Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MIDTERM REVIEWER
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Administrative Law
- belongs to the field of public law which includes constitutional law, criminal law, and international law
- no agreement as to the scope or bounds of the term
- in its widest sense: entire system of laws under which the machinery of the State works and by which the State performs all
government acts;
embrace all the laws that regulate or control the administrative organization and operations of the government including
the legislative and judicial branches
- broad definition: law which provides the structure of government and prescribes its procedure;
law which controls or is intended to control the administrative operations of the government or the law of governmental
administration
- less comprehensive sense: part of public law which fixes the organization and determines the competence of the
administrative authorities, and indicates to the individual, remedies for the violation of his rights
- narrower or more limited signification: administrative law has been defined as follows:
a. branch of modern law under which the executive department of government acting in a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial
capacity, interferes with the conduct of the individual for the purpose of promoting the well-being of the community
b. system of legal principles to settle the conflicting claims of executive and administrative authority on the one hand and of
individual or private rights on the other
c. law concerning the powers and procedures of administrative agencies including specially the law governing judicial review
of administrative sanction
- generally understood today: part of the law which governs the organization, functions, and procedures of administrative
agencies of the government to which (quasi) legislative powers are delegated and (quasi) judicial powers are granted, and
the extent and manner to which such agencies are subject to control by the courts
***Administrative authorities – all those public officers and organs (i.e. administrative agencies) of the government that are charged
with the amplification, application and execution of the law, but do not include, by virtue of the doctrine of separation of powers,
Congress and regular courts
Private Rights
- chief concern is protection of private rights
- subject matter: nature and mode of exercise of administrative power and system of relief against administrative action
1
Distinguished from International Law
- administrative law: lays down the rules which shall guide the officers of the administration in their actions as agents of the
government
- international law: cannot be regarded as binding upon the officers of any government considered in their relation to the
their own government except insofar as it has been adopted into the administrative law of the state
As to its source
- draws a line between the law that governs or controls them, and that which is made by administrative agencies
a. The law that controls administrative agencies
- i.e. constitution, statutes, judicial decisions, executive orders, administrative orders of administrative superiors
2
b. The law made by administrative authorities
- includes both general regulations and particular determinations
-constitutes an imposing and constantly expanding body of law
As to its purpose
- a. Adjective or procedural administrative law
- establishes the procedure which an agency must or may follow in the pursuit of its legal purpose
- derived from constitution or statute or agency regulations
b. Substantive administrative law
- derived from the same sources as procedural but its contents are different in that the law establishes primary rights and
duties
As to its applicability
- a. General administrative law
- part of administrative law which is of a general nature and common to all, or most, administrative agencies
- chiefly but not exclusively procedural law
b. Special or particular administrative law
- part of administrative law that pertains to particular agencies
- proceeds from the particular statute creating the individual agency
Role of courts
- accommodate the administrative process to the traditional judicial system
- accommodate private rights and the public interest in the powers reposed in administrative agencies
- reconcile in the field of administrative action, democratic safeguards and standards of fair play with the effective conduct of
government
3
Discharge of judicial role
- courts must aim to:
a. maintain constitution
b. give due deference to the role of administrative agencies
c. lend powers of the court to the proper attainment of the valid objectives of the administrative agency
d. leave to the legislature or the people the remedy for unwise or undesirable administrative action
As a function
- administration is the execution, in non-judicial matters, of the law or will of the State as expressed by the competent
authority
As an organization
- “the” administration means popularly the most important administrative authorities
Administration as an organization distinguished from government
- government: institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society makes and carries out those rules of
action which are necessary to enable men to live in a civilized state
- administration: aggregate of those persons in whose hands the reins of government are entrusted by the people for the
time being
Administrative Agency
- agency exercising some significant combination of executive, legislative, and judicial powers
- charged with administering and implementing particular legislation
4
Main characteristics of administrative agencies
Size
- reflects both their nationwide jurisdiction and the character of their work
Specialization
- staffs become specialized from experience or include person with technical or professional training
Responsibility for results
- particular agency charged by Congress with accomplishing a particular statutory end
Variety of administrative duties
