Admin Law Case Digest 2 PDF

Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Chenery Lumiqued vs.
Exevea, 282 SCRA 125 (1997)

Corp., 332 US 194
POWER OF DELEGATION:
Mendoza vs. Dizon, 77 Phil 533 (1946)
Jaworski vs PAGCOR and SAGE GR 144463, 14 January
Realty Exchange Venture Co. vs. Sendino, 233 SCRA 2004
665 (1994)
Antipolo Realty Co. vs. NHA, 153 SCRA 399 (1987)
Philippine International Trading Co. vs. Angeles, 263

SCRA 421 (1996)
Christian General Assembly vs. Ignacio, 597 SCRA

266 (2009)
Mitchell Coke and Coke Company vs. Pennsylvania

Railroad Co., 230 US 247 (1913)
US vs. Dorr, 2 Phil 332 (1903)
Cebu United Enterprises vs. Gallofin, 106 Phil 491

(1959)
Crisostomo vs. CA, 258 SCRA 134 (1996)
Viola vs. Alunan III, 277 SCRA 409 (1997)
Larin vs. Executive Secretary, 280 SCRA 713 (1997)
Dario vs. Mison, 176 SCRA 84 (1989)
Tondo Medical Center Employees Assoc. vs. CA, 527

SCRA 746 (2007)
Banda vs. Ermita, 618 SCRA 488 (2010)
Pichay, Jr. vs. Office of the Deputy Executive

Secretary, 677 SCRA 408 (2012)
Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force vs. CA, 171

SCRA 348 (1989)
Balanguan vs. CA, 562 SCRA 184 (2008)
Dacudao vs. Gonzales, 688 SCRA 109 (2003)
Olaguer vs. RTC, 170 SCRA 478 (1989)
Padua vs. Ranada, 390 SCRA 663 (2002)
Joson vs. Executive Secretary, 290 SCRA 279 (1998)
Eugenio vs. CSC, 242 SCRA 196 (1995)
Blaquera vs. Alcala, 295 SCRA 411 (1998)
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
Realty Exchange Venture Co. vs. Sendino, 233 SCRA 665 Corporation v. National Housing Authority (153 SCRA
(1994) 399 [1987]) where We restated that the National
Housing Authority (now HLURB) shall have exclusive
Lucina Sendino filed a complaint for Specific jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and
Performance against REVI before the office of Appeals, business in accordance with the terms of PD No. 957
Adjudication and Legal Affairs (OAALA) of HLURB. REVI which defines the quantum of judicial or quasi-judicial
Cancelled the contract (entitled Reservation Agreement) powers of said agency.
for the reservation of Sendino of a 120 sqm house and
lot in Paranaque. For the alleged non-compliance with HLURB must interpret and apply contracts, determine
the requirement of Sendino as provided in the the rights of the parties under these contracts, and
Reservation Agreement. OAALA decided in favour of award damages whenever appropriate. 15 We fail to see
Sendino ordering to comply and continue with the sale. how the HSRC - which possessed jurisdiction over the
On Appeal of the decision was affirmed. This was further actions for specific performance for contractual and
appealed to the Office of the President but the case was statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lots
dismissed. MR was also denied. against developers - had suddenly lost its adjudicatory
powers by the mere fiat of a change in name through
Issue: W/N the Office of the Pres committed a Serious E.O. 90. One thrust of the multiplication of
Error in declaring that HLURB has quasi-judicial functions administrative agencies is that the interpretation of such
even though there’s not express grant by EO 90. contracts and agreements and the determination of
private rights under these agreements is no longer a
Decision: NO. Section 1 of PD 1344, provides: uniquely judicial function. 16 The absence of any
provision, express or implied, in E. O. 90, repealing those
‘Section 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate real quasi-judicial powers inherited by the HSRC from the
estate trade and business and in addition to its powers National Housing Authority, furthermore militates
provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National against petitioners' position on the question
Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to
hear and decide cases of the following WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
nature:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Costs against
petitioners.
‘A. Unsound real estate business practices;
‘B. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by

subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the
project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman;
and
‘C. Cases involving specific performance of contractual

and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision
lot or condominium unit against the owner, developer,
dealer, broker or salesman.’
There is no question that a statute may vest exclusive

original jurisdiction in an administrative agency over
certain disputes and controversies falling within the
agency’s special expertise. The constitutionality of such
grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the National Housing
Authority (now Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board)
over cases involving the sale of lots in commercial
subdivisions was upheld in Tropical Homes Inc. v.
National Housing Authority (152 SCRA 540 [1987]) and
again sustained in a later decision in Antipolo Realty
Philippine International Trading Corp vs Hon Angeles propriety of the lower court's declarations on the validity
(GR 108461 Oct 21 1996) of Administrative Order No. 89-08-01.
- Subsequently, when President Ramos went to Beijing,
Facts: a new a new trade agreement was entered into between
the Philippines and China, encouraging liberalization of
- PITC issued an Admin Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01 trade between the two countries. Thereby the President
requiring all importation from China must be directing the Department of Trade and Industry and the
accompanied by a viable and confirmed “EXPORT PITC to cease implementing Administrative Order No.
PROGRAM" of Philippine Products to China carried out SOCPEC 89-08-01.
by the importer himself or through a tie-up.
- Desiring to make importations from China, private - In view of the above fact, Remington then expressed its
respondents Remington and Firestone, both domestic desire to have the present action to be declared moot
corporations, applied for authority to import from China and academic. PITC disagreed that the case has become
with PITC. They eventually granted authority after moot and academic as a result of abrogation of the said
satisfying the requirements and after they executed Administrative Order because Remington still has
respective undertakings to balance their importations outstanding obligation with PITC consisting of charges
from China. for the 0.5% Counter Export Development Service
- Subsequently, for failing to comply with their before the said abrogation
undertakings to submit export credits equivalent to the
value of their importations, further import applications
were withheld by PITC from private respondents, such Issue1: W/N PITC is legally empowered to issue
that the latter were both barred from importing goods Administrative Orders.
from China
- Remington, with Firestone as Intervenor, filed a Issue2: W/N Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01
Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus with prayer for valid?
issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction against PITC assailing the said Decision:1
Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01 is an undue
restriction of trade, and hence, unconstitutional. YES. PITC is legally empowered 1 to issue Administrative
- The trial court ruled that PITC's authority to process and Orders, as a valid exercise of a power ancillary to
approve applications for imports and to issue rules and legislation. Hence Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-
regulations has already been repealed by EO No. 133, 08-01 is constitutional
issued on February 27, 1987 by President Aquino.
- PITC filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to seek Discussion:
reversal of the Decision upholding the Petition for
Prohibition and Mandamus of Remington Industrial The PITC is attached to the DTI 2 (as established by EO
Sales (Remington) and Firestone Ceramics (Firestone) , 122) as an implementing arm of the said department.
questioning the trial court's decision particularly on the
1
The grant of quasi-legislative powers in administrative bodies is not
unconstitutional. Thus, as a result of the growing complexity of the modern 2
As the primary coordinative, promote, facilitative and regulatory arm of
society it has become necessary to create more and more administrative government for the country's trade, industry and investment activities, which
bodies to help in the regulation of its ramified activities. Specialized in the shall act as a catalyst for intensified private sector activity in order to
particular field assigned to them, they can deal with the problems thereof accelerate and sustain economic growth. In furtherance of this mandate, the
with more expertise and dispatch than can be expected from the legislature DTI was empowered, among others, to plan, implement, and coordinate
or the courts of justice. This is the reason for the increasing vesture of quasi- activities of the government related to trade industry and investments; to
legislative and quasi-judicial powers in what is now not unreasonably called formulate and administer policies and guidelines for the investment priorities
the fourth department of the government. 34 Evidently, in the exercise of plan and the delivery of investment incentives; to formulate country and
such powers, the agency concerned must commonly interpret and apply product export strategies which will guide the export promotion and
contracts and determine the rights of private parties under such contracts. development thrusts of the government. Corollary, the Secretary of Trade and
One thrust of the multiplication of administrative agencies is that the Industry is given the power to promulgate rules and regulations necessary to
interpretation of contracts and the determination of private rights thereunder carry out the department's objectives, policies, plans, programs and projects
is no longer uniquely judicial function, exercisable only by our regular courts.
(Antipolo Realty Corporation v. National Housing Authority, G.R No. L-50444,
August 31, 1987, 153 SCRA 399).
The PITC, as an implementing arm of attached as an
integral part of DTI as one of its line agencies, has the
authority to issue the questioned Administrative Order.
Decision2:
No. Although PITC has quasi-legislative power, this does

not imply however, that the subject Administrative
Order is valid exercise of such. The original
Administrative Order issued on August 30, 1989, under
which the respondents filed their applications for
importation, was not published in the Official Gazette or
in a newspaper of general circulation. The questioned
Administrative Order, legally, until it is published, is
invalid within the context of Article 2 3 of Civil Code.
Discussion2:
Thus, even before the trade balancing measures issued

by the petitioner were lifted by President Fidel V. Ramos,
the same were never legally effective, and private
respondents, therefore, cannot be made subject to them,
because Administrative Order 89-08-0l embodying the
same was never published, as mandated by law, for its
effectivity.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION4
3 a) From further charging the petitioners the Counter Export Development

