facts within its specialized knowledge. The parties shall be notified and
afforded an opportunity to contest the facts so noticed.

Section 13. Subpoena. - In any contested case, the agency shall have the power to require
the attendance of witnesses or the production of books, papers, documents and other
pertinent data, upon request of any party before or during the hearing upon showing of
general relevance. Unless otherwise provided by law, the agency may, in case of
disobedience, invoke the aid of the Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the
contested case being heard falls. The Court may punish contumacy or refusal as contempt.

Section 14. Decision. - Every decision rendered by the agency in a contested case shall be
in writing and shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. The
agency shall decide each case within thirty (30) days following its submission. The parties
shall be notified of the decision personally or by registered mail addressed to their counsel
of record, if any, or to them.

B Finality of Order. - The decision of the agency shall become final and executory fifteen

(15) days after the receipt of a copy thereof by the party adversely affected unless within
that period an administrative appeal or judicial review, if proper, has been perfected. One

motion for reconsideration may be filed, which shall suspend the running of the said period.

EVANGELISTA V. JARENCIO
J. MARTIN
FACTS:
1. The President created the Presidential Agency Reforms and Government Operations
(PARGO) under EO no. 4 (1966). It has the ff: functions:
a. To investigate all activities involving or affecting immoral practices, graft and
corruptions, smuggling (physical or technical), lawlessness, subversion, and all
other activities which are prejudicial to the government and the public
interests, and to submit proper recommendations to the President of the
Philippines.
b. To investigate cases of graft and corruption and violations of Republic Acts
Nos. 1379 and 3019, and gather necessary evidence to establish prima facie,
acts of graft and acquisition of unlawfully amassed wealth
c. To receive and evaluate, and to conduct fact-finding investigations of sworn
complaints against the acts, conduct or behavior of any public official or
employee and to file and prosecute the proper charges with the appropriate
agency
i. IT WAS VESTED WITH ALL THE POWERS OF AN INVESTIGATING
COMMITTEE
2. Evangelista, petitioner, is head of the Presidential Agency on Reforms and
Government Operations (PARGO) created by Executive Order No. 4, which, among
others, provides:
“The agency is hereby vested with all the powers of an investigating committee
under Sections 71 and 580 of the Revised Administrative Code, including the power
to summon witnesses by subpoena duces tecum, administer oaths, take testimony or
evidence relevant to the investigation.”

3. Respondent Manalastas (Asst. City Public Service Officer of Manila) was issued a
subpoena ad testificandum commanding him to appear as witness at the office of the
PARGO to testify in a certain investigation pending therein. Instead of obeying it, he
filed a petition with the CFI of Manila for prohibition, certiorari and restraining order
assailing its legality. Judge Jarencio issued a restraining order. Hence, this action.

WON THE PARGO ENJOYS THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SUBPOENA IN ITS CONDUCT
OF FACT-FINDING INVESTIGATION

1. YES
2. The lifeblood of administrative process is the flow of fact, the gathering, the
organization, and the analysis of evidence
3. Investigations are useful for all administrative functions, not only for rule making,
adjudication, and licensing, but also for prosecuting, for supervising and directing, for
determining general policy, for recommending, legislation, and for purposes no more
specific than illuminating obscure areas to find out what if anything should be done
investigations can also be done for the sole purpose of obtaining information
4. In the case before us, said agency draws it subpoena power from EO No. 4, par. 5.
Which empowered it to "summon witnesses, administer oaths, and take testimony
relevant to the investigation, with the authority "to require the production of
documents under a subpoena duces tecum or otherwise, subject in all respects to the
same restrictions and qualifications as apply in judicial proceedings of a similar
character."
5. It must be emphasized, however, that an administrative subpoena differs in essence
from a judicial subpoena. Clearly, what the Rules (states that a pending case is a

administrative agencies may enforce subpoenas issued in the course of investigations. COMELEC J. not to prove a pending charge. but can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated or even just because it wants assurance that it is not. The administrative agency has the power of inquisition which is not dependent upon a case or controversy in order to get evidence. When investigative and accusatory duties are delegated by statute to an administrative body. BAUTISTA ANGELO FACTS: 1. Authority delegated by statute. Information sought reasonably relevant to the investigations. it. and WON probable cause is shown and even before the issuance of a complaint. it may be stated that the subpoena meets the requirements for enforcement if the inquiry is: (a) within the authority of the agency (b) the demand is not too indefinite (c) the information is reasonable relevant” 8. is reasonably relevant to the investigations. The purpose of the subpoena is to discover evidence. When investigative and accusatory duties are delegated by statute to an administrative body. Because judicial power is reluctant if not unable to summon evidence until it is shown to be relevant to issues on litigations it does not follow that an administrative agency charged with seeing that the laws are enforced may not have and exercise powers of original inquiry. “The administrative agency has the power of inquisition which is not dependent upon a case of controversy in order to get evidence.” GUEVARRA V. Agency is with authority to enforce subpoenas issued. WON adjudication is involved. and not an administrative subpoena. documents or things does not appear 6. too may take steps to inform itself as to whether there is probable violation of law 7. it too may take steps to inform itself as to whether there is probable violation of the law. In sum. Because judicial power is reluctant if not unable to summon evidence until it is shown to be relevant to issues on litigations. To an extent. It is enough that the investigation be for a lawfully authorized purpose. but upon which to make one if discovered evidence so justifies. “There is no doubt that the fact-finding investigations being conducted by the PARGO upon sworn statements implicating certain public officials of the City Govt of Manila in anomalous transactions fall within the PARGO’s sphere of authority and that the information sought to be elicited from respondent Manalastas of which he is claimed to be in possession. P was ordered by the COMELEC to show cause why he shouldn’t be punished for contempt for having published in the Sunday Times an article entitled Ballot Boxes Contract Hit. sine qua non for a subpoena) speaks of is a judicial subpoena. it does not follow that an administrative agency charged with seeing that the laws are enforced may not have and exercise powers of original inquiry” a. which tended to interfere with and influence the COMELEC and its members in the adjudication of a controversy then pending investigation and . but can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated or even just because it wants assurance that it is not. therefore. “Rightly. one procurable from and issuable by a competent court. the "restrictions and qualifications" referred to in Section 580 of the Revised Administrative Code could mean the restraints against infringement of constitutional rights or when the subpoena is unreasonable or oppressive and when the relevancy of the books.