- variety in the circumstances and conditions under which the activities of the various agencies impinge upon private
individuals
Consequence of characteristics
- the 4 characteristics contributes to a highly important characteristic of administrative procedure: delegation of function
and authority
**an administrative agency may fall under more than one type
Administrative Organization
- refers to administrative structure of the government including its political subdivisions and the allocation of powers,
functions, and duties to its various units or agencies
Traditional Branches
Legislative power
- vested in Congress consisting of Senate and House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the
constitutional provision on initiative and referendum
Executive power
- vested in the President
Judicial power
- vested in 1 Supreme court, and in such lower courts as may be established by law
5
Commission on Audit
Ombudsman
Commission on Human Rights
Organization of Departments
Department
- an executive department created by law
- includes any instrumentality having or assigned the rank of a department, regardless of its name or designation
Number, purpose, and decentralization
- executive branch shall have departments as are necessary for the functional distribution of the work and performance of
functions
- departments shall be organized and maintained
- bureaus and offices under each department shall be group primarily on the basis of major functions
- functions of different departments shall be decentralized
Department proper
- include the Office of the Secretary and staff units under it
- Office of the Secretary consist of Secretary and Undersecretary/ies
Department Services
Planning Service
- provide economical, efficient, and effective services relating to planning, programming, and project development
Financial and Management Service
- advise and assist the Secretary on budgetary, financial and management matters
Administrative Service
- provide economical, efficient and effective services relating to personnel legal assistance, information, records, supplies,
disbursement
6
Technical Service
- take chare of technical staff activities
Legal Service
- where operations involve legal work
Organization of Bureaus
Bureau
- any principal subdivision or unit of any department
- include principal subdivision or unit of any instrumentality given or assigned the rank of a bureau
- any principal subdivision of the department performing a single major function or closely related functions
Powers and Duties of heads of bureau
- head of bureau is chief executive officer
- exercise overall authority in matters within the jurisdiction of the bureau
- appoint personnel to all positions in his bureau
- may designate assistant head to act as chief of any division without additional compensation
- prescribe form and fix amount of all bonds executed by private parties to government
- prescribe forms and issue circulars or orders to secure efficient administration of his bureau
- issue orders regarding administration its internal affairs
Types:
Staff Bureau
- perform policy, program development and advisory functions
- Director of Staff Bureau shall:
a. advise and assist the Office of Secretary on matters pertaining to bureau
b. provide consultative and advisory services
c. develop plans, programs, operating standards for attainment of bureau’s function
d. such other duties
Line Bureau
- directly implement programs adopted pursuant to department policies and plans
- Director Line Bureau shall:
a. exercise supervision and control over all divisions and units
b. establish policies and standards for operations of bureau
c. promulgate rules and regulations to carry out objectives
d. such other duties
Administrative Relationship
7
d. determine priorities in execution of plans
e. prescribe standards, guidelines, programs
b. Administrative Supervision
- govern administrative relationship between department and regulatory agencies
a. oversee operations of such agencies and insure effective management
b. require submission of reports and cause the conduct of management audit
c. such action as necessary for proper performance of official functions
d. review or pass upon budget proposals of such agencies
c. Attachment
- lateral relationship between the department and the attached agency or corporation for purposes of policy and program
coordination
- matters of day-to-day administration or all those pertaining to internal operations shall be left to the discretion or judgment
of the executive officer of the agency or corporation
- GOCCs attached to a department shall submit to the secretary their audit financial statements within 60 days after close of
fiscal year
Delegation of authority
- Secretary or head of agency shall have authority and responsibility for its operation
- Delegate authority to bureau and regional directors as may be necessary
a. delegated authority shall be to extent necessary for economic, efficient, and effective implementation of national and
local programs in accordance with policy and standards of each department
b. delegation shall be in writing
c. vest sufficient authority to enable the delegate to discharge his assigned responsibility
8
Relationship of regulatory agencies to Department
- Regulatory Agency: any agency expressly vested with jurisdiction to regulate, administer or adjudicate matters affecting
substantial rights and interest of private persons, the principal powers of which are exercised by a collective body, such as
commission, board, or council;
Shall be subject to administrative supervision of the department under which they are placed;
Heads shall annually submit their budget for approval of Secretary;
May avail themselves of the common auxiliary and management services of department
IN GENERAL
Function
- that which one is bound or which it is one’s business to do
Power
9
- refer to means by which a function is fulfilled
Source of Powers
- provision in Constitution
- statutes under which they claim to act
Scope of Powers
Express and implied powers