Article 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion
of their publication in the Official Gazette (or in a newspaper of general Service fee of 0.5% of the total value of the unliquidated or unfulfilled
circulation in the Philippines), unless it is otherwise provided Undertakings of the private respondents;
4
ACCORDINGLY, the assailed decision of the lower court is hereby AFFIRMED,
b) From further implementing the provisions of Administrative Order No.
to the effect that judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the private SOCPEC 89-08-01 and its appurtenant rules; and,
respondents, subject to the following MODIFICATIONS:
2) Requiring petitioner to approve forthwith all the pending applications of,
1) Enjoining the petitioner: and all those that may hereafter be filed by, the petitioner and the Intervenor,
free from and without complying with the requirements prescribed in the
above-stated issuances.
Cebu United Enterprises vs First Assistant Solicitor date of June 18, 1953. This license states, among other
conditions, that -
- A Suit for Mandatory Injunction was instituted in the
CFI of Cebu to compel Jose Gallorfin (Collector of "Commodities covered by this license must be shipped
Customs, Cebu) to release and deliver to plaintiff two from the country of origin before the expiry date of the
shipments from the US. As ancillary relief, the plaintiff license, and are subject to sec. 13 of Republic Act No.
prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary 650."
mandatory injunction, which was granted. Thereafter,
the goods were released to the plaintiff. Although Republic Act No. 650, creating the Import
Control Commission, expired on July 31, 1953, it is to be
The importation of the aforesaid shipments was made conceded that its duly executed acts can have valid
under and by virtue of an Import Control Commission effects even beyond the life span of said governmental
License No. 1225 issued by the defunct Import Control agency
Commission. Under the terms of the license, the plaintiff
could import, on a no-dollar remittance basis, overissue What is important to consider only is the legal
newspapers up to the amount or value of $118,000.00. connotation of the word "shipped" as the term was used
in the license. Defendant maintains that it is when the
The refusal of the defendant to deliver the imported vessel leaves the port of embarkation, while plaintiff
items is premised on his contention that while the five holds that it is the dates of the bills of lading, which are
bills of lading covering the two shipments of the usually issued after the cargo is placed on board the
overissue newspapers were all dated at Los Angeles, vessel. That the date of the shipment is the date when
U.S.A. December 17, 1953, or one day before the the goods for dispatch are loaded on board the vessel,
expiration of the import license in question, the vessels and not necessarily when the ship puts to sea, is clearly
M/S VENTURA and M/S BATAAN, carrying on board the implied from our ruling in the case of U.S. Tobacco
said merchandise, actually left the ports of Corporation v. Rufino Luna, Et Al., (87 Phil., 4),
embarkation, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, on
January 12 and January 16, 1954 respectively. Hence, The issuance of the bill of lading, furthermore,
according to the defendant, the importation was made presupposes or carries the presumption that the goods
without a valid import license, because under the were delivered to the carrier for immediate shipment
regulations issued by the Central Bank and the Monetary (13 C.J.S. sec. 123 (2), p. 235, and cases cited therein). It
Board, "all shipments that left the port of origin after does not appear here that the bill of lading specified any
June 30, 1953, and are covered by ICC licenses, may be designated day on which the vessels were to lift anchor,
released by the Bureau of Customs without the need of nor was it shown that plaintiff had any knowledge that
a Central Bank release certificate; provided they left the the vessels M/S VENTURA and M/S BATAAN were not to
port of origin within the period of validity of the depart soon after he placed his cargo on board and the
licenses." No Central Bank certificate for the release of corresponding bills of lading issued to him. From this
the goods having been shown or presented to the latter time, the goods, in contemplation of law, are
defendant, the latter refused to make the delivery. deemed already in transit
The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Defendant's reliance upon Central Bank regulations that
question raised, however, being purely one of law, the the shipment licensed must have "left the port of origin
appeal was certified to us pursuant to a resolution of within the period of validity of the license" is not
said court dated July 19, 1957. maintainable in the present case, because the
regulations came into effect only on July 1, 1953 already
Issue: W/N The appeal has no merit. after issuance of the appellee's license and cannot be
read into the same
The authority of the appellee to import was contained in
the Import Control Commission License No. 17225, Appeal of the Defendant was dismissed
validated on June 18, 1953, and under Resolution 70 of
the Commission (adopted March 27, 1952), the same
had a six-month period of validity counted from the said
Crisostomo vs. CA, 258 SCRA 134 (1996) What took place was a change in academic status of the
educational institution, not in its corporate life. Hence
G.R. No. 106296. July 5, 1996 the change in its name, the expansion of its curricular
offerings, and the changes in its structure and
- Petitioner Isabelo Crisostomo was President of the organization.
Philippine College of Commerce (PCC), having been
appointed to that position by the President of the As petitioner correctly points out, when the purpose is
Philippines on July 17, 1974. to abolish a department or an office or an organization
- Two administrative cases were filed against petitioner and to replace it with another one, the lawmaking
for illegal use of government vehicles, misappropriation authority says so.
of construction materials belonging to the college,
oppression and harassment, grave misconduct, The appellate court ruled, however, that the PUP and
nepotism and dishonesty. The administrative cases, the PCC are not "one and the same institution" but "two
which were filed with the Office of the President, were different entities" and that since petitioner Crisostomo's
subsequently referred to the Office of the Solicitor term was coterminous with the legal existence of the
General for investigation. PCC, petitioner's term expired upon the abolition of the
- Petitioner was then preventively suspended from office PCC.
- On April 1, 1978, P.D. No. 1341 was issued by then - But the reinstatement of petitioner to the position of
President Ferdinand E. Marcos, CONVERTING THE president of the PUP could not be ordered by the trial
PHILIPPINE COLLEGE OF COMMERCE INTO A court because on June 10, 1978, P.D. No. 1437 had been
POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY, DEFINING ITS OBJECTIVES, promulgated fixing the term of office of presidents of
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONS, AND state universities and colleges at six (6) years, renewable
EXPANDING ITS CURRICULAR OFFERINGS. for another term of six (6) years, and authorizing the
- After a couple of years, the Trial Court acquitted President of the Philippines to terminate the terms of
Crisostomo and cases before the ombudsman were also incumbents who were not reappointed.
dismissed on the ground that they had become moot - In accordance with § 7 of the law, therefore, petitioner
and academic and moved that he be reinstated but is became entitled only to retirement benefits or the
barred by the PD 1341. payment of separation pay. Petitioner must have
- The People of the Philippines filed a Certiorari before recognized this fact that is why in 1992 he asked then
the CA on the decided case which acquitted Crisostomo President Aquino to consider him for appointment to the
before the CA. CA reversed the Decision of the lower same position after it had become vacant in
court. consequence of the retirement of Dr. Prudente.
- PD 1341, Crisostomo argues that P.D. No. 1341, which
converted the PCC into the PUP, did not abolish the PCC.
He contends that if the law had intended the PCC to lose
its existence, it would have specified that the PCC was
being "abolished" rather than "converted" and that if
the PUP was intended to be a new institution, the law
would have said it was being "created." Petitioner claims
that the PUP is merely a continuation of the existence of
the PCC, and, hence, he could be reinstated to his former
position as president.
Issue: W/N PD 1341 abolished the PCC?
Decision: NO. P.D. No. 1341 did not abolish, but only
changed, the former Philippine College of Commerce
into what is now the Polytechnic University of the
Philippines, in the same way that earlier in 1952, R.A. No.
778 had converted what was then the Philippine School
of Commerce into the Philippine College of Commerce.
Larin vs Executive Sec (G.R. No. 112745. October 16, Decision:
1997)
YES. Petitioner is a presidential appointee who belongs
Facts: to career service of the Civil Service. Being a presidential
- This is Petition for validity of the petitioner's removal appointee, he comes under the direct disciplining
from service as Asst. Commissioner of the BIR, authority of the President. This is in line with the well
questioning the creation of Memorandum Order no. settled principle that the power to remove is inherent in
1645 Administrative Order No. 101 which found him the power to appoint conferred to the President by
guilty6 of grave misconduct in the administrative charge Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution. Thus, it is
and imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from ineluctably clear that Memorandum Order No. 164,
office. Likewise, petitioner seeks to assail the legality of which created a committee to investigate the
Executive Order No. 132 7 administrative charge against petitioner, was issued
pursuant to the power of removal of the President.
- In his petition, petitioner challenged the authority of - Under its Preamble, E.O. No. 132 lays down the legal
the President to dismiss him from office. He argued that basis of its issuance, namely: a) Section 48 and 62 of R.A.
in so far as presidential appointees who are Career No. 7645, b) Section 63 of E.O. No. 127, and c) Section
Executive Service Officers are concerned, the President 20, Book III of E.O. No. 292. Section 48 & 62 of R.A. 7645
exercises only the power of control not the power to clearly mentions the acts of "scaling down, phasing out
remove. He claimed that there is yet no law enacted by and abolition" of offices only and does not cover the
Congress which authorizes the reorganization by the creation of offices or transfer of functions.
Executive Department of executive agencies, - The foregoing provision evidently shows that the
particularly the Bureau of Internal revenue. He said that President is authorized to effect organizational changes
the reorganization sought to be effected by the including the creation of offices in the department or
Executive Department on the basis of E.O. No. 132 is agency concerned.
tainted with bad faith in apparent violation of Section 2 - While the President's power to reorganize can not be
of R.A. 66568 denied, this does not mean however that the
reorganization itself is properly made in accordance with
Issue: law. Well-settled is the rule that reorganization is
regarded as valid provided it is pursued in good faith.9
Does the President have the power to reorganize the BIR
or to issue the questioned E.O. NO. 132?, DISPOSITIVE PORTION10
5 dismissal or separation actually occurs because the position itself ceases to

issued by the Office of the President, which provides for the creation of A
Committee to Investigate the Administrative Complaint Against Aquilino T. exist. And in that case the security of tenure would not be a Chinese Wall. Be
Larin, Assistant Commissioner, Bureau of Internal Revenue as well as the that as it may, if the abolition which is nothing else but a separation or
investigation made in pursuance thereto and removal, is done for political reasons or purposely to defeat security of tenure,
6 or otherwise not in good faith, no valid abolition takes place and whatever
Petitioner is found guilty of the crimes of violation of Sec 268 (4) of NIRC and
abolition is done is void ab initio. There is an invalid abolition as where there
Sec 3 of RA 3019 in Criminal Cases Nos 14208-14209 (ppl vs Larin et. al)
7
is merely a change of nomenclature of positions or where claims of economy
Which mandates for the streamlining of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. are belied by the existence of ample funds.
Under said order, some positions and functions are either abolished, 10
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is granted, and petitioner is
renamed, decentralized or transferred to other offices, while other offices are
also created. The Excise Tax Service or the Specific Tax Service, of which hereby reinstated to his position as Assistant Commissioner without loss of
petitioner was the Assistant Commissioner, was one of those offices that was seniority rights and shall be entitled to full backwages from the time of his
abolished by said executive order. separation from service until actual reinstatement unless, in the meanwhile,
8 he would have reached the compulsory retirement age of sixty-five years in
Otherwise known as the Act Protecting the Security of Tenure of Civil Service which case, he shall be deemed to have retired at such age and entitled
Officers and Employees in the Implementation of Government thereafter to the corresponding retirement benefits.
Reorganization. SO ORDERED.
9
Thus, in Dario vs. Mison, this court has had the occasion to clarify that:
"As a general rule, a reorganization is carried out in good faith if it is for the
purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient. In that event no
Pichay vs Office of the Dep. Sec usurped the powers of congress to create a public office,
G.R. NO. 196425 - July 24, 2012 appropriate funds and delegate quasi-judicial functions
to administrative agencies but has also encroached upon
- This is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with a the powers of the Ombudsman. Petitioner avers that the
prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, unconstitutionality of E.O. 13 is also evident when
seeking to declare as unconstitutional Executive Order weighed against the due process requirement and equal
No. 1311 and to permanently prohibit respondents from protection clause under the 1987 Constitution.
administratively proceeding against petitioner on the
strength of the assailed executive order. Issue:
- On April 16, 2001, then President Gloria Macapagal- W/N E.O. 13 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR USURPING THE
Arroyo issued E.O. 1212. On November 15, 2010, POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE TO CREATE A PUBLIC
President Benigno Simeon Aquino III issued Executive OFFICE.
Order No. 1313 (E.O. 13), abolishing the PAGC and
transferring its functions to the Office of the Deputy Decision
Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs (ODESLA), more NO. The President has Continuing Authority to
particularly to its newly-established Investigative and Reorganize the Executive Department under E.O. 29214.
Adjudicatory Division (IAD). Section 31 of E.O. 292), vests in the President the
continuing authority to reorganize the offices under him
- On April 6, 2011, respondent Finance Secretary Cesar in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency.
V. Purisima filed before the IAD-ODESLA a complaint
affidavit for grave misconduct against petitioner Discussion:
Prospero A. Pichay, Jr., Chairman of the Board of - The law grants the President this power in recognition
Trustees of the Local Water Utilities Administration of the recurring need of every President to reorganize
(LWUA), which arose from the purchase by the LWUA of his office "to achieve simplicity, economy and
Four Hundred Forty-Five Thousand Three Hundred efficiency."
Seventy Seven (445,377) shares of stock of Express
Savings Bank, Inc. - The Office of the President is the nerve center of the
Executive Branch. To remain effective and efficient, the
- Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss Ex Abundante Ad Office of the President must be capable of being shaped
Cautelam manifesting that a case involving the same and reshaped by the President in the manner he deems
transaction and charge of grave misconduct entitled, fit to carry out his directives and policies. After all, the
"Rustico B. Tutol, et al. v. Prospero Pichay, et al.", and Office of the President is the command post of the
docketed as OMB-C-A-10-0426-I, is already pending President.
before the Office of the Ombudsman. - The abolition of the PAGC and the transfer of its
functions to a division specially created within the
- In assailing the constitutionality of E.O. 13, petitioner ODESLA is properly within the prerogative of the
asseverates that the President is not authorized under President under his continuing "delegated legislative
any existing law to create the Investigative and authority to reorganize" his own office pursuant to E.O.
Adjudicatory Division, Office of the Deputy Executive 292.
Secretary for Legal Affairs (IAD-ODESLA) and that by
creating a new, additional and distinct office tasked with - Here, the Petitioner is a Presidential Appointee15.
quasi-judicial functions, the President has not only Petitioner is a presidential appointee occupying the
11 RECOMMENDATORY FUNCTIONS TO THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE

entitled, "Abolishing the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission and
Transferring Its Investigative, Adjudicatory and Recommendatory Functions SECRETARY FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
14
to the Office Of The Deputy Executive Secretary For Legal Affairs, Office of the otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987
President" 15
Presidential appointees come under the direct disciplining authority of the
12
creating the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) and vesting it with President. This proceeds from the well settled principle that, in the absence
the power to investigate or hear administrative cases or complaints for of a contrary law, the power to remove or to discipline is lodged in the same
possible graft and corruption, among others, against presidential appointees authority on which the power to appoint is vested.32 Having the power to
and to submit its report and recommendations to the President. remove and/or discipline presidential appointees, the President has the
13
ABOLISHING THE PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION AND corollary authority to investigate such public officials and look into their
TRANSFERRING ITS INVESTIGATIVE, ADJUDICATORY AND conduct in office.
high-level position of Chairman of the LWUA.
Necessarily, he comes under the disciplinary jurisdiction
of the President, who is well within his right to order an
investigation into matters that require his informed
decision.
- Presumption of Constitutionality16
===========
16 a valid exercise of the President's continuing authority to reorganize the Office

Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify
its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the of the President.
Constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative one.39Petitioner has failed to
discharge the burden of proving the illegality of E.O. 13, which IS indubitably
Balanguan et. al vs CA (19th Division) GR 174350 , 2008 - It must be remembered that a preliminary investigation
is not a quasi-judicial proceeding, and that the DOJ is not
- Petition for Certiorari assailing the Decision and a quasi-judicial agency17 exercising a quasi-judicial
Resolution of CA w/c annulled and set aside the function when it reviews the findings of a public
Resolution of DOJ in HSBC vs Balanguan which dismissed prosecutor regarding the presence of probable cause
the criminal complaint for Estafa filed against the
Balanguan. - Though some cases describe the public prosecutor's
power to conduct a preliminary investigation as quasi-
- In this Petition, Balanguans urge the SC to reverse and judicial in nature, this is true only to the extent that, like
set aside the decision of CA and accordingly, dismiss the quasi-judicial bodies18, the prosecutor is an officer of the
complaint against them in view of the absence of executive department exercising powers akin to those of
probable cause a court, and the similarity ends at this point.
- HSBC filed an estafa case against Balanguans which was
dismissed by the Prosecutor in its Resolution, finding no - The alleged circumstances of the case at bar make up
probable cause. HSBC appealed to the Secretary of DOJ the elements of abuse of confidence, deceit or
by means of a Petition for Review which was also fraudulent means, and damage under Art. 315 of the
dismissed. MR was also denied. Revised Penal Code on estafa and/or qualified estafa.
- HSBC then went to CA by means of Petition for They give rise to the presumption or reasonable belief
Certiorari thereby annulling and setting aside the that the offense of estafa has been committed; and,
resolutions of the DOJ. Balanguans filed an MR before thus, the filing of an Information against petitioners
the CA but was denied. Bernyl and Katherene is warranted.
ISSUE: W/N - Considering the allegations, issues and arguments

adduced, SC dismissed the instant petition for being the
Decision: wrong remedy under the Revised Rules of Court, as well
- The Prosecutor exceeded his authority and gravely as for petitioner Bernyl and Katherene's failure to
abused his discretion. It must be remembered that a sufficiently show that the challenged Decision and
finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry Resolution of the Court of Appeals were rendered in
into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or jurisdiction.
omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.
Discussion:
- The Court of Appeals found fault in the DOJ's failure to

identify and discuss the issues raised by HSBC in its
Petition for Review. And, in support thereof, HSBC
maintains that it is incorrect to argue that "it was not
necessary for the Secretary of Justice to have his
resolution recite the facts and the law on which it was
based," because courts and quasi-judicial bodies should
faithfully comply with Section 14, Article VIII of the
Constitution requiring that decisions rendered by them
should state clearly and distinctly the facts of the case
and the law on which the decision is based
17 18
A quasi-judicial agency performs adjudicatory functions such that its A quasi-judicial body is an organ of government other than a court and
awards, determine the rights of parties, and their decisions have the same other than a legislature which affects the rights of private parties through
effect as judgments of a court. A quasi-judicial agency performs adjudicatory either adjudication or rule-making.
functions such that its awards, determine the rights of parties, and their
decisions have the same effect as judgments of a court.
EUGENIO vs. CSC et al G.R. No. 115863 March 31, 1995 Respondent Commission, however, invokes Section 17,
FACTS: . Chapter 3, Subtitle A. Title I, Book V of the Administrative
Code of 1987 as the source of its power to abolish the
Eugenio is the Deputy Director of the Philippine Nuclear CESB.
Research Institute. She applied for a Career Executive
Service (CES) Eligibility and a CESO rank,. She was given
But as well pointed out by petitioner and the Solicitor
a CES eligibility and was recommended to the President
General, Section 17 must be read together with Section
for a CESO rank by the Career Executive Service Board.
16 of the said Code which enumerates the offices under
Then respondent Civil Service Commission passed a
the respondent Commission.
Resolution which abolished the CESB, relying on the
provisions of Section 17, Title I, Subtitle A. Book V of the
Administrative Code of 1987 allegedly conferring on the As read together, the inescapable conclusion is that
Commission the power and authority to effect changes respondent Commission’s power to reorganize is limited
in its organization as the need arises. to offices under its control as enumerated in Section 16..
Said resolution states:
2. . From its inception, the CESB was intended to be an
autonomous entity, albeit administratively attached to
“Pursuant thereto, the Career Executive Service Board, respondent Commission. As conceptualized by the
shall now be known as the Office for Career Executive Reorganization Committee “the CESB shall be
Service of the Civil Service Commission. Accordingly, the autonomous. It is expected to view the problem of
existing personnel, budget, properties and equipment of building up executive manpower in the government with
the Career Executive Service Board shall now form part a broad and positive outlook.”
of the Office for Career Executive Service.” The essential autonomous character of the CESB is not
negated by its attachment to respondent Commission.
By said attachment, CESB was not made to fall within the
Finding herself bereft of further administrative relief as
control of respondent Commission. Under the
the Career Executive Service Board which recommended
Administrative Code of 1987, the purpose of attaching
her CESO Rank IV has been abolished, petitioner filed the
one functionally inter-related government agency to
petition at bench to annul, among others, said
another is to attain “policy and program coordination.”
resolution.
This is clearly etched out in Section 38(3), Chapter 7,
Book IV of the aforecited Code, to wit:
ISSUE: WON CSC given the authority to abolish the office
of the CESB
(3) Attachment. — (a) This refers to the lateral
relationship between the department or its equivalent
HELD: the petition is granted and Resolution of the
and attached agency or corporation for purposes of
respondent Commission is hereby annulled and set aside
policy and program coordination. The coordination may
be accomplished by having the department represented
NO
in the governing board of the attached agency or
1. The controlling fact is that the CESB was created in PD
corporation, either as chairman or as a member, with or
No. 1 on September 1, 1974. It cannot be disputed,
without voting rights, if this is permitted by the charter;
therefore, that as the CESB was created by law, it can
having the attached corporation or agency comply with
only be abolished by the legislature. This follows an
a system of periodic reporting which shall reflect the
unbroken stream of rulings that the creation and
progress of programs and projects; and having the
abolition of public offices is primarily a legislative
department or its equivalent provide general policies
function
through its representative in the board, which shall serve
as the framework for the internal policies of the
In the petition at bench, the legislature has not enacted
attached corporation or agency.
any law authorizing the abolition of the CESB. On the
contrary, in all the General Appropriations Acts from
NOTES:
1975 to 1993, the legislature has set aside funds for the
operation of CESB.
Section 17, Chapter 3, Subtitle A. Title I, Book V of the
Administrative Code of 1987 as the source of its power
to abolish the CESB. Section 17 provides:
Sec. 17. Organizational Structure. — Each office of the
Commission shall be headed by a Director with at least
one Assistant Director, and may have such divisions as
are necessary independent constitutional body, the
Commissionmay effect changes in the organization as
the need arises.
Sec. 16. Offices in the Commission. — The Commission
shall have the following offices:
(1) The Office of the Executive
(2) The Merit System Protection Board composed of a
Chairman and two (2) members
(3) The Office of Legal Affairs
(4) The Office of Planning and Management
(5) The Central Administrative Office.
(6) The Office of Central Personnel Records
(7) The Office of Position Classification and
Compensation
(8) The Office of Recruitment, Examination and
Placement
(9) The Office of Career Systems and Standards
(10) The Office of Human Resource Development
(11) The Office of Personnel Inspection and Audit.
(12) The Office of Personnel Relations
(13) The Office of Corporate Affairs
(14) The Office of Retirement
(15) The Regional and Field Offices.
Blaquera vs Alcala Pres. can, by virtue of his power of control, review,
modify, alter or nullify any action or decision of his
Facts: On Feb. 21, 1992, then Pres. Aquino issued AO 268 subordinate in the executive departments, bureau or
which granted each official and employee of the offices under him.
government the productivity incentive benefits in a
maximum amount equivalent to 30% of the employee’s When the Pres. issued AO 29 limiting the amount
one month basic salary but which amount not be less of incentive benefits, enjoining heads of government
than P2, 000.00. Said AO provided that the agencies from granting incentive benefits without
productivity incentive benefits shall be granted only for approval from him and directing the refund of the excess
the year 1991. Accordingly, all heads of agencies, over the prescribed amount, the Pres. was just
including government boards of government-owned or exercising his power of control over executive
controlled corporations and financial institutions, are departments.
strictly prohibited from granting
productivity incentive benefits for the year 1992 and The Pres. issued subject AOs to regulate the grant of
future years pending the result of a comprehensive productivity incentive benefits and to prevent
study being undertaken by the Office of the Pres. discontent, dissatisfaction and demoralization among
government personnel by committing limited resources
The petitioners, who are officials and employees of of government for the equal payment of incentives and
several government departments and agencies, were awards. The Pres. was only exercising his power of
paid incentive benefits for the year 1992. Then, on Jan. control by modifying the acts of the heads of the
19, 1993, then Pres. Ramos issued AO 29 authorizing the government agencies who granted incentive benefits to
grant of productivity incentive benefits for the year 1992 their employees without appropriate clearance from the
in the maximum amount of P1, 000.00 and reiterating Office of the Pres., thereby resulting in the uneven
the prohibition under Sec. 7 of AO 268, enjoining the distribution of government resources.
grant of productivity incentive benefits without prior
approval of the President. Sec. 4 of AO 29 directed all The President’s duty to execute the law is of
departments, offices and agencies which authorized constitutional origin. So, too, is his control of executive
payment of productivity incentive bonus for the year departments.
1992 in excess of P1, 000.00 to immediately cause the
refund of the excess. In compliance therewith, the heads
of the departments or agencies of the government
concerned caused the deduction from
petitioners’ salaries or allowances of the amounts
needed to cover the alleged overpayments.
Issue: Whether or not AO 29 and AO 268 were issued in

the valid exercise of presidential control over the
executive departments
Held: The Pres. is the head of the government.