000 ballot boxes to the National Shipyards & Steel Corporation and the Asiatic Steel Mfg. The Commission on Elections. awarded to the National Shipyards & Steel Corporation (NASSCO).000 ballot boxes at P17. 3. after proper negotiations. bring into disrepute. Assuming that the Commission's power to punish contempt exists. The Commission has no jurisdiction to punish as contempt the publication of the alleged contemptuous article. and filed a MTQ on the following grounds: a. awarding the contracts for the manufacture and supply of 34. etc.00 each. said provision would be unconstitutional." a.. 1957 issue of the Sunday Times.. Then followed a series of petitions filed by the ACME for the reconsideration of the resolution of the Commission of May 13. The corresponding contracts thereon were signed on May 16. 1957 iv. Inc. said power cannot apply to the present case because the matter of purchasing the ballot boxes was already a closed case when the article in question was published. the same cannot be applied to the instant case. 2. On May 8.. and P17. 1957. . iii. and undermine the exclusive constitutional function of this Commission and its Chairman Domingo Imperial and Member Sixto Brillantes in the administration of all the laws relative to the conduct of elections." be applied to the case at hand. Co. Inc. Co. 4. (ACME).000. Hence the present petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction. Assuming that the Commission's power to punish contempt exists. Inc.000 and 11. b. vesting the Commission with "power to punish contempts provided for in Rule of the Court under the same procedure and with the same penalties provided therein. for should Section 5 of Republic Act No. where the Commission is exercising a purely administrative function for purchasing ballot boxes. Inc. both the NASSCO and the ASIATIC signed with the Commission on Elections the corresponding contracts thereon. appeared before R. 1957. praying for the reconsideration of the resolutions of the Commission of May 4 and 13. and which article likewise tended to degrade. 180. ANTECEDENT FACTS: i. P answered the summons. (ASIATIC). as neither in the Constitution nor in statutes is the Commission granted a power to so punish the same. Co. P14. Co. 1957. the article in question was a fair report because it could be assumed that the news report of the respondent was based on the motion for reconsideration filed by the Acme Steel where there was an allegation of fraud. On May 13.00. COMELEC denied P’s MTQ but granted the latter a period of fifteen (15) days within which to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court in view of the issue raised which assails the jurisdiction of the Commission to investigate and punish petitioner for contempt in connection with the alleged publication. the Commission cancelled the award to the ACME for failure of the latter to sign the contract within the designated time and awarded to the NASSCO and the ASIATIC. Assuming that controversy contemplated by the law was still pending. on May 4. d.64. the contracts to manufacture and supply the Commission 12. one-half each. 1957.000 ballot boxes originally alloted to the ACME. c. determination before said body “arising from third petition for reconsideration and the supplementary petition thereof filed by Acme Steel Mfg. The article signed by petitioner was published in the June 2. and the Asiatic Steel Mfg. a newspaper of nation-wide circulation.. the Acme Steel Mfg. 1957.. and the respective answers of the latter two corporations to said petitions. respectively ii. 11. the 11.

. 4. heard and decided by it within fifteen days counted from the time the corresponding petition giving rise to said controversy is filed. save those involving the right to vote. and delegate such power to any officer. including the determination of the number and location of polling places. Article X). all administrative questions. Among these powers are those embodied in Section 5: a. 126. Vera. — The Commission on Elections or any of the members thereof shall have the power to summon the parties to a controversy pending before it. affecting elections. for it is merely an independent administrative body (The Nacionalista Party vs. The Revised Election Code supplements what other powers may be exercised by said Commission. although it cannot be classified as a court of justice within the meaning of the Constitution (Section 13. NO. Any violation of any final and executory decision. 2375). 47 Off. TENDED TO INTERFERE WITH AND INFLUENCE SAID COMMISSION IN THE ADJUDICATION OF A CONTROVERSY THEN PENDING DETERMINATION AND TO DEGRADE AND UNDERMINE THE FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION AND ITS MEMBERS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF ALL LAWS RELATIVE TO THE CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS? 1. ACCORDING TO THE CHARGE. the Commission. SEC. Powers of Commission. And as an incident of this power. hear and decide any controversy that may be submitted to it in connection with the elections. a. issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum and otherwise take testimony in any investigation or hearing pending before it. Gaz. Article VIII). Any decision. The COMELEC’s powers are defined in the Constitution. under the same procedure and with the same penalties provided therein. it may also punish for contempt in those cases provided for in Rule 64 of the Rules of Court under the same procedure and with the same penalties provided therein. may however exercise quasi-judicial functions in so far as controversies that by express provision of the law come under its jurisdiction. It shall decide. The Commission or any of the members thereof shall have the power to punish contempts provided for in rule sixty-four of the Rules of Court. It provides that it "shall have exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections and shall exercise all other functions which may be conferred upon it by law. WON THE COMELEC HAS THE POWER AND JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETITIONER WITH A VIEW TO IMPOSING UPON HIM THE NECESSARY DISCIPLINARY PENALTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE PUBLICATION OF AN ARTICLE IN THE SUNDAY TIMES ISSUE OF JUNE 2. b. 3. order or ruling of the Commission on Elections may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari accordance with the Rules of Court or with such rules as may be promulgated by the Supreme Court. Any controversy submitted to the Commission on Elections shall be tried. 2. It would therefore appear that the Commission on Elections not only has the duty to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections but the power to try. and the appointment of election inspectors and of other election officials" (Section 2. 5. . order or ruling of the Commission shall constitute contempt of the Commission. 85 Phil. In this sense. 1957 WHICH.

it only discharged a ministerial duty. Director of Prisons.). and. 7. 93 Phil. 5. it does not also have the power to order a recounting of the votes before the proclamation of election even if there are discrepancies in the election returns for it is a function of our courts of justice (Ramos vs. 148. nor does it have the power to order the correction of a certificate of canvass after a candidate had been proclaimed and assumed office (De Leon vs. so as to as to put in readiness on election day the election machinery. and to investigate and act on the illegality of a canvass of election made by a municipal board of canvassers (Ramos vs... 80 Phil. R. 2851). 136). the questions should be controversial in nature and must refer to the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of election. 47 Off. It stems from the ministerial act of the Commission in requisitioning for the necessary ballot boxes in connection with the last elections and in so proceeding it provoked a dispute between several dealers who offered to do the job. Loo Hoe. The exercise of this power has always been regarded as a necessary incident and attribute of courts (Slade Perkins vs. L-1834). U. Enage. Its exercise by administrative bodies has been invariably limited to making effective the power to elicit testimony (People vs. Considering that the paramount administrative duty of the Commission is to set in motion all the multifarious preparatory processes ranging from the purchase of election supplies. 680). Imperial.. et al. 2570. and to the enforcement of judgments. 35 Phil. Commission on Elections. et al. 94 Phil. 3863). 722). Imperial. 8. appoinments of members of the board of inspectors. appointment of precincts and designation of polling preparation of registry lists of voters. for such power is inherently judicial in nature. S. vs. 85 Phil.. it has been held that the Commission has the power to annul an illegal registry list of voters (Feliciano. orderly and honest for such matter devolves upon other agencies of the Government (Nacionalista Party vs. Commission on Elections. Director of Prisons. Lugay. its existence is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings. Gaz. But this much depends upon the factors that may intervene when a controversy should arise. and only very recently this Court has held that the Commission has no power to reject a certificate of candidacy except only when its purpose is to create confusion in the minds of the electors (Abcede vs. Commission on Elections. in the administration of justice" (Slade Perkins vs. In proceeding on this matter. it could not exercise the power to punish for contempt as postulated in the law. To come under its jurisdiction. orders and mandates of courts. 49 Off. 6. 271. vs. In Re Sotto.). Ibid. . Such being the case. 80 Phil. c. it may also be reasonably said that the requisitioning and preparation of the necessary ballot boxes to be used in the elections is by the same token an imperative ministerial duty which the Commission is bound to perform if the elections are to be held. Such is the incident which gave rise to the contempt case before us. 46 Off. Gaz. it has been held that the Commission has no power to annul an election which might not have been free. Gaz. 103 Phil.. consequently. 36 Phil. 744. printing of election forms and ballots. 58 Phil. In Re Kelly. As this Court has aptly said: "The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts. 867.. The difficulty lies in drawing the demarcation line between a duty which inherently is administrative in character and a function which is justiciable and which would therefore call for judicial action by the Commission. No.. On the other hand.... G. 944). to annul an election canvass made by a municipal board of canvassers (Mintu vs. neither does it have the power to decide the validity or invalidity of votes cast in an election for such devolves upon the courts or the electoral tribunals (Ibid. it did not exercise any judicial function.. Thus. 722). et al.