- jurisdiction and powers of administrative agencies are measure and limited by the constitution or the law creating them
- statutes conferring powers must be liberally construed to enable agencies to discharge their assigned duties in accordance
with the legislative purpose
- Rule: agency has only such powers as are expressly granted to it by law, but has also such powers as are necessarily implied
in the exercise of its express powers
Inherent powers
- no inherent powers
Quasi-judicial powers
- unless expressly empowered, agencies are bereft of quasi-judicial powers
- the extent to which an administrative entity may exercise given judicial powers depends largely on the provisions of the
statute creating or empowering such agency
- have presumption that they are regularly performed their official functions including quasi-judicial in nature
Nature of powers
Jurisdiction Limited
- general rule: jurisdiction of administrative officers and agencies are special and limited
- possess only such powers and authority specifically conferred upon them by the constitution or enabling statutes
10
- Ministerial Act: performed in response to a duty which has been positively imposed by law and its performance
required at a time and in a manner or upon conditions specifically designated, the duty to perform under the
conditions specified not being dependent upon the officer’s judgment or discretion
Investigatory Powers
- include the power to inspect records and premises, and investigate the activities of persons and entities coming under its
jurisdiction, or require disclosure of information
- power to investigate, initiate action, and control the range of investigation
- power is limited to investigation facts and making findings in respect thereto
- Test to determine whether exercising investigatory power or judicial power:
If the only purpose for investigation is to evaluate evidence submitted before it based on the facts and circumstances
presented to it, and if the agency is not authorized to make a final pronouncement affecting the parties, then there is an
absence of judicial discretion and judgment
Scope and Extent of Powers
- initiation of investigation
either on a complaint or on its own motion
- conduct of investigation
usually held in private
- inspection and examination
- requirements as to accounts, records, reports or statements
- requiring attendance of witnesses, giving of testimony, and production of evidence
agency may not itself be empowered to compel attendance of witnesses, but compulsion must be exerted through judicial
process
- hearing
- contempt proceedings
- application of technical rules of procedure and evidence
CASE PRINCIPLES:
BACANI VS NACOCO
“The term ‘Government of the Republic of the Philippines’ used in section 2 of the Revised Administrative Code refers only to that
government entity through which the functions of the government are exercised as an attribute of sovereignty, and in this are
included those arms through which political authority is made effective whether they be provincial, municipal or other form of local
government. These are what we call municipal corporations. They do not include government entities which are given a corporate
personality separate and distinct from the government and which are governed by the Corporation Law. Their powers, duties and
liabilities have to be determined in the light of that law and of their corporate charters. They do not therefore come within the
exemption clause prescribed in section 16, Rule 130 of our Rules of Court.”
“While it (NACOCO) was organized with the purpose of ‘adjusting the coconut industry to a position independent of trade
preferences in the United States’ and of providing ‘facilities for the better curing of copra products and the proper utilization of
coconut by-products’, a function which our government has chosen to exercise to promote the coconut industry, however, it was
given a corporate power separate and distinct from our government, for it was made subject to the provisions of our Corporation
Law in so far as its corporate existence and the powers that it may exercise are concerned (sections 2 and 4, Commonwealth Act No.
518). It may sue and be sued in the same manner as any other private corporations, and in this sense it is an entity different from our
11
government. As this Court has aptly said, ‘The mere fact that the Government happens to be a majority stockholder does not make it
a public corporation.’
OPLE VS TORRES
Congress is vested with the power to enact laws, while the President executes the laws. The President’s administrative power is
concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental organs. An “administrative
order” refers to “[a]cts of the President which relate to particular aspects of governmental operation in pursuance of his duties as
administrative head shall be promulgated in administrative orders.” 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.
A.O. No. 308 establishes for the first time a National Computerized Identification Reference System. It does not simply implement the
Administrative Code of 1987. This administrative order redefines the parameters of some basic rights of the citizenry vis-a-vis the
State, as well as the line that separates the administrative power of the President to make rules and the legislative power of
Congress. It deals with a subject that should be covered by law.
EDU VS ERICTA
It is a fundamental principle flowing from the doctrine of separation of powers that Congress may not delegate its legislative power
to the two other branches of the government, subject to the exception that local governments may over local affairs participate in its
exercise. What cannot be delegated is the authority under the Constitution to make laws and to alter and repeal them; the test is the
completeness of the statute in all its term and provisions when it leaves the hands of the legislature. To determine whether or not
there is an undue delegation of legislative power the inquiry must be directed to the scope and definiteness of the measure enacted.