Governmental power and authority are exercised and
implemented through him. His power includes the
control of executive departments as provided under Sec.
17, Art. VII of the Constitution.
Control means the power of an officer to alter or modify

or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the
performance of his duties and to substitute
the judgment of the former for that of the latter. The
Lumiqued vs Exevea regulations." The OP denied the motion. Second motion
was filed but on May 19, 1994, 20 however, before his
FACTS: motion could be resolved, Lumiqued died. On
Arsenio P. Lumiqued was the Regional Director of the September 28, 1994, 21 Secretary Quisumbing denied
Department of Agrarian Reform - Cordillera the second motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
Autonomous Region (DAR-CAR) until President Fidel V.
Ramos dismissed him from that position pursuant to On May 19, 1994, 20 however, before his motion could
Administrative Order No. 52 dated May 12, 1993. be resolved, Lumiqued died. On September 28, 1994, 21
Secretary Quisumbing denied the second motion for
The following three complaints were filed by DAR-CAR reconsideration for lack of merit.
Regional Cashier and private respondent Jeannette
Obar-Zamudio with the Board of Discipline of the DAR:
-charged with malversation through falsification of In view of Lumiqued's death on May 19, 1994, his heirs
official documents. From May to September 1989, instituted this petition for certiorari and mandamus,
Lumiqued allegedly committed at least 93 counts of questioning such order.
falsification by padding gasoline receipts.
-private respondent accused Lumiqued with violation of ISSUES:
Commission on Audit (COA) rules and regulations, 1. WON the administrative investigation conducted by
alleging that during the months of April, May, July, the DOJ is valid.
August, September and October 1989, he made 2. WON the right to counsel by Lumiques was violated.
unliquidated cash advances in the total amount of
P116,000.00 HELD:
-charged with oppression and harassment. According to 1. Yes. While it is true that under the Administrative
private respondent, her two previous complaints Code of 1987, the DOJ shall "administer the criminal
prompted Lumiqued to retaliate by relieving her from justice system in accordance with the accepted
her post as Regional Cashier without just cause processes thereof consisting in the investigation of the
crimes, prosecution of offenders and administration of
The DOJ made appropriate action by forming a the correctional system," conducting criminal
committee to investigate the complaints against investigations is not its sole function. By its power to
Lumiqued. *Committee hearings on the complaints "perform such other functions as may be provided by
were conducted on July 3 and 10, 1992, but Lumiqued law," prosecutors may be called upon to conduct
was not assisted by counsel. On the second hearing date, administrative investigations. Accordingly, the
he moved for its resetting to July 17, 1992, to enable him investigating committee created by Department Order
to employ the services of counsel. The committee No. 145 was duty-bound to conduct the administrative
granted the motion, but neither Lumiqued nor his investigation in accordance with the rules therefor.
counsel appeared on the date he himself had chosen, so Moreover, the committee's findings pinning culpability
the committee deemed the case submitted for for the charges of dishonesty and grave misconduct
resolution. Acting on the report and recommendation, upon Lumiqued were not, as shown above, fraught with
former Justice Secretary Franklin M. Drilon adopted the procedural mischief
same in his Memorandum to President Fidel V. Ramos
dated October 22, 1992. On May 12, 1993, President 2. No. under existing laws, a party in an administrative
Fidel V. Ramos himself issued Administrative Order No. inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel,
52 (A.O. No. 52), 16 finding Lumiqued administratively irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the
liable for dishonesty in the alteration of fifteen gasoline respondent's capacity to represent himself, and no duty
receipts, and dismissing him from the service, with rests on such a body to furnish the person being
forfeiture of his retirement and other benefits. investigated with counsel. In an administrative
proceeding such as the one that transpired below, a
Petition for appeal addressed to Pres Ramos was filed by respondent (such as Lumiqued) has the option of
Lumiqued praying that A.O. No. 52 be reconsidered and engaging the services of counsel or not. Excerpts from
that he be reinstated to his former position "with all the the transcript of stenographic notes of the hearings
benefits accorded to him by law and existing rules and attended by Lumiqued clearly show that he was
confident of his capacity and so opted to represent
himself . Thus, the right to counsel is not imperative in
administrative investigations because such inquiries are
conducted merely to determine whether there are facts
that merit disciplinary measures against erring public
officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining
the dignity of government service.
BANDA V. ERMITA of the Office of the President Proper and the agencies
G.R. No. 166620 under it.
April 20, 2010
The issuance of Executive Order No. 378 by
FACTS: President Arroyo is an exercise of a delegated legislative
power granted by the aforementioned Section 31,
Sometime in 1987, The National Printing Office Chapter 10, Title III, Book III of the Administrative Code
(NPO) was formed during the term of former President of 1987, which provides for the continuing authority of
Aquino by virtue of Executive Order No. 285 which the President to reorganize the Office of the President,
provided, among others, the creation of the NPO from “in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency.”
the merger of the Government Printing Office and the This is a matter already well-entrenched in
relevant printing units of the Philippine Information jurisprudence. The reorganization of such an office
Agency (PIA). In 2004, President Arroyo issued Executive through executive or administrative order is also
Order No. 378 on 2004 amending Section 6 of Executive recognized in the Administrative Code of 1987.
Order No. 285 by, inter alia, removing the exclusive
jurisdiction of the NPO over the printing services In the present instance, involving neither
requirements of government agencies and abolition nor transfer of offices, the assailed action is a
instrumentalities. mere reorganization under the general provisions of the
law consisting mainly of streamlining the NTA in the
Pursuant to Executive Order No. 378, interest of simplicity, economy and efficiency. It is an act
government agencies and instrumentalities are allowed well within the authority of the President motivated and
to source their printing services from the private sector carried out, according to the findings of the appellate
through competitive bidding, subject to the condition court, in good faith, a factual assessment that this Court
that the services offered by the private supplier be of could only but accept.
superior quality and lower in cost compared to what was
offered by the NPO. Executive Order No. 378 also limited b) YES . EO 378 is constitutional.
NPO’s appropriation in the General Appropriations Act
to its income. The basic evidentiary rule is that he who asserts a
fact or the affirmative of an issue has the burden of
As such, the petitioners perceived that Executive proving it. The petitioners failed to allege, much less
Order No. 378 is a threat to their security of tenure as prove, sufficient facts to show that the limitation of the
employees of the NPO. Hence, they filed this petition. NPO’s budget to its own income would indeed lead to
the abolition of the position, or removal from office, of
ISSUES:
any employee. Neither did they present any shred of
a) Whether or not President Arroyo has the power proof of their assertion that the changes in the functions
to issue Executive Order No. 378? of the NPO were for political considerations that had
b) Whether or not EO 378 is constitutional? nothing to do with improving the efficiency of, or
encouraging operational economy in, the said agency.
HELD:
Furthermore, the Court finds that the petition failed to
a) YES. President Arroyo was granted by law to show any constitutional infirmity or grave abuse of
issue Executive Order No. 378. discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
President Arroyo’s issuance of Executive Order No. 378.
The law grants the President the power to
reorganize the Office of the President in recognition of
the recurring need of every President to reorganize his
or her office “to achieve simplicity, economy and
efficiency.” To remain effective and efficient, it must be
capable of being shaped and reshaped by the President
in the manner the Chief Executive deems fit to carry out
presidential directives and policies. The Administrative
Code provides that the Office of the President consists
Jaworski vs PAGCOR and SAGE commonly accepted definition of "gambling casinos",
GR 144463, 14 January 2004 "clubs" or "other recreation or amusement places" as
these terms refer to a physical structure in real-space
PAGCOR’s19 Board of Directors an instrument called where people who intend to bet or gamble go and play
games of chance authorized by law
"Grant of Authority and Agreement for the
Operation of Sports Betting and Internet Gaming",
which granted SAGE20 the authority to operate and Issue: WHETHER RESPONDENT PAGCOR ACTED
maintain Sports Betting station in PAGCOR’s casino WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION,
locations, and Internet Gaming facilities to service OR GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING
local and international bettors, provided that to the TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, WHEN IT
satisfaction of PAGCOR, appropriate safeguards and AUTHORIZED RESPONDENT SAGE TO OPERATE
procedures are established to ensure the integrity and INTERNET GAMBLING ON THE BASIS OF ITS
fairness of the games. RIGHT "TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN GAMBLING
CASINOS, CLUBS AND OTHER AMUSEMENT
Senator R. Jaworski, as member of the Senate and PLACES" UNDER SECTION 10 OF P.D. 1869;
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Games,
Amusement and Sports, filed a petition, praying that Decision:
the grant of authority by PAGCOR in favor of SAGE be
nullified for the following reasons: PAGCOR has acted beyond the limits of its authority
when it passed on or shared its franchise to SAGE
1. He maintains that PAGCOR committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess A legislative franchise is a special privilege granted
of jurisdiction when it authorized SAGE to operate by the state to corporations. It is a privilege of public
gambling on the internet. He contends that PAGCOR concern which cannot be exercised at will and
is not authorized to operate gambling on the internet pleasure, but should be reserved for public control and
for the reason that PD 1869 could not have possibly administration, either by the government directly, or by
contemplated internet gambling since at the time of its public agents, under such conditions and regulations
enactment, the internet was inexistent and gambling as the government may impose on them in the interest
activities were confined exclusively to real-space. of the public. It is Congress that prescribes the
2. Further, he argues that the internet, being conditions on which the grant of the franchise may be
an international network of computers, necessarily made. Thus the manner of granting the franchise, to
transcends the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines, whom it may be granted, the mode of conducting the
and the grant to SAGE of authority to operate internet business, the charter and the quality of the service to
gambling contravenes the limitation in PAGCOR’s be rendered and the duty of the grantee to the public
franchise, under Section 14 of P.D. No. 1869 which in exercising the franchise are almost always defined
provides that PAGCOR shall conduct gambling in clear and unequivocal language.
activities or games of chance on land or water within
the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. While PAGCOR is allowed under its charter to enter
into operator’s and/or management contracts, it is not
3. Internet gambling does not fall under any of allowed under the same charter to relinquish or
the categories of the authorized gambling activities share its franchise, much less grant a veritable
enumerated under Section 10 of P.D. No. 1869 which franchise to another entity such as SAGE.
grants PAGCOR the "right, privilege and authority to
operate and maintain gambling casinos, clubs, and PAGCOR cannot delegate its power in view of the
other recreation or amusement places, sports gaming legal principle of delegata potestas delegare non
pools, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Republic potest21, inasmuch as there is nothing in the charter to
of the Philippines."1 He contends that internet show that it has been expressly authorized to do so.
gambling could not have been included within the Citing Lim v. Pacquing, the Court clarified that "since
19 are normally prevalent in the conduct and operation of gambling clubs and
A GOCC existing under Presidential Decree No. 1869 issued on July 11, 1983
by then President Ferdinand Marcos created to xxx To establish and operate casinos without direct government involvement.xxx
20
clubs and casinos, for amusement and recreation, including sports, gaming Abbrevation for Sports and Games and Entertainment Corporation. A
pools (basketball, football, lotteries, etc.) and such other forms of amusement Corporation.
21
and recreation including games of chance, which may be allowed by law In constitutional and administrative law, the principle delegata potestas
within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines and which will: x x x (3) non potest delegari (Latin) states that "no delegated powers can be further
minimize, if not totally eradicate, the evils, malpractices and corruptions that delegated". Alternatively, it can be stated delegatus non potest delegare,
"one to whom power is delegated cannot himself further delegate that
power".
ADC has no franchise from Congress to operate the
jai-alai, it may not so operate even if it has a license or
permit from the City Mayor to operate the jai-alai in the
City of Manila." By the same token, SAGE has to
obtain a separate legislative franchise and not
"ride on" PAGCOR’s franchise if it were to legally
operate on-line Internet gambling.
The "Grant of Authority and Agreement to Operate

Sports Betting and Internet Gaming" executed by
PAGCOR in favor of SAGE is declared NULL and
VOID.
G.R. Nos. 86540-41 November 6, 1989 - APT responded firmly that they disagree with MSI’s
claims and recommended to join the bidding instead
MANTRUSTE SYSTEMS, INC., petitioner, should they intend to acquire the property.
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ASSET - Eventually, Mantruste being firm to their stand, did
PRIVATIZATION TRUST, MAKATI AGRO- not join the bidding. As a result, the bid was awarded
TRADING, INC., and LA FILIPINA UY GONGCO. to another company.
CORP., respondents. - MSI filed a Civil Complaint to prevent such transfer
of Bayview and from them being ejected. RTC
Facts: rendered a decision in favor of MSI.
- in 1986 (at the time when Freedom Constitution
was in force) Mantruste System, Inc. (MSI) entered - APT appealed to CA. CA nullified RTC's decision
into an "interim lease agreement" with the on the ground that RTC's decision is violative of
Development Bank of the Philippines (owner of the Section 3122 of Proclamation No. 50-A and rejected
Bayview Plaza Hotel) wherein the former would RTC’s opinion in the case that the above provision
operate the hotel for "a minimum of three months or of Proclamation No. 50-A is unconstitutional
until such time that the said properties are sold to because it ceased to be operative in view of the
MSI or other third parties by DBP. 1987 Constitution
- On December 8, 1986 the President issued Issue:

Proclamation No. 50 entitled "Launching a Program - W/N Proclamation No. 50, that was promulgated
for the Expeditious Disposition or Privatization of 1986, has ceased to be operative in view of the 1987
Certain Government Corporations and/or the Constitution
(acquired) Assets thereof, and creating a Committee - W/N Sec 31 of Proclamation No. 50 impinges upon
on Privatization and the Asset Privatization Trust." the judicial power as defined in Section 1, Article VIII
of the 1987 Constitution
- The Bayview Hotel properties were among the
government assets Identified for privatization and Decision:
were consequently transferred from DBP to APT for NO. Proclamation No. 50-A continued to be
disposition. operative after the effectivity of the 1987
Constitution, by virtue of Section 323, Article XVIII
- To effect the disposition of the property, the DBP (Transitory Provisions) providing that:
notified MSI that it was terminating the "interim lease
agreement." in Sept 1987 (after more than a year) Section 31 of Proclamation No. 50-A does not
infringe any provision of the Constitution. It does not
- MSI, in its reply to the said termination, said that it impair the inherent power of courts "to settle actual
is of the opinion that since its lease on the hotel controversies which are legally demandable and
properties has been for more than one year now, its enforceable and to determine whether or not there
lease status has taken the character of a long term has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
one. As such MSI as the lessee has acquired certain lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
rights and of firm contention that it has acquired a branch or instrumentality of the government" (Sec.
priority right to the purchase of Bayview Hotel 1, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution). The power to define,
properties over and above other interested parties prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the
and does not need to participate in a property various courts belongs to the legislature, except that
bidding that was on going at that time. it may not deprive the Supreme Court of its
jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5,
22
which provides:
23
Sec. 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders,
No court or administrative agency shall issue any restraining proclamations, letters of instructions and other executive
order or injunction against the Trust in connection with the issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain
acquisition, sale or disposition of assets transferred to it . . . Nor operative until amended, repealed, or revoked.
shall such order or injunction be issued against any purchaser
of assets sold by the Trust to prevent such purchaser from taking
possession of any assets purchased by him.
Article VIII of the Constitution (Sec. 2, Art. VIII, 1987
Constitution).
The President, in the exercise of her legislative

power under the Freedom Constitution, issued
Proclamation No. 50-A prohibiting the courts from
issuing restraining orders and writs of injunction
against the APT and the purchasers of any assets
sold by it, to prevent courts from interfering in the
discharge, by this instrumentality of the executive
branch of the Government, of its task of carrying out
"the expeditious disposition and privatization of
certain government corporations and/or the assets
thereof' (Proc. No. 50), absent any grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction
on its part. This proclamation, not being inconsistent
with the Constitution and not having been repealed
or revoked by Congress, has remained operative
(Sec. 3, Art. XVIII, 1987 Constitution).
- Under the system of separation of powers set up

in the Constitution, the power of the courts over the
other branches and instrumentalities of the
Government is limited only to the determination of
"whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion (by them) amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction" in the exercise of their authority and in
the performance of their assigned tasks (Sec. 1, Art.
VIII, 1987 Constitution).
- There can be no justification for judicial

interference in the business of an administrative
agency, except when it violates a citizen's
constitutional rights, or commits a grave abuse of
discretion, or acts in excess of, or without
jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the

decision of the Court of Appeals, the petition for
review is dismissed for lack of merit. Costs against
the petitioner
(b) fix a standard — the limits of which are
PELAEZ VS AUDITOR GENERAL (1965) sufficiently determinate or determinable — to which
the delegate must conform in the performance of his
FACTS: functions.
Pursuant to Sec. 68 of the Revised Administrative
Code (RAC) of 1917, authorizing the President of Without a statutory declaration of policy, the
the Philippines to create new municipalities among delegate would in effect, make or formulate such
others, then President (Macapagal) issued policy, which is the essence of every law; and,
Executive Orders creating 33 municipalities. without the aforementioned standard, there would
Thereafter, then a special civil action was instituted be no means to determine, with reasonable
by Emmanuel Pelaez as then the Vice President certainty, whether the delegate has acted within or
and taxpayer against the Auditor General to restrain beyond the scope of his authority. Hence, he could
him, as well as his representatives and agents, from thereby arrogate upon himself the power, not only to
passing in audit any expenditure of public funds in make the law, but, also — and this is worse — to
the implementation of said executive orders and/or unmake it, by adopting measures inconsistent with
any disbursement by said municipalities. the end sought to be attained by the Act of
Congress, thus nullifying the principle of separation
ISSUE: of powers and the system of checks and balances,
Whether the Executive Orders were valid and thus and, consequently, undermining the very foundation
constituted due delegation of power of our Republican system.
HELD: Further, the 1935 Constitution (Art VII, Sec 11) has
No. granted the President control over all executive
departments and with regard to local governments,
R.A. 2370 (1960) has impliedly repealed Sec. 68 of only supervision. He was then denied the power to
RAC when it expressed: control local governments by the very Constitution
Barrios shall not be created or their boundaries itself. If the President was allowed to create a
altered nor their names changed except under the municipality, he could, in effect, remove any of its
provisions of this Act or by Act of Congress. officials, by creating a new municipality and
including therein the barrio in which the official
Thus, the power to fix such common boundary, in concerned resides, for his office would thereby
order to avoid or settle conflicts of jurisdiction become vacant. Thus, by merely brandishing the
between adjoining municipalities, may partake of power to create a new municipality (if he had it),
an administrative nature — involving, as it does, the without actually creating it, he could compel local
adoption of means and ways to carry into effect the officials to submit to his dictation, thereby, in effect,
law creating said municipalities — the authority to exercising over them the power of control denied to
create municipal corporations is him by the Constitution.
essentially legislative in nature. The authority to
create municipal corporations is
essentially legislative in nature; the creation of
municipalities, is not an administrative function, but
one which is essentially and eminently legislative in
character.
Although Congress may delegate to another branch

of the Government the power to fill in the details in
the execution, enforcement or administration of a
law, it is essential, to forestall a violation of the
principle of separation of powers, that said law:
(a) be complete in itself — it must set forth therein

the policy to be executed, carried out or
implemented by the delegate — and
CHRISTIAN GENERAL ASSEMBLY (CGA) VS contracts, One thrust of the multiplication of
SPS IGNACIO (2009) administrative agencies is that the interpretation of
contracts and the determination of private rights
FACTS: thereunder is no longer a uniquely judicial
Owners of subject property in Pulilan , Bulacan, function, exercisable only by our regular courts.
Spouses Ignacio, and CGA entered into a Contract
to Sell for the said subdivision lot with stipulations
on downpayment, installment terms and period.
CGA paid the downpayment and religiously paid its
monthly installments until it was discovered that
subject property had flaws and defects in its title;
that said lot was a property under litigation. CGA
filed an action before the RTC against Ignacio for
fraudulent concealment of property under litigation.
Ignacio moved to have the action dismissed
contending that the HLURB has jurisdiction over
their claims.
ISSUE:
Whether HLURB has jurisdiction over the complaint
HELD:
Yes. HLURB had its beginning when pursuant to PD
No. 957 NHA was created intended to closely
supervise and regulate the real estate subdivision
and condominium businesses in order to curb the
growing number of swindling and fraudulent
manipulations perpetrated by unscrupulous
subdivision and condominium sellers and operators.
By virtue of succeeding executive orders, NHAs
jurisdiction expanded until its functions were
transferred to the Human Settlements Regulatory
Commission (HSRC) until it was eventually
renamed HLURB.
HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction over complaints

arising from contracts between the subdivision
developer and the lot buyer or those aimed at
compelling the subdivision developer to comply with
its contractual and statutory obligations to make the
subdivision a better place to live in.
In general, the quantum of judicial or quasi-judicial

powers which an administrative agency may
exercise is defined in the enabling act of such
agency. In other words, the extent to which an
administrative entity may exercise such powers
depends largely, if not wholly on the provisions of
the statute creating or empowering such agency. In
the exercise of such powers, the agency concerned
must commonly interpret and apply contracts and
determine the rights of private parties under such
ENRIQUE GARCIA VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (1992) than the Executive Department. It does not follow,
211 SCRA 219 however, that Executive Orders Nos. 475 and 478,
assuming they may be characterized as revenue
FACTS: In November 1990, President Corazon measures, are prohibited to be exercised by the
Aquino issued Executive Order No. 438 which President, that they must be enacted instead by the
imposed, in addition to any other duties, taxes and Congress of the Philippines.
charges imposed by law on all articles imported into
Section 28(2) of Article VI of the Constitution
the Philippines, an additional duty of 5% ad
provides as follows:
valorem tax. This additional duty was imposed
across the board on all imported articles, including
crude oil and other oil products imported into the (2) The Congress may, by law,
Philippines. In 1991, EO 443 increased the authorize the President to fix within
additional duty to 9%. In the same year, EO 475 was specified limits, and subject to such
passed reinstating the previous 5% duty except that limitations and restrictions as it may
crude oil and other oil products continued to be impose, tariff rates, import and
taxed at 9%. Enrique Garcia, a representative from export quotas, tonnage and
Bataan, avers that EO 475 and 478 are wharfage dues, and other duties or
unconstitutional for they violate Section 24 of Article imposts within the framework of the
VI of the Constitution which provides: national development program of the
Government.
“All appropriation, revenue or tariff
bills, bills authorizing increase of the
There is thus explicit constitutional permission to
public debt, bills of local application,
Congress to authorize the President “subject to such
and private bills shall originate
limitations and restrictions as [Congress] may
exclusively in the House of
impose” to fix “within specific limits” “tariff rates . . .
Representatives, but the Senate may
and other duties or imposts . . . .” In this case, it is
propose or concur with
the Tariff and Customs Code which authorized the
amendments”
President to issue the said EOs.
He contends that since the Constitution vests the

authority to enact revenue bills in Congress, the
President may not assume such power by issuing
Executive Orders Nos. 475 and 478 which are in the
nature of revenue-generating measures.
ISSUE: Whether or not EO 475 and 478 are

constitutional.
HELD: Under Section 24, Article VI of the

Constitution, the enactment of appropriation,
revenue and tariff bills, like all other bills is, of
course, within the province of the Legislative rather
TONDO MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION v THE COURT OF APPEALS The Court of Appeals ruled that the HSRA cannot
527 SCRA 746 G.R. No. 167324 - on delegation of be declared void for violating Sections 5, 9, 10, 11,
powers 13, 15, 18 of Article II; Section 1 of Article III;
Sections 11 and 14 of Article XIII; and Sections 1
J. Chico-Nazario and 3(2) of Article XV, all of the 1987 Constitution,
which directly or indirectly pertain to the duty of the
Facts: State to protect and promote the people’s right to
health and well-being. It reasoned that the
In 1999, the DOH launched the Health Sector
aforementioned provisions of the Constitution are
Reform Agenda (HSRA). It provided for five general
not self-executing; they are not judicially
areas of reform:
enforceable constitutional rights and can only
provide guidelines for legislation. The Court of
To provide fiscal autonomy to government
Appeals held that Executive Order No. 102 is
hospitals;
detrimental to the health of the people cannot be
Secure funding for priority public health
made a justiciable issue. The question of whether
programs;
the HSRA will bring about the development or
Promote the development of local health
disintegration of the health sector is within the realm
systems and ensure its effective performance;
of the political department.
Strengthen the capacities of health
regulatory agencies;
Expand the coverage of the National Health
Issue:
Insurance Program (NHIP)
WON EO 102 is void on the ground that it was
issued in excess of the president's authority.
On 24 May 1999, then President Joseph Ejercito
Estrada issued Executive Order No. 102, entitled “ Held: No. EO 102 is valid.
Redirecting the Functions and Operations of the
Department of Health,” which provided for the Executive Order No. 102 is well within the
constitutional power of the President to issue. The
changes in the roles, functions, and organizational
President did not usurp any legislative prerogative
processes of the DOH. Under the assailed executive
in issuing Executive Order No. 102. It is an exercise
order, the DOH refocused its mandate from being
of the President's constitutional power of control
the sole provider of health services to being a
over the executive department, supported by the
provider of specific health services and technical
provisions of the Administrative Code, recognized
assistance, as a result of the devolution of basic
by other statutes, and consistently affirmed by this
services to local government units.
Court.
A petition for the nullification of the Health Sector
Reform Agenda (HSRA) Philippines 1999-2004 of
The HSRA cannot be nullified based solely on
the Department of Health (DOH); and Executive
petitioners' bare allegations that it violates the
Order No. 102, “Redirecting the Functions and general principles expressed in the non self-
Operations of the Department of Health,” executing provisions they cite herein. There are two
reasons for denying a cause of action to an alleged
infringement of broad constitutional principles: basic
Petitioners alleged that the HSRA should be
considerations of due process and the limitations of
declared void, since it runs counter to the aspiration
judicial power.
and ideals of the Filipino people as embodied in the
Constitution. They claim that the HSRA's policies of
Petitioners also claim that Executive Order No. 102
fiscal autonomy, income generation, and revenue
is void on the ground that it was issued by the
enhancement violate Sections 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15
President in excess of his authority. They maintain
and 18 of Article II, Section 1 of Article III; Sections
that the structural and functional reorganization of
11 and 14 of Article XIII; and Sections 1 and 3 of
the DOH is an exercise of legislative functions,
Article XV of the 1987 Constitution. Such policies
which the President usurped when he issued
allegedly resulted in making inaccessible free
Executive Order No. 102. This line of argument is
medicine and free medical services.
without basis.
In Domingo v. Zamora, this Court explained the
rationale behind the President's continuing authority
under the Administrative Code to reorganize the
administrative structure of the Office of the
President. The law grants the President the power
to reorganize the Office of the President in
recognition of the recurring need of every President
to reorganize his or her office "to achieve simplicity,
economy and efficiency." To remain effective and
efficient, it must be capable of being shaped and
reshaped by the President in the manner the Chief
Executive deems fit to carry out presidential
directives and policies.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition

is DENIED. This Court AFFIRMS the assailed
Decision of the Court of Appeals, promulgated on 26
November 2004, declaring both the HSRA and
Executive Order No. 102 as valid. No costs.
Petitioners argued that no amendatory laws have
La Bugal-B’Laan v. Ramos been passed to make the Mining Act of 1995
conform to constitutional strictures (assuming that,
G.R. No. 127882. December 1, 2004. J.
at present, it does not); that public respondents will
Panganiban
continue to implement and enforce the statute until
this Court rules otherwise; and that the said law
Facts:
continues to be the source of legal authority in
accepting, processing and approving numerous
The Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus before
applications for mining rights.
the Court challenges the constitutionality of (1)
Republic Act 7942 (The Philippine Mining Act of
Issue:
1995); (2) its Implementing Rules and Regulations
WON the court can decide on the controversy on the
(DENR Administrative Order [DAO] 96-40); and (3)
ground that it is a justiciable question.
the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement
(FTAA) dated 30 March 1995, executed by the
Held: Yes, it is a justiciable question.
government with Western Mining Corporation
(Philippines), Inc. (WMCP).
All the protagonists are in agreement that the Court
On 27 January 2004, the Court en banc
has jurisdiction to decide this controversy, even
promulgated its Decision, granting the Petition and
assuming it to be moot.
declaring the unconstitutionality of certain
provisions of RA 7942, DAO 96-40, as well as of the
Petitioners stress the following points. First, while a
entire FTAA executed between the government and
WMCP, mainly on the finding that FTAAs are case becomes moot and academic when “there is
service contracts prohibited by the 1987 no more actual controversy between the parties or
Constitution. The Decision struck down the subject no useful purpose can be served in passing upon
FTAA for being similar to service contracts,[9] the merits,”[18] what is at issue in the instant case
which, though permitted under the 1973
is not only the validity of the WMCP FTAA, but also
Constitution, were subsequently denounced for
the constitutionality of RA 7942 and its
being antithetical to the principle of sovereignty over
Implementing Rules and Regulations. Second, the
our natural resources, because they allowed foreign
acts of private respondent cannot operate to cure
control over the exploitation of our natural
the law of its alleged unconstitutionality or to divest
resources, to the prejudice of the Filipino nation.
this Court of its jurisdiction to decide. Third, the
Constitution imposes upon the Supreme Court the
The Decision quoted several legal scholars and
duty to declare invalid any law that offends the
authors who had criticized service contracts for,
Constitution.
inter alia, vesting in the foreign contractor exclusive
management and control of the enterprise, including
Petitioners also argue that no amendatory laws
operation of the field in the event petroleum was
have been passed to make the Mining Act of 1995
discovered; control of production, expansion and
conform to constitutional strictures (assuming that,
development; nearly unfettered control over the
at present, it does not); that public respondents will
disposition and sale of the products
continue to implement and enforce the statute until
discovered/extracted; effective ownership of the
this Court rules otherwise; and that the said law
natural resource at the point of extraction; and
continues to be the source of legal authority in
beneficial ownership of our economic resources.
accepting, processing and approving numerous
According to the Decision, the 1987 Constitution
applications for mining rights.
(Section 2 of Article XII) effectively banned such
service contracts. Subsequently, Victor O. Ramos
Indeed, it appears that as of June 30, 2002, some
(Secretary, Department of Environment and Natural
43 FTAA applications had been filed with the Mines
Resources [DENR]), Horacio Ramos (Director,
and Geosciences Bureau (MGB), with an aggregate
Mines and Geosciences Bureau [MGB-DENR]),
area of 2,064,908.65 hectares -- spread over Luzon,
Ruben Torres (Executive Secretary), and the WMC
the Visayas and Mindanao[19] -- applied for. It may
(Philippines) Inc. filed separate Motions for
be a bit far-fetched to assert, as petitioners do, that
Reconsideration.
each and every FTAA that was entered into under
the provisions of the Mining Act “invites potential
The mootness of the case in relation to the WMCP
litigation” for as long as the constitutional issues are FTAA led the undersigned ponente to state in his
not resolved with finality. Nevertheless, we must dissent to the Decision that there was no more
concede that there exists the distinct possibility that justiciable controversy and the plea to nullify the
one or more of the future FTAAs will be the subject Mining Law has become a virtual petition for
of yet another suit grounded on constitutional declaratory relief.[26] The entry of the Chamber of
issues. Mines of the Philippines, Inc., however, has put into
focus the seriousness of the allegations of
But of equal if not greater significance is the cloud unconstitutionality of RA 7942 and DAO 96-40
of uncertainty hanging over the mining industry, which converts the case to one for prohibition[27] in
which is even now scaring away foreign the enforcement of the said law and regulations.
investments. Attesting to this climate of anxiety is
the fact that the Chamber of Mines of the Philippines Indeed, this CMP entry brings to fore that the real
saw the urgent need to intervene in the case and to issue in this case is whether paragraph 4 of Section
present its position during the Oral Argument; and 2 of Article XII of the Constitution is contravened by
that Secretary General Romulo Neri of the National RA 7942 and DAO 96-40, not whether it was
Economic Development Authority (NEDA) violated by specific acts implementing RA 7942 and
requested this Court to allow him to speak, during DAO 96-40. “[W]hen an act of the legislative
that Oral Argument, on the economic consequences
department is seriously alleged to have infringed the
of the Decision of January 27, 2004.[20]
Constitution, settling the controversy becomes the
duty of this Court. By the mere enactment of the
We are convinced. We now agree that the Court
questioned law or the approval of the challenged
must recognize the exceptional character of the
action, the dispute is said to have ripened into a
situation and the paramount public interest involved,
judicial controversy even without any other overt act.
as well as the necessity for a ruling to put an end to
the uncertainties plaguing the mining industry and ”[28] This ruling can be traced from Tañada v.
the affected communities as a result of doubts cast Angara,[29] in which the Court said:
upon the constitutionality and validity of the Mining
Act, the subject FTAA and future FTAAs, and the “In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate
need to avert a multiplicity of suits. Paraphrasing
on the ground that it contravenes the Constitution,
Gonzales v. Commission on Elections,[21] it is
the petition no doubt raises a justiciable controversy.
evident that strong reasons of public policy demand
Where an action of the legislative branch is seriously
that the constitutionality issue be resolved now.[22]
alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it
becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the
In further support of the immediate resolution of the
judiciary to settle the dispute.
constitutionality issue, public respondents cite Acop
xxx xxx x
v. Guingona,[23] to the effect that the courts will
xx
decide a question -- otherwise moot and academic -
“As this Court has repeatedly and firmly emphasized
- if it is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.”
in many cases, it will not shirk, digress from or
[24] Public respondents ask the Court to avoid a
abandon its sacred duty and authority to uphold the
situation in which the constitutionality issue may
Constitution in matters that involve grave abuse of
again arise with respect to another FTAA, the
discretion brought before it in appropriate cases,
resolution of which may not be achieved until after it
committed by any officer, agency, instrumentality or
has become too late for our mining industry to grow
out of its infancy. They also recall Salonga v. Cruz department of the government.”[30]
Paño,[25] in which this Court declared that “(t)he
Additionally, the entry of CMP into this case has also
Court also has the duty to formulate guiding and
effectively forestalled any possible objections
controlling constitutional principles, precepts,
arising from the standing or legal interest of the
doctrines or rules. It has the symbolic function of
original parties.
educating the bench and bar on the extent of
protection given by constitutional guarantees. x x x.
”
For all the foregoing reasons, we believe that the referred to in paragraph 4 of Section 2 of Article XII
Court should proceed to a resolution of the of the Constitution; and (3) the Financial and
constitutional issues in this case. Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) dated
March 30, 1995 executed by the government and
AFTER ALL IS SAID AND DONE, it is clear that Western Mining Corporation Philippines Inc.
there is unanimous agreement in the Court upon the (WMCP), except Sections 7.8 and 7.9 of the subject
key principle that the State must exercise full control FTAA which are hereby INVALIDATED for being
and supervision over the exploration, development contrary to public policy and for being grossly
and utilization of mineral resources. disadvantageous to the government.
This Court cannot but be mindful that any decision

rendered in this case will ultimately impact not only
the cultural communities which lodged the instant
Petition, and not only the larger community of the
Filipino people now struggling to survive amidst a
fiscal/budgetary deficit, ever increasing prices of
fuel, food, and essential commodities and services,
the shrinking value of the local currency, and a
government hamstrung in its delivery of basic
services by a severe lack of resources, but also
countless future generations of Filipinos.
For this latter group of Filipinos yet to be born, their

eventual access to education, health care and basic
services, their overall level of well-being, the very
shape of their lives are even now being determined
and affected partly by the policies and directions
being adopted and implemented by government
today. And in part by the this Resolution rendered
by this Court today.
Verily, the mineral wealth and natural resources of

this country are meant to benefit not merely a select
group of people living in the areas locally affected by
mining activities, but the entire Filipino nation,
present and future, to whom the mineral wealth
really belong. This Court has therefore weighed
carefully the rights and interests of all concerned,
and decided for the greater good of the greatest
number. JUSTICE FOR ALL, not just for some;
JUSTICE FOR THE PRESENT AND THE FUTURE,
not just for the here and now.
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to GRANT

the respondents’ and the intervenors’ Motions for
Reconsideration; to REVERSE and SET ASIDE this
Court’s January 27, 2004 Decision; to DISMISS the
Petition; and to issue this new judgment declaring
CONSTITUTIONAL (1) Republic Act No. 7942 (the
Philippine Mining Law), (2) its Implementing Rules
and Regulations contained in DENR Administrative
Order (DAO) No. 9640 -- insofar as they relate to
financial and technical assistance agreements
Conference of Maritime Agencies v. POEA The reasons given above for the delegation
G.R. No. 114714 of legislative powers in general are particularly
applicable to administrative bodies. With the
FACTS: proliferation of specialized activities and their
Petitioner Conference of Maritime Manning attendant peculiar problems, the national legislature
Agencies, Inc., an incorporated association of has found it more and more necessary to entrust to
licensed Filipino manning agencies, and its co- administrative agencies the authority to issue rules
petitioners, all licensed manning agencies which to carry out the general provisions of the statute.
hire and recruit Filipino seamen for and in behalf of This is called the "power of subordinate legislation."
their respective foreign ship-owner-principals, urge
to annul Resolution No. 01, series of 1994, of the With this power, administrative bodies may
Governing Board" of the POEA and POEA implement the broad policies laid down in a statute
Memorandum Circular No. 05. by "filling in" the details which the Congress may not
have the opportunity or competence to provide. This
Petitioners contend that POEA does not is effected by their promulgation of what are known
have the power and authority to fix and promulgate as supplementary regulations, such as the
rates affecting death and workmen's compensation implementing rules issued by the Department of
of Filipino seamen working in ocean-going vessels; Labor on the new Labor Code. These regulations
only Congress can. have the force and effect of law.
Governing Board Resolution No. 1: the