after hearing. a. Roberts vs. On the same date.. The issue is not academic because there was no retreat by Inciong from his indefensible position. Angeles reserved his resolution on the matter at issue in view of the intricate legal questions raised. then this litigation could have been terminated. he was later notified that the NLRC issued an order directing the Union to hold its election. 271). as its president. 58 S. Tolentino and Angeles were served with copies of a subpoena. 190. 1973 and the election scheduled for March 3. the Union filed a petition with the CFI Batangas for prohibition and preliminary injunction seeking to annul the order. 31 N. All that was alleged was that he would not enforce the contempt citation. and (3) they were evolving a de-legalized labor management system and expected the SC to cooperate in their efforts. On 12 December 1972. instead. Instead. Tolentino filed a motion for reconsideration. what was set forth by him in the .J. requiring them to appear at the NLRC to explain why they should not be held in contempt for trying to use old society tactics to prevent a union election duly ordered by the Commission. the legal issues presented should be decided. praying at the same time that the pre-election conference set on February 22. petition is granted. Wherefore. Hacney. with pronouncement as to costs. INJUNCTION MADE PERMANENT. 12. and praying that such election be conducted immediately. 1973 be suspended in the meanwhile 6. Tolentino sent an urgent telegram to the NLRC for the cancellation of the hearing of such complaint as he had to appear on the date set before the CIR. Decker. Jude Jaime delos Angeles (Angeles) set the application for the preliminary injunction for hearing. 296 P. 3. through its Chairman Amado Inciong (Inciong) informed Tolentino that the election would proceed as scheduled 7. 8. On the day of receiving the complaint. And the exercise of that power by an administrative body in furtherance of its administrative function has been held invalid (Langenberg vs. In Re Sims 37 P. As the MR was not acted upon despite repeated requests. The NLRC. issued by Inciong. TOLENTINO V. Tolentino filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction with the Supreme Court and the Court issued a resolution issuing a TRO and requiring respondents to answer. FERNANDO FACTS: 1. 11. Tolentino (Tolentino) with violating the constitution of the Batangas Labor Union (Union) by refusing. NO. Had respondent Inciong made clear that he would quash the contempt citation. Respondent Commission is hereby enjoined from proceeding with the case set forth in its resolution of June 20. 1957. Inciong wrote a letter to the SC stating: (1) the issue is academic since he did not intend to continue with the contempt proceedings and the union election had been held. WON THE CASE IS MOOT AND ACADEMIC? 1. 4.. 3. The SC expunged the letter from the records and enforced their resolution. 2.. Swena. INCIONG C. a formal motion was subsequently filed. 810). Thus. 135. Tolentino was not informed of the action taken on the motion. 5.E.W. Tolentino filed a notice of appeal with the Secretary of Labor. 9. b. to call for the election of officers in the month of November 1972. Subsequently. 2. respondent Domingo Cinco (Cinco) filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) charging petitioner Arcadio R. 10. (2) the SC has no jurisdiction over the NLRC.

"to hold any person in contempt for refusal to comply" certainly cannot extend to a judge of the court of first instance and cannot cover the case likewise of a party to a controversy who took the necessary steps to avail himself of a judicial remedy. 2. In the absence of a valid grant.. What they do suffers from a fatal infirmity. reserved his resolution in view of the intricacies of the legal questions raised. e. As such there is no presumption that they are empowered to act. must observe the limits of its jurisdiction. All that was alleged was that he would not enforce the contempt citation. Otherwise the rule of law becomes a myth." is an implied admission of his actuation being devoid of support in law. respondent Inciong took the precipitate step of citing him for contempt. Inciong should have known that the competence. The proper step for an administrative official then is to seek a dismissal of the case before the court precisely on the ground that the matter did not fall within the domain of the powers conferred on it. it would be a reproach to any legal system if an individual is denied access to the courts under these circumstances. The undeniable concern of respondent Inciong that the objectives of Presidential Decree No. It must ever be borne in mind by an administrative official that courts exist precisely to assure that there be compliance with the law. letter had to be expunged. There must be a delegation of such authority. not rights. . not so much because of its offensive tone but much more so by its lack of appreciation for what the law ordains. As such there is no presumption that they are empowered to act. There was no retreat from his indefensible position. not rights. c. That is the very essence of a judicial power. The government itself is merely an agency through which the will of the State is express and enforced. In the absence of a valid grant. Subido: "Nothing is better settled in the law than that a public official exercises power. either express or implied. they are devoid of power. The government itself is merely an agency through which the will of the State is express and enforced. we must take all pains to avoid. after hearing the arguments on the propriety of issuing the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for. In this particular case. Such an eventuality. “Nothing is better settled in the law than that a public official exercises power. Neither the high dignity of the office nor the righteousness of the motive then is an acceptable substitute. There must be a delegation of such authority. Inciong’s use of the phrase "old society tactics. d. It must ever be borne in mind by an administrative official that courts exist precisely to assure that there be compliance with the law. So the rule of law requires. That was an affront to reason as well as a disregard of well-settled rules. b. The answer filed by him was of the same tenor. Villegas v. YES. a. either express or implied. a. Its officers therefore are likewise agents entrusted with the responsibility of discharging its functions. it is admitted that the then Judge Jaime delos Angeles." 3. That principle cannot be sufficiently stressed. In this case. they are devoid of power. like any other governmental agencies.. f. Instead. . There was no contumacious act committed by petitioner in seeking judicial remedy.” 4. Its officers therefore are likewise agents entrusted with the responsibility of discharging its functions. 21 be attained thus afforded no warrant for exercising a power not conferred by such decree. WON THE NLRC SHOULD BE PROHIBITED IN CONDUCTING THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS? 1. It is true that courts.

wherein . et al. After the filing of the deportation charges. pending investigation. citing the then Judge Jaime delos Angeles. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. Qua Chee Gan. 1953. 5. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on March 6. Qua Chee Gan. restraining the respondent Deportation Board from hearing Deportation charges No. A. et al. pending final termination of the habeas corpus and/or prohibition proceedings 8. Daniel Dy alias Dee Pac. then filed a petition for habeas corpus and/or prohibition before the SC 6. and Basilio King were charged before the Deportation Board with having purchased $130. 3. while petitioner Qua Chee Gan was acquitted of the offense of attempted bribery of a public official. Chief of the Intelligence Division of the Central Bank. 4. declared void and of no force or effect. et al. among others. A writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the lower court. Chua Chu Tian. and Capt. SC gave such petition due course and remanded such case to the trial court 7. SECTION 2. On July 29. P. has jurisdiction over the charges filed against petitioners and the authority to order their arrest. dollars 2.000. Chua Lim Pao alias Jose Chua. Air Force) in order to evade prosecution for said unauthorized purchase of U. and of having clandestinely remitted the same to Hongkong and petitioners. 1973. Charak of the OSI. and Basilio King.000. WARRANTS OF ARREST. the respondent Board filed its answer to the original petition. both orders having been issued beyond the power of respondent Amado Inciong to issue. 1973 is hereby made permanent. R-425 against petitioners. filed a joint motion to dismiss the charges on the ground." WHEREFORE. QUA CHEE GAN . and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. CLOSURES ART.00 without the necessary licensing from the Central Bank and having clandestinely remitted the same to Hong Kong. Qua Chee Gan. Tolentino for contempt. maintaining among others. he was found in the same decision of the trial court that he did actually offer money to an officer of the United States Air Force in order that the latter may abstain from assisting the Central Bank official in the investigation of the purchase of $130. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Qua Chee Gan. U.00 and a cash bond for P10. As was so well stated by Chief Justice Hughes: "It must be conceded that departmental zeal may not be permitted to outrun the authority conferred by statute. that the Deportation Board.00.000. g. as well as petitioner Arcadio R. and that.000. BARRERA FACTS: 1. papers.S. James Uy. They were granted provisional liberty upon their filing of a surely bond for P10. that such charges are bereft of any legal ground for deportation and that the Board has no jurisdiction over such charges.S. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. with having attempted to bribe officers of the Philippine and United States Governments (Antonio Laforteza. the writ of prohibition is granted and the assailed order of February 28. Chua Lim Pao alias Jose Chua. Chan Tiong Yu. a warrant of arrest was issued for Qua Chee Gan. DEPORTATION BOARD J.00 from the Clark Air Force Base. 1987 CONSTITUTION The right of the people to be secure in their persons. III. as an agent of the President. houses. The motion to dismiss was denied.