The legislature does not abdicate its functions when it describes what job must be done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of his
authority.
This is to adhere to the recognition given expression by Justice Laurel in a decision announced not long after the Constitution came
into force and effect that the principle of non-delegation "has been made to adapt itself the complexities of modern governments,
giving rise to the adoption, within certain limits, of the principle of "subordinate legislation" not only in the United States and
England but in practically all modern governments." 44 He continued: "Accordingly, with the growing complexity of modern life, the
multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulation, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a constantly
growing tendency toward the delegation of greater powers by the legislature and toward the approval of the practice by the
courts." 45 Consistency with the conceptual approach requires the reminder that what is delegated is authority non-legislative in
character, the completeness of the statute when it leaves the hands of Congress being assumed
CASE PRINCIPLES:
CIA. GRAL. DE TABACOS VS BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY
The statute which authorizes a Board of Public Utility Commissioners to require detailed reports from public utilities, leaving the
nature of the report, the contents thereof, the general lines which it shall follow, the principle upon which it shall proceed, indeed, all
other matters whatsoever, to the exclusive discretion of the board. It would seem that the Legislature, by the provision in question,
delegated to the Board of Public Utility Commissioners all of its powers over a given subject-matter in a manner almost absolute, and
without laying down a rule or even making a suggestion by which that power is to be directed, guided or applied.
12
The true distinction is between the delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what shall be,
and conferring authority or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be
done; to the latter no valid objection can be made.
The Supreme Court held that there was no delegation of legislative power, it said:
The Congress may not delegate its purely legislative powers to a commission, but, having laid down the general rules of
action under which a commission shall proceed, it may require of that commission the application of such rules to particular
situations and the investigation of facts, with a view to making orders in a particular matter within the rules laid down by
the Congress.
PEOPLE VS VERA
There is undue delegation of power because there is no set standard provided by Congress on how provincial boards must act in
carrying out a system of probation. The provincial boards are given absolute discretion which is violative of the constitution and the
doctrine of the non delegability of power. Further, it is a violation of equity so protected by the constitution. The challenged section
of Act No. 4221 in section 11 which reads as follows: This Act shall apply only in those provinces in which the respective provincial
boards have provided for the salary of a probation officer at rates not lower than those now provided for provincial fiscals. Said
probation officer shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice and shall be subject to the direction of the Probation Office. This only
means that only provinces that can provide appropriation for a probation officer may have a system of probation within their
locality. This would mean to say that convicts in provinces where no probation officer is instituted may not avail of their right to
probation. The SC declared the old probation law as unconstitutional.
CALALANG VS WILLIAMS
There is no undue deleagation of legislative power. Commonwealth Act 548 does not confer legislative powers to the Director of
Public Works. The authority conferred upon them and under which they promulgated the rules and regulations now complained of is
not to determine what public policy demands but merely to carry out the legislative policy laid down by the National Assembly in
said Act, to wit, “to promote safe transit upon and avoid obstructions on, roads and streets designated as national roads by acts of
the National Assembly or by executive orders of the President of the Philippines” and to close them temporarily to any or all classes
of traffic “whenever the condition of the road or the traffic makes such action necessary or advisable in the public convenience and
interest.”
The delegated power, if at all, therefore, is not the determination of what the law shall be, but merely the ascertainment of the facts
and circumstances upon which the application of said law is to be predicated.
To promulgate rules and regulations on the use of national roads and to determine when and how long a national road should be
closed to traffic, in view of the condition of the road or the traffic thereon and the requirements of public convenience and interest,
is an administrative function which cannot be directly discharged by the National Assembly.
13
It must depend on the discretion of some other government official to whom is confided the duty of determining whether the proper
occasion exists for executing the law. But it cannot be said that the exercise of such discretion is the making of the law.