POEA Governing Board resolves to amend and
increase the compensation and other benefits as
specified under Part II, Section. C, paragraph 1 and
Section L, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the POEA
Standard Employment Contract for Seafarers
ISSUE:
Whether or Not the POEA can promulgate
rules by virtue of delegation of legislative power?
HELD:
YES! The principle, of non-delegation of
powers is applicable to all the three major powers of
the Government but is especially important in the
case of the legislative power because of the many
instances when delegation is permitted. The
occasions are rare when executive or judicial
powers have to be delegated by the authorities to
which they legally pertain. In the case of legislative
power, however, such occasions have become
more and more frequent, if not necessary. This had
led to the observation that the delegation of
legislative power has become the rule and its non-
delegation the exception.
The reason is the increasing complexity of

the task of government and the growing inability of
the legislature to cope directly with the myriad
problems demanding its attention. These solutions
may, however, be expected from its delegates, who
are supposed to be experts in the particular fields
assigned to them.
Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979)
FACTS:
President Carter terminated a treaty with Taiwan,
and a few Congressional members felt that this
deprived them of their Constitutional with respect to
a change in the supreme law of the land. Congress
has taken no official action. However, no
Congressional action was ever taken. The Senate
considered a resolution that would require the
President to get Senate approval before any mutual
defense treaty could be terminated, but there was
no final vote on the resolution.
ISSUE:
Whether the issue as the President can terminate a
treaty without Congressional approval is a non-
justiciable political question.
HELD:
Yes, because it involves the authority of the
President in the conduct of our country's foreign
relations and the extent to which the Senate or the
Congress is authorized to negate the action of the
President. The question of the efficacy of
ratifications by state legislatures, in the light of
previous rejection or attempted withdrawal, should
be regarded as a political question pertaining to the
political departments, with the ultimate authority in
the Congress in the exercise of its control over the
promulgation of the adoption of the Amendment.
The controversy is a non-justiciable political dispute
that should be left for resolution by the Executive
and Legislative Branches of the Government and
might be answered in different ways for different
amendments which must surely be controlled by
political standards, rather than standards easily
characterized as "judicially manageable". In light of
the absence of any constitutional provision
governing the termination of a treaty, and the fact
that different termination procedures may be
appropriate for different treaties, the instant case, in
my view, also "must surely be controlled by political
standards."
Olaguer vs RTC, G.R. No. 81385. February 21,
1989
FACTS: HELD:
When the Development Bank of the Philippines No. Olaguer, being a fiscal agent of the PCGG and
(DBP) provided certain financing accommodations Chairman of the Board of Directors of the PJI, was
to Philippine Journalists, Inc. (PJI), Publisher, the acting for and in behalf of the PCGG. Under Section
voting rights over 67% of the total subscribed and 2 of Executive Order No. 14, the Sandiganbayan
outstanding voting shares of stock of the company has exclusive and original jurisdiction over all cases
held by the stockholders were assigned to the bank. regarding "the funds, moneys, assets and properties
The bank appointed some stockholders as proxies illegally acquired by Former President Ferdinand E.
to exercise its right to vote. But when PJI defaulted, Marcos, Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos, their close
the bank cancelled the said proxies and designated relatives, subordinate, business associates,
as its proxies petitioner Eduardo Olaguer, Jose Mari dummies, agents, or nominees," civil or criminal,
Velez and Manuel de Leon. DBP scheduled a including incidents arising from such cases. The
special stockholders meeting for the purpose of Decision of the Sandiganbayan is subject to review
electing new set of directors. However, complaints on certiorari exclusively by the Supreme Court. In
were filed against them due to some alleged illegal the exercise of its functions, the PCGG is a co-equal
acts committed by them. Among which is that body with the regional trial courts and co-equal
Olaguer continued to exercise and retain full bodies have no power to control the other. The
management and control of PJI despite of his regional trial courts and the Court of Appeals have
termination of his appointment as member of the no jurisdiction over the PCGG in the exercise of its
board of directors of DBP by Pres. Aquino. It was powers under the applicable Executive Orders and
alleged that Olaguer, et. al have been acting as Section 26, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution
corporate officers and/or members of the board and, therefore, may not interfere with and restrain or
without their having been elected by the majority set aside the orders and actions of the PCGG. The
vote of stockholders and without their owning in their Commission should not be embroiled in and
own right even a single qualifying share. It was also swamped by legal suits before inferior courts all over
alleged in the complaint, that petitioner Reyes had the land. Otherwise, the Commission will be forced
been sending out notices to private respondents to spend valuable time defending all its actuations in
about an alleged stockholders meeting to be held on such courts. This will defeat the very purpose behind
December 21, 1987 at the PJI building, and that in the creation of the Commission.
the letter written by the DBP chief legal counsel, it
is stated that petitioner Olaguer and his associates
who claim to be members of the board and
corporate officers of PJI do not represent DBP and
that they are not authorized to act in its behalf.
A complaint was filed in the RTC of Manila however,
Olaguer contested that he has just been designated
the fiscal and team leader of the Presidential
Commission on Good Government (PCGG)
assigned to the PJI and that all his actions are
sanctioned and reported to PCGG.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction over
the case notwithstanding Olaguer's appointment as
fiscal agent of the PCGG.
G.R. No. L-45127 May 5, 1989 ISSUE:
Petitioner: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Whether the absence of designated limits in fixing
represented by the Provincial Fiscal of Leyte the length of service of a term of imprisonment (as
in Sec 32 of RA 4670) constitutes an exercise of
Respondent: HON. JUDGE AUXENCIO C. undue delegation of powers?
DACUYCUY, CELESTINO S. MATONDO,
SEGUNDINO A, CAVAL and CIRILO M. ZANORIA
HELD:
(TOPIC: TESTS FOR VALID DELEGATION)
Ponente: REGALADO, J.: Yes. The court held that It is not for the courts to fix
the term of imprisonment where no points of
FACTS: reference have been provided by the legislature.
The Private respondents were charged of violation What valid delegation presupposes and
of Republic Act 4670. During the arraignment the sanctions is an exercise of discretion to fix the
Private respondents pleaded guilty and moved to length of service of a term of imprisonment
quash the charge on the ground that the facts of the which must be encompassed within specific or
charge do not constitute offense, Sec 32 of the said designated limits provided by law, the absence
law is null and void for being unconstitutional. of which designated limits well constitute such
exercise as an undue delegation, if not-an outright
The disputed section of Republic Act intrusion into or assumption, of legislative power.
No. 4670 provides:
Section 32 of Republic Act No. 4670 provides for an
Sec. 32. Penal Provision. — A indeterminable period of imprisonment, with neither
person who shall wilfully interfere a minimum nor a maximum duration having been set
with, restrain or coerce any teacher by the legislative authority. The courts are thus
in the exercise of his rights given a wide latitude of discretion to fix the term of
guaranteed by this Act or who shall imprisonment, without even the benefit of any
in any other manner commit any act sufficient standard, such that the duration thereof
to defeat any of the provisions of this may range, in the words of respondent judge, from
Act shall, upon conviction, be one minute to the life span of the accused.
punished by a fine of not less than Irremissibly, this cannot be allowed. It vests in the
one hundred pesos nor more than courts a power and a duty essentially legislative in
one thousand pesos, or by nature and which, as applied to this case, does
imprisonment, in the discretion of the violence to the rules on separation of powers as well
court. (Emphasis supplied). as the non-delegability of legislative powers. This
time, the preumption of constitutionality has to yield.
The private respondents contend that in the
penalties imposed by the said law, it is apparent that On the foregoing considerations, and by virtue of the
it has no prescribed period or term for the imposable separability clause in Section 34 of Republic Act No.
penalty of imprisonment. While a minimum and 4670, the penalty of imprisonment provided in
maximum amount for the penalty of fine is specified, Section 32 thereof should be, as it is hereby,
there is no equivalent provision for the penalty of declared unconstitutional.
imprisonment, although both appear to be qualified
by the phrase "in the discretion of the court. The It follows, therefore, that a ruling on the proper
determination of what Congress intended to be the interpretation of the actual term of imprisonment, as
duration of the penalty of imprisonment would be may have been intended by Congress, would be
violative of the constitutional prohibition against pointless and academic. It is, however, worth
undue delegation of legislative power, and that the mentioning that the suggested application of the so-
absence of a provision on the specific term of called rule or principle of parallelism, whereby a fine
imprisonment constitutes that penalty into a cruel of P1,000.00 would be equated with one year of
and unusual form of punishment. Hence, said imprisonment, does not merit judicial acceptance. A
Section 32 is unconstitutional. fine, whether imposed as a single or as an
alternative penalty, should not and cannot be
reduced or converted into a prisonv term; it is to be
considered as a separate and independent penalty
consonant with Article 26 of the Revised Penal
Code. 23 It is likewise declared a discrete principal
penalty in the graduated scales of penalties in
Article 71 of said Code. There is no rule for
transmutation of the amount of a fine into a term of
imprisonment. Neither does the Code contain any
provision that a fine when imposed in conjunction
with imprisonment is subordinate to the latter
penalty. In sum, a fine is as much a principal penalty
as imprisonment. Neither is subordinate to the other
Dacudao vs Gonzales, 688 SCRA 109 (2013) group. The function involved is purely executive and
adminstrative.
Facts:
Furthermore, Preliminary Investigation is not a
• The petitioners filed a case of syndicated quasi-judicial proceeding. The DOJ as a primary
estafa against Celso Delos Angeles and his prosecution arm of the government, does not
associates in the Legacy Group of exercise a quasi-judicial function when it reviews the
companies, after the petitioners were findings of a public prosecutor on the finding of
defrauded in a business venture. probable cause in any case.
• Thereafter, the DOJ Secretary Gonzales
issued Department Order 182 which directs
all prosecutors in the country to forward all
cases already filed against Celso Delos
Angeles, Jr and his associates to the
secretariat of DOJ in Manila for appropriate
action.
• However, in separate order which in