52. hoarding or blackmarketing of U. to produce witnesses in his own behalf. dollars. There seems to be no doubt that the President's power of investigation may be delegated." The first executive order on the subject was that of Governor General Frank Murphy (No. WoN the President has the power to deport aliens and if such power is validly delegated to the Deportation Board.. with the exception of section sixty-nine of Act Numbered Twenty-seven hundred and eleven which shall continue in force and effect: . of the ground upon which Such action is contemplated. SEC. TIRAL COURT: Upheld the validity of the delegation by the President to the Deportation Board the power to conduct investigations for the purpose of determining whether the stay of an alien in this country would be injurious to the security. Therefore. 613). to conduct investigations and thereafter make recommendations. 4. 69 Deportation of subject to foreign power. and b. 1934). and to cross-examine the opposing witnesses. The President may therefore order the deportation of these petitioners if after investigation they are shown to have committed the act charged. the deportation of an undesirable alien may be effected in 2 ways: a. lays down the procedure for such deportation proceedings for the President1 3. Act No. after previous determination by the Board of Commissioners. By virtue of Executive Order No. said petitioner was involved. such power was not intended to be limited to the Immigration Commissioner as Sec.. deportation. pursuant to Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code. in violation of the Central Bank regulations. welfare and interest of the State. and repatriation therefrom. This Act is in substitution for and supersedes all previous laws relating to the entry of aliens into the Philippines. In such case the person concerned shall be informed of the charge or charges against him and he shall be allowed not less than these days for the preparation of his defense. 1 SEC. which is tantamount to economic sabotage." . 69 of the Administrative Code 2. –YES. By order of the President. o The court also sustained the power of the deportation Board to issue warrant of arrest and fix bonds for the alien's temporary release pending investigation on the theory that the power to arrest and fix the amount of the bond of the arrested alien is essential to and complement the power to deport aliens. or excluded from said Islands or repatriated to his own country by the President of the Philippines except upon prior investigation. — A subject of a foreign power residing in the Philippines shall not be deported. upon recommendation by the Board of Commissioners.Section 69 of Act No. 613. 2711 (Revised Administrative Code) referred to above reads:. 613. While not expressly conferring such power. 33 dated May 29. 494. 5. the act of profiteering. conducted by said Executive or his authorized agent. This is clear from a reading of Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code which provides for a "prior investigation. is a ground for deportation under the provisions of Republic Act 503 amending Section 37 of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940. 9.S. By the Commissioner of Immigration." (Comm. and their exclusion. 613 expressly grants the Commissioner of Immigration the power to effect the arrest and expulsion of an alien. after due investigation. July 26. 1936. Although CA No. 1. conducted by said Executive (the President) or his authorized agent. And although the charges against Qua Chee Gan are not enumerated in CA No. expelled. under Section 37 of Commonwealth Act No. constituting a board to take action on complaints against foreigners. He shall also have the right to be heard by himself or counsel.

et al. It must be for this reason that President Roxas for the first time. saw it necessary to issue his Executive Order No. –YES. by a judge. However. 1 Art III of the Constitution: “. either by an executive or legislative officer or agency duly authorized for the purpose. WoN the authority to deport aliens includes the power to order the arrest of such aliens.. leading to an administrative investigation. 398 (President Quirino). to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. or to effect compliance of an order of contempt. expands the requirement — "to be determined by the judge" — to any public officer who may be authorized by the Legislature to make such determination. and make the corresponding recommendation. and thereafter issue the warrant of arrest. Hence. it is. the Deportation Board has been conducting the investigation as the authorized agent of the President. et al. However. unlike Commonwealth Act No. Since then. to make arrests. b. v. Rodriguez. would be a warrant of arrest to carry out a final order of deportation. that the Board was authorized motu proprio or upon the filing of formal charges by the Special Prosecutor of the Board. 69. Under EO No. The contention of the Solicitor General that the arrest of a foreigner is necessary to carry into effect the power of deportation is valid only when. 4. BUT only when there is already an ORDER OF DEPORTATION. Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code. 1. a. to conduct investigation pursuant to Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code and the rules and regulations therein provided. Such. among others.. therefore.no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause. 613 wherein the Commissioner of Immigration was specifically granted authority. to issue the warrant for the arrest of the alien complained of and to hold him under detention during the investigation unless he files a bond for his provisional release in such amount and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Chairman of the Board. it is required that the alien charged in deportation proceedings shall file a bond with the Commissioner of Immigration in order to secure their appearance. upon whose authority the President's power to deport is predicated. the same did not authorize the arrest of the alien pending investigation. under their provisions. Let it be noted that Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code. any public officer may be authorized by the Legislature to make such determination. The Constitution does not distinguish between warrants in a criminal case and administrative warrants in administrative proceedings. And. for example. Villamiel. even doubtful whether the arrest of an individual may be ordered by any authority other than the judge if the purpose is merely to determine the existence of a probable cause. the right of an individual to be secure in his person is guaranteed by Sec. Under the express terms of our Constitution. 69 2. does NOT provide for the exercise of the power to arrest. as then the warrant is not that mentioned in the Constitution which is issuable only on probable cause. fails to provide the President with like specific power to be exercised in connection with such investigation. It was in EO No. 3. and thereafter issue the warrant of arrest..” 6. Moreover. . if one suspected of having committed a crime is entitled to a determination of the probable cause against him. 7. 5.. a. President Quezon created the Deportation Board primarily to receive complaints against aliens charged to be undesirable. why should one suspected of a violation of an administrative nature deserve less guarantee? Of course it is different if the order of arrest is issued to carry out a final finding of a violation.