CERVANTES VS AUDITOR-GENERAL
The rule is that so long as the Legislature "lays down a policy and a standard is established by the statute" there is no undue
delegation. Republic Act No. 51 in authorizing the President of the Philippines, among others, to make reforms and changes in
government-controlled corporations, lays down a standard and policy that the purpose shall be to meet the exigencies attendant
upon the establishment of the free and independent government of the Philippines and to promote simplicity, economy and
efficiency in their operations. The standard was set and the policy fixed. The President had to carry the mandate. This he did by
promulgating the executive order in question which, tested by the rule above cited, does not constitute an undue delegation of
legislative power.
LOVINA VS MORENO
The objections of the appellees to the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 2056, not only as an undue delegation of judicial power to
the Secretary of Public Works but also for being unreasonable and arbitrary, are not tenable. It will be noted that R.A. 2056 merely
empowers the Secretary to remove unauthorized obstructions or encroachments upon public streams, constructions that no private
person was anyway entitled to make, because the bed of navigable streams is public property, and ownership thereof is not
acquirable by adverse possession
It is true that the exercise of the Secretary's power under the Act necessarily involves the determination of some questions of fact,
such as the existence of the stream and its previous navigable character; but these functions, whether judicial or quasi-judicial, are
merely incidental to the exercise of the power granted by law to clear navigable streams of unauthorized obstructions or
encroachments, and authorities are clear that they are, validly conferable upon executive officials provided the party affected is given
opportunity to be heard, as is expressly required by Republic Act No. 2056, section 2.
It thus appears that the delegation by Congress to executive or administrative agencies of functions of judicial, or at least, quasi-
judicial functions is incidental to the exercise by such agencies of their executive or administrative powers, is not in violation of the
Separation of Powers so far as that principle is recognized by the Federal Constitution nor is it in violation of due process of law.
The mere fact that an officer is required by law to inquire the existence of certain facts and to apply the law thereto in order to
determine what his official conduct shall be and the fact that these acts may affect private, rights do not constitute an exercise of
judicial powers. Accordingly, a statute may give to non-judicial officers the power to declare the existence of facts which call into
operation its provisions, and similarly may grant to commissioners and other subordinate officer, power to ascertain and determine
appropriate facts as a basis for procedure in the enforcement of particular laws
14
SEPARATION OF POWERS
CASE PRINCIPLES:
MERALCO VS PASAY TRANSPORT CO
The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands represents one of the three divisions of power in our government. It is judicial power
and judicial power only which is exercised by the Supreme Court. Just as the Supreme Court, as the guardian of constitutional rights,
should not sanction usurpations by any other department of the government, so should it as strictly confine its own sphere of
influence to the powers expressly or by implication conferred on it by the Organic Act. The Supreme Court and its members should
not and cannot be required to exercise any power or to perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with
the administering of judicial functions.
The Organic Act provides that the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands shall possess and exercise jurisdiction as heretofore
provided and such additional jurisdiction as shall hereafter be prescribed by law (sec. 26). When the Organic Act speaks of the
exercise of "jurisdiction" by the Supreme Court, it could not only mean the exercise of "jurisdiction" by the Supreme Court acting as a
court, and could hardly mean the exercise of "jurisdiction" by the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators.
There is an important distinction between the Supreme Court as an entity and the members of the Supreme Court. A board of
arbitrators is not a "court" in any proper sense of the term, and possesses none of the jurisdiction which the Organic Act
contemplates shall be exercised by the Supreme Court.
Confirming the decision to the basic question at issue, the Supreme Court holds that section 11 of Act No. 1446 contravenes the
maxims which guide the operation of a democratic government constitutionally established, and that it would be improper and
illegal for the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, the decision of a majority of whom shall be final, to
act on the petition of the Manila Electric Company. As a result, the members of the Supreme Court decline to proceed further in the
matter.
NOBLEJAS VS TEEHANKEE
whether the Commissioner of Land Registration may only be investigated by the Supreme Court, in view of the conferment upon him
by the Statutes of the rank and privileges of a Judge of the Court of First Instance.
But the more fundamental objection to the stand of petitioner Noblejas is that, if the Legislature had really intended to include in the
general grant of "privileges" or "rank and privileges of Judges of the Court of First Instance" the right to be investigated by the
Supreme Court, and to be suspended or removed only upon recommendation of that Court, then such grant of privileges would be
unconstitutional, since it would violate the fundamental doctrine of separation of powers, by charging this court with the
administrative function of supervisory control over executive officials, and simultaneously reducing pro tanto the control of the Chief
Executive over such officials.