charged petitioner Hortencia Salazar (Salazar) with illegal recruitment for refusing to return her PECC Card. 3.and nothing herein said is intended to so decide — on whether or not the President himself can order the arrest of a foreigner for purposes of investigation only. the team served said Closure and Seizure order on a certain Mrs. that a bond be required to insure the appearance of the alien during the investigation. the President obviously has the power to order the arrest of the deportee. ACHACOSO J. during the investigation. But. to whom the complaint was assigned. it is not indispensable that the alien be arrested. in this proceeding .and nothing herein said is intended to so decide — on whether or not the President himself can order the arrest of a foreigner for purposes of investigation only. On 21 October 1987. the order of arrest issued by the respondent Deportation Board is declared null and void and the bonds filed pursuant to such order of arrest. SALAZAR V. Be that as it may. However. the team chanced upon twelve talent performers — practicing a dance number and saw about twenty more waiting outside. in a sworn statement filed with the POEA. On 26 January 1988. and before a definitive order of deportation has been issued. Administrator Tomas Achacoso issued an order for the closure of the agency and the seizure of documents and paraphernalia being used or intended to be used as the means of committing illegal recruitment. The contention of the Solicitor General that the arrest of a foreigner is necessary to carry into effect the power of deportation is valid only when. Flora Salazar who voluntarily allowed them entry into the premises. there is already an order of deportation. As a consequence. Rosalie Tesoro. Subsequently. Salazar wrote a letter to the POEA requesting the return of the . 398. decreed cancelled. there is already an order of deportation. having ascertained that Salazar had no license to operate a recruitment agency. Flora Salazar informed the team that Hannalie Dance Studio was accredited with Moreman Development (Phil. it is not indispensable that the alien be arrested. The team confiscated assorted costumes which were duly receipted for by Mrs. she was unable to produce any. To carry out the order of deportation. series of 1951. directed Salazar to appear in connection with the case filed. certainly. Atty. It is enough. TOPIC: validity of the power of the Secretary of Labor to issue warrants of arrest and seizure under Article 38 of the Labor Code. 7. The POEA brought a team to the premises of Salazar to implement the order. and before a definitive order of deportation has been issued. as was true before the executive order of President Quirino. that a bond be required to insure the appearance of the alien during the investigation. in this proceeding .). when required to show credentials. is declared illegal. SARMIENTO FACTS: 1. certainly. On 28 January 1988. Before entering the place. Asuncion Maguelan and witnessed by Mrs. as already stated. it is not imperative for us to rule. Inside the studio. insofar as it empowers the Deportation Board to issue warrant of arrest upon the filing of formal charges against an alien or aliens and to fix bond and prescribe the conditions for the temporary release of said aliens. 6. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING. But. as was authorized in the executive order of President Roxas. On 3 November 1987. Flora Salazar. prohibiting illegal recruitment. Executive Order No. the order was implemented. 8. 4. it is not imperative for us to rule. There it was found that petitioner was operating Hannalie Dance Studio. To carry out the order of deportation. 5. Ferdinand Marquez. It is enough. as was true before the executive order of President Quirino. the President obviously has the power to order the arrest of the deportee. Mrs. during the investigation. Be that as it may. as was authorized in the executive order of President Roxas. 2. as already stated.

a. which is subject to review by the DENR. However. a. may no longer issue these warrants. Based on law and jurisprudence. a. Unlike the 1973 Constitution which allowed “such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law” to issue these warrants. Section 2. as earlier explained. whom the President or the Commissioner of Immigration may order arrested. Lastly. is not the same power devolved in favor of the LGU under Sec. 3. search as well as the seizure of the personal properties belonging to P were without her consent and were done with unreasonable force and intimidation. and constitute robbery and violation of domicile under Arts. 4. Salazar filed this petition. For the guidance of the bench and the bar. 5. the office of the mayor has quasi-judicial powers to order the closing and demolition of establishments. and no other. Under Article III. WHEREFORE. Before the letter could be answered. following a final order of deportation. costumes on the ground that the order violated due process of law and that it violated the right of persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. of the l987 Constitution. 17 (b)(2)(ii). 2. as above-quoted. 38 (c) of the Labor Code which grants the Minister of Labor the power to issue warrants of search and arrest is unconstitutional and is of no force and effect because the Secretary of Labor. the warrants are also invalid for being in the nature of general warrants as the description of the --articles sought to be seized cannot be characterized differently the seizure of the documents and paraphernalia being used or intended to be used as the means of committing illegal recruitment. MAY THE POEA VALIDLY ISSUE SEARCH WARRANTS OR WARRANTS OF ARREST UNDER ART. The 1987 Constitution clearly states that it is only a judge who may issue warrants of search and arrest. the petition is GRANTED. together with grave abuse of the color of authority. 38 OF THE LABOR CODE – NO. Petition granted 1. VELASCO. not being a judge. paragraph (c) of the Labor Code is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and null and void. 293 and 128 of the Revised Penal Code 8. MUNICIPALITY OF MALAY J. b. for the purpose of deportation. AQUINO V. the 1987 Constitution has eliminated this phrase which makes it clear that these other persons are constitutionally proscribed from exercising this power. This is valid because of the recognized supremacy of the Executive in matters involving foreign affairs. this power is exceptional and cannot be made to extend to other cases. Hence. The exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens. JR. The only exception to the general rule that only a judge may issue warrants of arrest is the power of the President to order the arrest of aliens for deportation. Article 38. 1205. This power granted by the LGC. the authorities must go through the judicial process. we reaffirm the following principles: 1. and and the entry. it is only judges. Art. who may issue warrants of arrest and search: 2. The respondents are ORDERED to return all materials seized as a result of the implementation of Search and Seizure Order No. The fact that the building to be .

contended that the FLAgT does not excuse the company from complying with the Ordinance and Presidential Decree No. In establishing a no build zone through local legislation. that the hotel is a grantee of FLAGt. otherwise known as the National Building Code of the Philippines. 2. the proper remedy for Crisostomo was to file a petition for declaratory relief with the Regional Trial Court. Petitioner is the president and chief executive officer of Boracay Island West Cove Management Philippines. 4. given the hundred million peso-worth of capital infused in the venture.. Rather than treating this as an environmental issue then. that judicial proceedings are first necessary before the hotel may be closed and demolished. Meanwhile. Boracay West Cove filed a petition for Certiorari with prayer for injunctive relief with the Court of Appeals which denied the petition 6. the area’s exposure to potential geo- . 1096 (PD 1096). The Municipal Zoning Administrator denied petitioner’s application on the ground that the proposed construction site was within the “no build zone”. 5. holding that the exercise of the power of the mayor was not done as a quasi-judicial function.demolished is located within a forestland under the administration of the DENR is of no moment. (Boracay West Cove). expansion. Petitioner appealed to the Office of the Mayor but no action was ever taken by the mayor. is not an issue on environmental protection. but the legality or illegality of the structure. CA: dismissed the petition for certiorari. enjoining the expansion of the resort and ordering the closure and demolition of Boracay West Cove’s hotel. Contention of the Mayor: The demolition needed no court order because the municipal mayor has the express power under the Local Government Code (LGC) to order the removal of illegally constructed buildings. hence not correctible by certiorari. strictly speaking. Aklan should have first secured a court order before proceeding with the demolition. without first securing exemptions from the local council. Contentions of West Cove:1) The hotel cannot summarily be abated because it is not a nuisance per se. alleging that the demolition of the hotel was beyond the municipal mayor’s powers WON JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SHOULD FIRST BE CONDUCTED BEFORE THE LGU CAN ORDER THE CLOSURE AND DEMOLITION OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION? 1. Inc. The ever present threat of high rising storm surges also justifies the ban on permanent constructions near the shoreline. the LGU effectively made a determination that constructions therein. 8.2) Malay. petitioner continued wi th the construction. 2. A Cease and Desist Order was issued by the municipal government. for what is involved herein. and operation of the resort hotel. 3) that the order was issued with grave abuse of discretion. 3. that the area is a forestland thus the DENR had jurisdiction over it 7. Indeed. No build zones are intended for the protection of the public because the stability of the ground’s foundation is adversely affected by the nearby body of water. NO. qualify as nuisances for they pose a threat to public safety. Boracay West Cove applied for a zoning compliance seeking for issuance of building permit covering the construction of a three-storey hotel over a parcel of land which is under the Forest Land Use Agreement for Tourism Purposes (FLAgT) issued by the DENR. and the maintenance of ecological balance. conservation of natural resources. Crisostomo elevated his case to the Supreme Court. FACTS: 1. focus should not be diverted from the root cause of this debacle compliance.