GARCIA VS MACARAIG
The line between what a judge may do and what he may not do in collaborating or working with other offices or officers under the
other great departments of the government must always be kept clear and jealously observed, least the principle of separation of
powers on which our government rests by mandate of the people thru the Constitution be gradually eroded. It is of grave importance
to the judiciary under our present constitutional scheme of government that no judge or even the lowest court in this Republic
should place himself in a position where his actuations on matters submitted to him for action or resolution would be subject to
review and prior approval and, worst still, reversal, before they can have legal effect, by any authority other than the Court of
Appeals or this Supreme Court, as the case may be. Needless to say, this Court feels very strongly that, it is best that this practice is
discontinued.
15
MACARIOLA VS ASUNCION
On the contention of complainant that respondent Judge violated Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules, We hold that the
Civil Service Act of 1959 and the Civil Service Rules promulgated thereunder, particularly Section 12 of Rule XVIII, do not apply to the
members of the Judiciary.
under Sections 5, 6 and 7, Article X of the 1973 Constitution, only the Supreme Court can discipline judges of inferior courts as well as
other personnel of the Judiciary.
judges cannot be considered as subordinate civil service officers or employees subject to the disciplinary authority of the
Commissioner of Civil Service; for, certainly, the Commissioner is not the head of the Judicial Department to which they belong. The
Revised Administrative Code and the Civil Service Law itself state that the Chief Justice is the department head of the Supreme Court;
and under the 1973 Constitution, the Judiciary is the only other or second branch of the government (Sec. 1, Art. X, 1973
Constitution).
IN RE: MANZANO
Under the Constitution, the members of the Supreme Court and other courts established by law shag not be designated to any
agency performing quasi- judicial or administrative functions.
While the doctrine of separation of powers is a relative theory not to be enforced with pedantic rigor, the practical demands of
government precluding its doctrinaire application, it cannot justify a member of the judiciary being required to assume a position or
perform a duty non-judicial in character. That is implicit in the principle. Otherwise there is a plain departure from its command. The
essence of the trust reposed in him is to decide. Only a higher court, as was emphasized by Justice Barredo, can pass on his
actuation. He is not a subordinate of an executive or legislative official, however eminent. It is indispensable that there be no
exception to the rigidity of such a norm if he is, as expected, to be confined to the task of adjudication. Fidelity to his sworn
responsibility no less than the maintenance of respect for the judiciary can be satisfied with nothing less.
RULE-MAKING POWER
Rule-Making Powers
- necessarily includes power to amend, revise, alter or repeal its rules and regulations
- most pervasive power conferred upon administrative agencies
- statutory grant of rule-making power to administrative agencies is a valid exception to the rule on non-delegation of
legislative power provided 2 conditions concur, namely:
a. statute is complete in itself, setting forth the policy to be executed by the agency
b. statute fixes a standard, mapping out the boundaries of the agency’s authority to which it must conform
- valid rule or regulation duly promulgated by an agency has the force and effect of law and is binding on agency and all those
dealing with it
- operates prospectively only, unless intent to the contrary is made manifest either by express terms or by necessary
implication
16
- rule or regulation should be uniform in operation, reasonable, and not fair or discriminatory
**No vested right can be acquired on a wrong construction of the law by administrative officials and such wrong interpretation does
not place the government in estoppel to correct or overrule the same
Procedural Rules
- those describing the methods by which the agency will carry out is appointed functions
17
b. administrative orders: particular aspects of governmental operations in pursuance of his duties as administrative head
c. proclamations: fixing a date or declaring a status or condition of public interest, upon the existence of which the operation
of a specific law or regulation is made to depend
d. memorandum orders: matters of administrative detail or of subordinate or temporary interest which only concern
particular officers or office
e. memorandum circulars: relating to administration for information or compliance
f. general or special orders: in his capacity as commander-in-chief of AFP
**in certain cases, notice and hearing may be necessary to comply with due process
Requirement of Reasonableness
- bear reasonable relation to the purpose to be accomplished
- supported by good reasons
- free from constitutional infirmities or charge of arbitrariness
18
CASE PRINCIPLES:
PHILIPPINE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION VS AGRAVA
In support of the proposition that much of the business and many of the act, orders and decisions of the Patent Director involve
questions of law or a reasonable and correct evaluation of facts, the very Patent Law, Republic Act No. 165, Section 61, provides that:
. . . . The applicant for a patent or for the registration of a design, any party to a proceeding to cancel a patent or to obtain a
compulsory license, and any party to any other proceeding in the Office may appeal to the Supreme Court from any final
order or decision of the director.
In other words, the appeal is taken to this Tribunal. If the transaction of business in the Patent Office and the acts, orders and
decisions of the Patent Director involved exclusively or mostly technical and scientific knowledge and training, then logically, the
appeal should be taken not to a court or judicial body, but rather to a board of scientists, engineers or technical men, which is not the
case.
The Director of Patents, exercising as he does judicial or quasi-judicial functions, it is reasonable to hold that a member of the bar,
because of his legal knowledge and training, should be allowed to practice before the Patent Office, without further examination or
other qualification.
19
LUPANGCO VS COURT OF APPEALS
We realize that the questioned resolution was adopted for a commendable purpose which is "to preserve the integrity and purity of
the licensure examinations." However, its good aim cannot be a cloak to conceal its constitutional infirmities. On its face, it can be
readily seen that it is unreasonable in that an examinee cannot even attend any review class, briefing, conference or the like, or
receive any hand-out, review material, or any tip from any school, college or university, or any review center or the like or any
reviewer, lecturer, instructor, official or employee of any of the aforementioned or similar institutions.
The unreasonableness is more obvious in that one who is caught committing the prohibited acts even without any ill motives will be
barred from taking future examinations conducted by the respondent PRC. Furthermore, it is inconceivable how the Commission can
manage to have a watchful eye on each and every examinee during the three days before the examination period.
It is an aixiom in administrative law that administrative authorities should not act arbitrarily and capriciously in the issuance of rules
and regulations. To be valid, such rules and regulations must be reasonable and fairly adapted to the end in view. If shown to bear no
reasonable relation to the purposes for which they are authorized to be issued, then they must be held to be invalid.
Resolution No. 105 is not only unreasonable and arbitrary, it also infringes on the examinees' right to liberty guaranteed by the
Constitution. Respondent PRC has no authority to dictate on the reviewees as to how they should prepare themselves for the
licensure examinations. They cannot be restrained from taking all the lawful steps needed to assure the fulfillment of their ambition
to become public accountants. They have every right to make use of their faculties in attaining success in their endeavors
INTERNAL RULES
20
Internal rules and regulations
- administrative rules and regulations issued by a superior administrative or executive officer to his subordinates for the
proper and efficient administration of the law
- Object: efficient and economical administration of the affairs of the department or agency in which they are issued
create no relation except between the official who issues them and the official who receives them
- Nature: administrative and do not pass beyond the limits of the department or agency to which they are directed or in
which they are published
Creates no rights in third persons
CASE PRINCIPLES:
MAGLUNOB VS NAFCO
After hearing the court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the parcel of land in question belongs exclusively to a
corporation whose board of directors happens to be the same board of directors of the respondent NAFCO and for that reason the
respondent cannot alienate the lands in question to the petitioners. A motion for reconsideration was denied. From the order of
dismissal the petitioners have appealed.
If NAFCO is the manager of the parcel of land or is managing the plantation therein, it is not the real party in interest or the party
against whom the action should be brought . At the preliminary hearing under section 5, Rule 8, the party asserting a fact must prove
it by competent evidence. The duplicate for the owner of the Torrens certificate of title must have been presented or the original in
the office of the Registrar of Deeds must have been exhibited to the Court. Nevertheless, there is another ground which makes it
unnecessary to remand the case for further proceedings to ascertain who is the owner of the parcel of land involved in the litigation,
because granting that the parcel of land is included among those that should be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of
Republic Act No. 65, still the petitioners have no specific legal right and the respondent has no specific legal duty enjoined by law to
perform in connection therewith. It is only a preference and that involves a discretion to determine whether the applicants for lease
or sale of parts of a parcel of land under the management of the respondent are entitled to such lease or purchase under the
provisions of Republic Act No. 65. Going over the provisions of the directives referred to in the petition for mandamus we fail to find
any which confers upon the petitioners a specific legal right and imposes a duty upon the respondent enforceable by mandamus. And
it must be so, because executive orders or directives of the President are administrative in nature and they cannot, generally, confer
any right because this is only conferred by law.
21