Citing Asilo. The hotel. Under existing laws. Jr. Instead of taking the law into his own hands. petitioner posits that the hotel cannot summarily be abated because it is not a nuisance per se. in any way. had it not been constructed inthe no build zone. for such writ may be issued to compel action in those matters. it cannot compel such discretion to be exercised in a particular way. Despite the hotel’s classification as a nuisance per accidens. Boracay West Cove could have secured the necessary permits without issue. which is a nuisance at all times and under any circumstances. which empowered the mayor to order the closure and removal of illegally constructed establishments for failing to secure the necessary permits. 7. Pertinent herein is Sec. Here. had it not been constructed in the no build zone. or structure. property rights of individuals may be subjected to restraints and burdens in order to fulfill the objectives of the government. it is merely the hotel’s particular incident––its location––and not its inherent qualities that rendered it a nuisance. Whether or not the decision would be for or against petitioner would be for the respondent mayor to decide. On the contrary. As such. The illegality of the construction cannot be cured by merely tendering payment for the necessary fees and permits since the LGU’s refusal rests on valid grounds. in itself. in the exercise of police power and the general welfare clause. What would have been important was for the respondent mayor to . to issue demolition orders. when refused. it h as also been endowed with authority to hear issues involving property rights of individuals and to come out with an effective order or resolution thereon. Otherwise stated. Petitioner cannot justify his position by passing the blame onto the respondent mayor and the latter’s failure to act on his appeal for this does not. a petition for mandamus to compel the respondent mayor to exercise discretion and resolve the controversy pending before his office. People. the LGU may nevertheless properly order the hotel’s demolition. Moreover. hazards cannot be ignored and ample protection to the residents of Malay. 4. cannot be considered as a nuisance per se since this type of nuisance is generally defined as an act. even if the hotel is not a nuisance per se. Boracay West Cove could have secured the necessary permits without issue. given the hundred million peso-worth of capital infused in the venture. v. the Local Government Code authorizes city and municipal governments. Challenging the validity of the public respondents’ actuations. a. the office of the mayor is given powers not only relative to its function as the executive official of the town. Otherwise stated. as an alternative. for while mandamus may be invoked to compel the exercise of discretion. imply that petitioner can proceed with his infrastructure projects. petitioner could have filed. 5. There is indeed an exception to the rule that matters involving judgment and discretion are beyond the reach of a writ of mandamus. LGUs have no power to declare a particular thing as a nuisance unless such a thing is a nuisance per se. petitioner also argues that respondents should have first secured a court order before proceeding with the demolition. 444 (b)(3)(vi) of the LGC. its location and notits inherent qualities that rendered it a nuisance. Aklan should be afforded. 6. it is merely the hotel’s particular incident. acting through their local chief executives. Here. Generally. regardlessof location or surrounding. This is because. occupation. 3. however. The property involved cannot be classified as a nuisance per se which can therefore be summarily abated. this only means that the decision of the zoning administrator denying the application still stands and that petitioner acquired no right to construct on the no build zone. it is still a nuisance per accidens.

“In the case at bench. the due process requirement is deemed to have been sufficiently complied with. First. requiring Boracay West Cove to comply with the zoning ordinance and yet it failed to do so. which is Boracay West Cove's non-compliance with the permit. copies of the Cease and Desist Order issued by the LGU and of the assailed EO 10 itself were never attached to the petition before this Court. as abovequoted. the assailed EO 10 states that petitioner received notices from the municipality government on March 7 and 28. a court order that is required under normal circumstances is hereby dispensed with. 444 (b)(3)(vi) of the LGC. basic is the rule that public officers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. 12. 9. as quoted by petitioner in his petition before the CA. We believe. It just so happened that. the hotel’s incident that qualified it as a nuisance per accidens––its being constructed within the no build zone––further resulted in the non-issuance of the necessary permits and clearances.” 10. as earlier explained. Additionally. Hence. the grace period can be deemed observed and the establishment was already ripe for closure and demolition by the time EO 10 was issued in June. the only grounds invoked by petitioner in crying due process violation are (1) the absence of a court order prior to demolition and (2) the municipal government’s exercise of jurisdiction over the controversy instead of the DENR.” 8. The burden is on the petitioner herein to prove that Boracay West Cove was deprived of the opportunity to be heard before EO 10 was issued. Second. it can no longer be belatedly argued that the 10-day grace period was not observed because to entertain the same would result in the violation of the respondents’ own due process rights. Given the presence of the requirements under Sec. As correctly pointed out by respondents. 301 of the National Building Code. immediately resolve the case for petitioner to be able to go through the motions that the zoning clearance application process entailed. Based on law and jurisprudence. which is a ground for demolition under the LGC. Regrettably. The fact that the building to be demolished is located within a forestland under . Verily. 2011. Under the premises. Therefore. which is subject to review by the DENR. the observance of the 10-day allowance for the owner to demolish the hotel was never questioned by petitioner so there is no need to discuss the same. The hotel was demolished not exactly because it is a nuisance but because it failed to comply with the legal requirements prior to construction. and zoning requirements for building constructions under national and municipal laws. in the case at bar. the presumption of regularity must be sustained.1âwphi1 This power granted by the LGC. whether the building constituted a nuisance per se or a nuisance per accidens becomes immaterial. Third. In view of this fact. is not the same power devolved in favor of the LGU under Sec. the agreement cannot and will not amend or change the law because a legislative act cannot be altered by mere contractual agreement. petitioner is skirting the principal issue. In alleging that the case concernsthe development and the proper use of the country’s environment and natural resources. petitioner has no valid reason for its failure to secure a building permit pursuant to Sec. clearance. If such was the case. 11. He attempts to blow the issue out of proportion when it all boils down to whether or not the construction of the three-storey hotel was supported by the necessary documentary requirements. the office of the mayor has quasijudicial powers to order the closing and demolition of establishments. 17 (b )(2)(ii). the FLAgT does not excuse petitioner from complying with PD 1096. He downplays Boracay West Cove's omission in a bid to justify ousting the LGU of jurisdiction over the case and transferring the same to the DENR. which documents could have readily shed light on whether or not petitioner has been accorded the 10-day grace period provided in Section 10 of the Ordinance.

The rationale is to facilitate the transformation of these societies into civility. solely because he escaped from the reservation. 120042 dated August 13. 2014.R. extends over an area of 800 hectares of land. This was approved by the Secretary of Interior. alleging that by virtue of the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro creating the reservation. by virtue of the interest of law and order. FINES AND PENALTIES U. There was a Bureau of non-Christian Tribes under the Organic Law. they had been illegally deprived of their liberty. respectively. WHEREFORE. 2013 and February 3. An application for habeas corpus was made on behalf of Rubi and other Manguianes of the province.S. These reservations. which is approximately 2000 acres. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO J. The Decision and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. TRACEY FACTS: JUDICIAL DETERMINATION AND STANDARDS RUBI ET AL. By virtue of such laws. escaped from the reservation and was taken in hand by the provincial sheriff and placed in prison at Calapan. segregation of uncivilised/non-Christian Tribes to be approved by the Secretary of Interior. The Manguianes are a Non-Christian tribe with a very low culture. Dabalos. the Provincial Board of Mindoro adopted resolution No. on which about 300 Manguianes are confined. as appears from the resolution of the Provincial Board. strictly speaking. conservation of natural resources. Manguianes had been ordered to live in a reservation made to that end and for purposes of cultivation under certain plans. The same segregation was espoused under the American Administration. In this . is not an issue on environmental protection. focus should not be diverted from the root cause of this debacle-compliance. for what is involved herein. and the maintenance of ecological balance. particularly the Administrative Code of 1917 allowed provincial boards to determine. One of the Manguianes. MALCOLM FACTS: Since “time immemorial” (Spanish regime). the administration of the DENR is of no moment. 25 which designated 800 hectares of the sitio of Tigbao as the permanent settlement of the Mangyanes in Mindoro. or be punished by imprisonment if they escaped. V. are hereby AFFIRMED. but the legality or illegality of the structure. and even under statute. BARRIAS J. the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. in view of the foregoing. SP No. V.1âwphi1 Rather than treating this as an environmental issue then. The resolution was with a penal clause that refusal of compliance will entail imprisonment not more than 60-days in accordance with section 2759 of the revised Administrative Code Rubi and various other Manguianes in the province of Mindoro were ordered by the provincial governor of Mindoro to remove their residence from their native habitat and to established themselves on a reservation at Tigbao in the province of Mindoro and to remain there. there has been a segregation of “non-Christian Tribes” in the Philippines.

members of other faiths who live like they do are not part of these non-Christians) ISSUE: Was there undue delegation of legislative power to the provincial authorities in the creation of these reservations? RULING: No. when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order. to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law? . to direct such inhabitants to take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands to be selected by him and approved by the provincial board”.case the validity of section 2145 of the Administrative Code. and actually has nothing to do with religious affiliation (since by their classification. Americans consider their lifestyle as uncivilised and barbaric. were ordered to take up their habitation on the site of Tigbao. In that case.” was challenged. the provincial governor of Mindoro issued executive order No. 2. The provincial board of Mindoro adopted resolution No. and to introduce civilized customs among them. Thereafter. (one of them even escaped from the reservation and is being held in custody by the provincial sheriff) It is important to understand that the Manguianes are semi-nomadic in nature. The two-fold distinction is this: (1) is it delegation to make the law. applied for a writ of habeas corpus for being illegally deprived of their liberty by provincial officials as they are being held on the reservation in Tigbao against their will. Naujan Lake. 25 which states that “provincial governor of any province in which non-Christian inhabitants (uncivilized tribes) are found is authorized. or is it (2) conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution. to direct such inhabitants to take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands to be selected by him and approved by the provincial board. when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order. in accordance with section 2759 of the revised Administrative Code. The Spanish. It is resolved that under section 2077 of the Administrative Code. Mangyans may only solicit homesteads on this reservation providing that said homestead applications are previously recommended by the provincial governor. all the Mangyans in the townships of Naujan and Pola and the Mangyans east of the Baco River including those in the districts of Dulangan and Rubi's place in Calapan. that any Mangyan who shall refuse to comply with this order shall upon conviction be imprisoned not exceed in sixty days. Said resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro were claimed as necessary measures for the protection of the Mangyanes of Mindoro as well as the protection of public forests in which they roam. Further. there is no unlawful delegation of legislative power by the Philippine Legislature to provincial officials and a department head. pursuant to Section 2145 of the Revised Administrative Code. et al. which includes the discretion on what it shall be. It appeared that Rubi and those living in his rancheria have not fixed their dwelling within the reservation of Tigbao and are liable to be punished. reading: “With the prior approval of the Department Head. the provincial governor of any province in which non- Christian inhabitants are found is authorized. Rubi. 800 hectares of public land in the sitio of Tigbao on Naujan Lake be selected as a site for the permanent settlement of Mangyanes in Mindoro. Also. which says that the provincial governor has selected a site in the sitio of Tigbao on Naujan Lake for the permanent settlement of Mangyanes in Mindoro. and are one of the tribes that practise caiñgin.

On the other hand. . with the consequent progress of the general prosperity. in the promotion of the general welfare and the public interest. the Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of this section of the Administrative Code. And it is unnecessary to add that the prompt registration of titles to land in the Philippines constitutes an advancement of the public interests. the law seems to be reasonable. The Supreme Court held that the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro was neither discriminatory nor class legislation. but in a way to geographical area. e) Whether or not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 is a valid exercise of police power.Malcolm felt that the authority given to provincial boards falls under the second. b) Whether or not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 is unconstitutional on the ground of religious discrimination. . there exists a law. one cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered with when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is considered. d) Whether or not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 is unconstitutional on the ground that it constituted slavery and involuntary servitude. to delegate legislative powers to local authorities. is that the central legislative body is allowed. Among other things. it helps increase the industries of the country. the law was found to be a legitimate exertion of the police power. Nor can one say that due process of law has not been followed. By a vote of five to four. insistent. the right to exercise that most essential. but that it was intended to relate to degrees of civilization.” This is under the presumption that they know their territory and their constituents the best. and illimitable of powers.” ISSUES: Whether or not the petition should be granted. The provincial governor and the provincial board. The term “non-Christian” it was said. c) Whether or not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 is unconstitutional on the ground that it denied liberty without due process of law and equal protection of the laws. acting through its Legislature. the sovereign police power. Another exception to the general rule. And these ends are pursued in a special manner by the State through the exercise of its police power. as official representatives of the province are better qualified to judge “when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order. and stated among other things: “. for. To go back to our definition of due process of law and equal protection of the laws. none of the provisions of the Philippine Organic Law could have had the effect of denying to the Government of the Philippine Islands. when to advance the public welfare. since time immemorial. it is enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed. a) Whether or not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 is unconstitutional on the ground of invalid delegation of legislative power. and it applies alike to all of a class. and more directly to natives of the Philippine Islands of a low grade of civilization. They are restrained for their own good and the general good of the Philippines. . besides promoting peace and good order among landowners in particular and the people in general. it was held that the term “non-Christian” should not be given a literal meaning or a religious signification. and makes for the development of the natural resources. refers not to religious belief. which is allowable under the rule on non-delegation of powers.

assigned as reasons fort the action. (4) the protection of the public forests in which they roam. Nor can one say that due process of law has not been followed. It is. b) Since the term "non-Christian" is construed to refer to the natives with a low grade of civilization. They are restrained for their own good and the general good the Philippines.HELD: a) Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 is a valid delegation of legislative power by the Legislature. hence constitutional. constitutional. The Court is further of the opinion that section 2145 of the Administrative Code is a legitimate exertion of the police power. upon the provincial governor with the approval of the provincial board and the department head. (3) The protection of the Manguianes. it is enforced according to the regular methods of procedure and it applies to all. But a great malady requires an equally drastic remedy. None of the rights of the citizen can be taken away except by due process of law. Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 does not discriminate between individuals on account of religious differences and is therefore constitutional. (5) the necessity of introducing civilized customs among the Manguianes. to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. it will be read. a judicial proceeding is not always necessary. Considered purely as an exercise of the police power. d) Confinement in reservations in accordance with the said law does not constitute slavery and involuntary servitude. somewhat analogous to the Indian policy of the United States. Neither it violated due process and equal protection of the laws since the law is reasonable. discretionary authority as to its execution. They are restrained for their own good and the general good of the Philippines. The Legislature merely conferred. indeed. In some instances. c) Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 does not unduly interfere liberty of the citizen when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is concerned. Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional. and that confinement in reservations in accordance with said section does not constitute slavery and involuntary servitude. the courts cannot fairly say that the Legislature has exceeded its rightful authority. even a hearing and notice are not requisite a rule which is especially true where much must be left to the discretion of the administrative officers in applying a law to particular cases. . The preamble of the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro which set apart the Tigbao reservation. and (2) the only successfully method for educating the Manguianes was to oblige them to live in a permanent settlement. The Court held that section 2145 of the Administrative Code does not deprive a person of his liberty without due process of law and does not deny to him the equal protection of the laws. e) It is a valid exercise of police power because its purpose is to provide them education and to improve their health and morals." as has been often held. Hence. To constitute "due process of law. the following: (1) The failure of former attempts for the advancement of the non-Christian people of the province. an unusual exercise of that power. The Solicitor-General adds the following. One cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered without when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is considered.

The public policy of the Government of the Philippine Islands is shaped with a view to benefit the Filipino people as a whole. commonly known as the Blue Sky Law. association or corporation a certificate or permit reciting that such person. Laurel FACTS: Jacob Rosenthal and Nicasio Osmeña were founders and shareholders of the O. partnership. as we have said. natural gas and other oil products.The idea of the provision in question is to unify the people of the Philippines so that they may approach the highest conception of nationality. on the other hand. not issue. o Section 2 of said law provides that every person. association. he shall issue to such person. The Manguianes. o Sec 5. partnership. petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty. ROSENTHAL & OSMENA En Banc Doctrine: Due process & equal protection. partnership. Therefore. Rosenthal & Osmena argued that Act 2581 is unconstitutional on three grounds: 1) That it constitutes undue delegation of legislative authority to the Insular treasurer 2) that it does not afford equal protection before the law 3) that it is vague and ambiguous . Oil Company. association or corporation has complied with the provisions of this act. that “said Treasurer shall furthermore have authority. The main objects and purposes of the company are to mine. 2581.O.” The shares are said to be speculative because their value materially depended upon a promise of future promotion and development of the oil business. for their own good and the good of the country. therefore. rather than on actual tangible assets.R. or corporation attempting to offer to sell in the Philippines speculative securities of any kind or character whatsoever. that any person. association or corporation. Rosenthal and Osmeña were found guilty by the RTC in two cases of selling their shares to individuals without first obtaining the corresponding written permit or license from the Insular Treasurer of the Commonwealth of the Philippines. provides that “whatever the said Treasurer of the Philippine Islands is satisfied. PEOPLE V. On appeal. partnership. 1939. partnership. to cancel said certificate or permit”. either with or without the examination herein provided. and that “an appeal from the decision of the Insular Treasurer may be had within the period of thirty days to the Secretary of Finance. This is in violation of Sections 2 & 5 of Act No. and that such person. in order to fulfill this governmental policy. must be confined for a time. is under obligation to file previously with the Insular Treasurer the various documents and papers enumerated therein and to pay the required tax of twenty- pesos. association or corporation is entitled to the right to offer its securities as above defined and provided for sale in the Philippine Islands. whenever in his judgment it is in the public interest. buy and sell petroleum. its brokers or agents are entitled to order the securities named in said certificate or permit for sale”. refine. Habeas corpus can. market.

and from the earliest time American legal authorities have proceeded on the theory that legislative power must be exercised by the legislative alone. to confess that as one delves into the mass of judicial pronouncements. we find the rule prohibiting delegation of legislative authority. of the principle of “subordinate legislation”. association or corporation applying therefor “has complied with the provisions of this Act”.partnership. he finds a great deal of confusion. WON the law is unconstitutional in any of the three grounds Held: The law is CONSTITUTIONAL on all grounds alleged by the appellants. the safest is to decide each case according to its peculiar environment. having in mind the wholesome legislative purpose intended to be achieved. within certain limits. Upon the other hand. and other like fraudulent exploitations”. distant gold mines. Hence. Ratio: · That it constitutes undue delegation of legislative authority to the Insular treasurer The Act furnishes a sufficient standard for the Treasurer to follow in reaching a decision regarding the issuance or cancellation of a certificate or permit. however. and this requirement. Act 2581 allows appeal from the decision of the Treasurer to the Sec of Finance. 2581 is unconstitutional is that it denies equal protection of the laws because the law discriminates . Hall v Geiger-Jones: it is well-settled principle of law in this state that by legislative act a commission or board may be empowered to ascertain the existence of facts. we hold that “public interest” in this case is a sufficient standard to guide the Insular Treasurer in reaching a decision on a matter pertaining to the issuance or cancellation of certificates or permits. construed in relation to the other provisions of the law. Thereby. it cannot be contended that the Treasurer can act and decide without any restraining influence. the “rule of law” was established which narrows the range of governmental action and makes it subject to control by certain legal devices. The certificate or permit to be issued under the Act must recite that the person . The theory of the separation of powers is designed by its originators to secure action and at the same time to forestall over action which necessarily results from undue concentration of powers. As a corollary. · That it does not afford equal protection before the law o Another ground relied upon by appellants in contending that Act No. and thereby obtain efficiency and prevent despotism. While courts have undertaken to laydown general principles. the authority of the Insular Treasurer to cancel a certificate or permit is expressly conditioned upon a finding that such cancellation “is in the public interest. The maxim “delegatus non potest delegare or delegata potestas non potest delegare” has beenmade to adapt itself to the complexities of modern governments. visionary oil wells. giving rise to the adoption. Difficulty lies in fixing the limit and extent of the authority. upon the finding of which may depend the right to continue in the practice of a profession or a regulated business. It is frankness.” In view of the intention and purpose of Act 2581 to protect the public against “speculative schemes which have no more basis than so many feet of blue sky” and against the “sale of stock infly-by-night concerns. means that a certificate or permit shall be issued by the Insular Treasurer when the provisions of Act 2581 have been complied with. in practically all modern governments.

Subsidiary imprisonment for both in case of insolvency. . Geiger-Jones Co: "Prominent among such discriminations are .” Judgement of lower court is affirmed. o In this connection we cannot pretermit reference to the rule that “legislation should not be held invalid on the ground of uncertainty if susceptible of any reasonable construction that will support and give it effect. between an owner who sells his securities in a single transaction and one who disposes of them in successive transactions. with modifications that the fines are reduced. . if men of common sense and reason can devise and provide the means. " If a class is deemed to present a conspicuous example of what the legislature seeks to prevent. An Act will be declared void and inoperative on the ground of vagueness and uncertainty only upon a showing that the defect is such that the courts are unable to determine. Osmena: from P1000 -> P500. and all the instrumentalities necessary for its execution are within the reach of those intrusted therewith. . . Rosenthal: from P500 -> P200 in each case. . from P2000 -> P1000. what the legislature intended. An Act will not be declared inoperative and ineffectual on the ground that it furnishes no adequate means to secure the purpose for which it is passed. o Hall vs. with any reasonable degree of certainty. and costs. the 14th Amendment allows it to be dealt with although otherwise and merely logically not distinguishable from others not embraced in the law · That it is vague and ambiguous o People vs. Fernandez and Trinidad.between an owner who sells his securities in a single transaction and one who disposes of them in repeated and successive transactions. .