Memorandun dated March 2009, it was said
that cases already filed against Celso Delos
Santos et. al of the Legacy Group of
companies in Cagayan De Oro City need to
be sent anymore to the secretariat of DOJ
Manila.
• Because of such orders, the complaint of

petitioners was forwarded to the secretariat
of the Special Panel of the DOJ of Manila.
• Aggrieved, Spouses Dacudao filed a petition

for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
assailing to the respondent Secretary of
Justice grave abuse of discretion in issuing
the D.O. and Memorandum which
accordingly violated their right to due
process, right to equal protection of the law
and right to speedy disposition of the cases.
Issue:
Whether or not the Secretary of DOJ commited

grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Department
Order 182 and Memorandum?
Held:
No. The Secretary of DOJ did not commit grave

abuse of discretion in issuing the DO 182.
The Secretary of Justice did not exercise any judicial

or quasi-judicial functions because his questioned
issuance were ostensibly intended to ensure his
subordinates' efficiency and economy in conducting
the preliminary investigation involving the legacy
G.R. No. 71977 February 27, 1987 HELD:
DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA, M.P.,petitioners, vs. Paragraph 1 of Section 44 of P.D. No. 1177 unduly
HON. MANUEL ALBA in his capacity as the over extends the privilege granted under said
MINISTER OF THE BUDGET, respondents. Section 16[5]. It empowers the President to
indiscriminately transfer funds from one department,
FACTS: bureau, office or agency of the Executive
Department to any program, project or activity of any
 Assailed in this petition for prohibition with department, bureau or office included in the General
prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction is the Appropriations Act or approved after its enactment,
constitutionality of the first paragraph of Section without regard as to whether or not the funds to be
44 of Presidential Decree No. 1177, otherwise transferred are actually savings in the item from
known as the "Budget Reform Decree of 1977." which the same are to be taken, or whether or not
 One of the grounds relied upon by the the transfer is for the purpose of augmenting the
Petitioners, is that stated in Paragraph D which item to which said transfer is to be made. It does not
states that Section 44 of the same decree only completely disregard the standards set in the
amounts to undue delegation of legislative fundamental law, thereby amounting to an undue
powers to the executive delegation of legislative powers, but likewise goes
 The conflict between paragraph 1 of Section 44 beyond the tenor thereof. Indeed, such
of Presidential Decree No. 1177 and Section constitutional infirmities render the provision in
16[5], Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution is question null and void.
readily perceivable from a mere cursory reading
thereof. Said paragraph 1 of Section 44 Thomas M. Cooley in his "A Treatise on the
provides: Constitutional Limitations," Vol. 1, Eight Edition,
Little, Brown and Company, Boston, explained:
The President shall have the authority to
transfer any fund, appropriated for the ... The legislative and judicial are coordinate
different departments, bureaus, offices and departments of the government, of equal
agencies of the Executive Department, dignity; each is alike supreme in the exercise
which are included in the General of its proper functions, and cannot directly or
Appropriations Act, to any program, project indirectly, while acting within the limits of its
or activity of any department, bureau, or authority, be subjected to the control or
office included in the General Appropriations supervision of the other, without an
Act or approved after its enactment. unwarrantable assumption by that other of
power which, by the Constitution, is not
 On the other hand, the constitutional provision conferred upon it. The Constitution
apportions the powers of government, but it
under consideration reads as follows:
does not make any one of the three
departments subordinate to another, when
Sec. 16[5]. No law shall be passed
exercising the trust committed to it. The
authorizing any transfer of appropriations,
courts may declare legislative enactments
however, the President, the Prime Minister,
unconstitutional and void in some cases, but
the Speaker, the Chief Justice of the
not because the judicial power is superior in
Supreme Court, and the heads of
degree or dignity to the legislative. Being
constitutional commis ions may by law be
required to declare what the law is in the
authorized to augment any item in the
cases which come before them, they must
general appropriations law for their
enforce the Constitution, as the paramount
respective offices from savings in other
law, whenever a legislative enactment
items of their respective appropriations.
comes in conflict with it. But the courts sit,
not to review or revise the legislative action,
ISSUE: WON Presidential Decree 1777 amounts to but to enforce the legislative will, and it is
undue delegation of legislative powers to the only where they find that the legislature has
executive failed to keep within its constitutional limits,
that they are at liberty to disregard its action;
and in doing so, they only do what every
private citizen may do in respect to the
mandates of the courts when the judges
assumed to act and to render judgments or
decrees without jurisdiction. "In exercising
this high authority, the judges claim no
judicial supremacy; they are only the
administrators of the public will. If an act of
the legislature is held void, it is not because
the judges have any control over the
legislative power, but because the act is
forbidden by the Constitution, and because
the will of the people, which is therein
declared, is paramount to that of their
representatives expressed in any law."
[Lindsay v. Commissioners, & c., 2 Bay, 38,
61; People v. Rucker, 5 Col. 5; Russ v.
Com., 210 Pa. St. 544; 60 Atl. 169, 1 L.R.A.
[N.S.] 409, 105 Am. St. Rep. 825] (pp. 332-
334).
Indeed, where the legislature or the executive

branch is acting within the limits of its authority, the
judiciary cannot and ought not to interfere with the
former. But where the legislature or the executive
acts beyond the scope of its constitutional powers,
it becomes the duty of the judiciary to declare what
the other branches of the government had assumed
to do as void. This is the essence of judicial power
conferred by the Constitution "in one Supreme Court
and in such lower courts as may be established by
law" [Art. VIII, Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution;
Art. X, Section 1 of the 1973 Constitution and which
was adopted as part of the Freedom Constitution,
and Art. VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution] and
which power this Court has exercised in many
instances. *
The instant petition is granted. Paragraph 1 of

Section 44 of Presidential Decree No. 1177 is
declared null and void for being unconstitutional.
G.R. No. 141949 October 14, 2002 existing laws. Provided: Finally, that pending finality
of the decision, the Board may require the Petitioner
CEFERINO PADUA, petitioner, vs. HON. to deposit in whole or in part in escrow the
SANTIAGO RANADA, PRESIDING JUDGE OF provisionally approved adjustment or initial toll
MAKATI, RTC, BRANCH 137 et al rates." (Emphasis supplied)
FACTS:  CITRA moved to withdraw its "Urgent Motion for

Provisional Approval" without prejudice to its
 The Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) issued right to seek or be granted provisional relief
Resolution No. 2001-89 authorizing provisional under the above-quoted provisions of the TRB
toll rate adjustments at the Metro Manila Skyway Rules of Procedure, obviously, referring to the
 The above Resolution approving provisional toll power of the Board to act on its own initiative.
rate adjustments was published in the  Hence, petitioners Ceferino Padua and Eduardo
newspapers of general circulation. Zialcita, as toll payer assail before this Court the
 Tracing back the events that led to the issuance validity and legality of TRB Resolution No. 2001-
of the said Resolution, it appears that Citra 89.
Metro Manila Tollways Corporation (CITRA)  As a toll payer, Padua claims that: (1) Resolution
filed with the TRB an application for an interim No. 2001-89 was issued without the required
adjustment of the toll rates at the Metro Manila publication and in violation of due process; (2)
Skyway Project – Stage 1.CITRA moored its alone, TRB Executive Director Jaime S.
petition on the provisions of the "Supplemental Dumlao, Jr., could not authorize the provisional
Toll Operation Agreement" (STOA), authorizing toll rate adjustments because the TRB is a
it, as the investor, to apply for and if warranted, collegial body; and (3) CITRA has no standing to
to be granted an interim adjustment of toll rates apply for a toll fee increase since it is an
in the event of a "significant currency "investor" and not a "franchisee-operator."
devaluation."  Private respondent CITRA, in its comment
 Claiming that the peso exchange rate to a U.S. counters that: (1) the TRB has primary
dollar had devaluated, CITRA alleged that there administrative jurisdiction over all matters
was a compelling need for the increase of the toll relating to toll rates; (2) prohibition is an
rates to meet the loan obligations of the Project inappropriate remedy because its function is to
and the substantial increase in debt-service restrain acts about to be done and not acts
burden. already accomplished; (3) Resolution No. 2001-
 Due to heavy opposition, CITRA’s petition 89 was issued in accordance with law; (4)
remained unresolved. This prompted CITRA to Section 3, Rule 10 of the TRB Rules is
file an "Urgent Motion for Provisional Approval," constitutional; and (5) private respondent and
this time, invoking Section 3, Rule 10 of the the Republic of the Philippines would suffer
"Rules of Practice and Procedure Governing more irreparable damages than petitioner.
Hearing Before the Toll Regulatory Board" (TRB
Rules of Procedure) which provides: ISSUE: WON TRB has jurisdiction to issue
Resolution No. 2001-89 authorizing provisional toll
"SECTION 3. Provisional Relief. – Upon the filing of rate adjustments at the Metro Manila Skyway
an application or petition for the approval of the
initial toll rate or toll rate adjustment, or at any stage, HELD:
thereafter, the Board may grant on motion of the
pleader or in its own initiative, the relief prayed for We take cognizance of the wealth of jurisprudence
without prejudice to a final decision after completion on the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction
of the hearing should the Board find that the and exhaustion of administrative remedies. In this
pleading, together with the affidavits and supporting era of clogged court dockets, the need for
documents attached thereto and such additional specialized administrative boards or commissions
evidence as may have been requested and with the special knowledge, experience and
presented, substantially support the provisional capability to hear and determine promptly disputes
order; Provided: That the Board may, motu proprio, on technical matters or intricate questions of facts,
continue to issue orders or grant relief in the subject to judicial review in case of grave abuse of
exercise of its powers of general supervision under discretion, is indispensable. Between the power
lodged in an administrative body and a court, the
unmistakable trend is to refer it to the former."[24] In
Industrial Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,we
ruled:
"x x x, if the case is such that its determination

requires the expertise, specialized skills and
knowledge of the proper administrative bodies
because technical matters or intricate questions of
facts are involved, then relief must first be obtained
in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will
be supplied by the courts even though the matter is
within the proper jurisdiction of a court."
Petitioner Padua’s "Urgent Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order to Stop Arbitrary Toll Fee
Increases" is DENIED and petitioner Zialcita’s
"Petition for Prohibition" is DISMISSED.
G.R. No. 115844. August 15,1997 deem necessary for the
management of the chapter.
CESAR G. VIOLA, Chairman, Bgy. 167, Zone 15,
District II, Manila, petitioner, vs. HON. RAFAEL We hold that §493 of the Local
M. ALUNAN III, Secretary, DILG, ALEX L. DAVID, Government Code, in directing the board of
President/Secretary General, National Liga ng directors of the liga to “create such other
mga Barangay, LEONARDO L. ANGAT, positions as may be deemed necessary for
President, City of Manila, Liga ng mga the management of the chapter[s],” embodies
Barangay,respondents. a fairly intelligible standard. There is no
undue delegation of power by Congress.
While the board of directors of a local
FACTS: Petitioner Cesar Viola, a Bgy. Chairman,
chapter can create additional positions to
challenged the validity of Art. III, §§1-2 of the
provide for the needs of the chapter, the
Revised Implementing Rules and Guidelines board of directors of the National Liga must
for the General Elections of the Liga ng mga be deemed to have the power to create
Barangay Officers so far as they provide for additional positions not only for its
the election of first, second and third vice
management but also for that of all the
presidents and for auditors for the National chapters at the municipal, city, provincial and
Liga ng mga Barangay and its chapters. metropolitan political subdivision
Petitioner’s contention is that the levels. Otherwise the National Liga would be
positions in question are in excess of those no different from the local chapters.
provided in the Local Government Code (R.A. Section 493 actually gives the board the
No. 7160),Petitioner argues that, in providing power to “[1] appoint its secretary and
for the positions of first, second and third vice treasurer and [2] create such other positions
presidents and auditor for each chapter, §§1-
as it may deem necessary for the
2 of the Implementing Rules expand the management of the chapter.” The additional
number of positions authorized in §493 of the positions to be created need not therefore be
Local Government Code in violation of the appointive positions.
principle that implementing rules and
regulations cannot add or detract from the
provisions of the law they are designed to
implement.
ISSUE: Is the power to create additional positions
necessary for the management of the National
Liga and Local Liga Chapter vested upon the
respective Board of Directors.
HELD: Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the
creation of the additional positions is
authorized by the LGC which provides as
follows:
§493. Organization. The liga at
the municipal, city, provincial,
metropolitan political
subdivision, and national
levels directly elect a
president, a vice-president,
and five (5) members of the
board of directors. The board
shall appoint its secretary
and treasurer and create
such other positions as it may
JEAN L. ARNAULT vs EUSTAQUIO BALAGTAS
FACTS: Since the legislature is given a large discretion in
reference to the means it may employ to promote
the general welfare, and alone may judge what
Petitioner was an attorney in-fact in the negotiations means are necessary and appropriate to
for the purchase of the Buenavista and Tambobong accomplish an end which the Constitution makes
Estates by the Government of the Philippines. legitimate, the courts cannot undertake to decide
whether the means adopted by the legislature are
the only means or even the best means possible to
The Senate of the Philippines adopted Resolution attain the end sought, for such course would best
No. 8, whereby created a Special Committee to the exercise of police power of the state in the
determine “whether the said purchase was honest, judicial department.
valid and proper, and whether the price involved in
the deal was fair and just, the parties responsible
therefor, any other facts the Committee in The judicial department of the government has no
pursuance of said Resolution. right or power or authority to do, much in the same
manner that the legislative department may not
invade the judicial realm in the ascertainment of
Petitioner was asked to whom a part of the purchase truth and in the application and interpretation of the
price was delivered. Petitioner refused to answer law, in what is known as the judicial process,
this question. because that would be in direct conflict with the
fundamental principle of separation of powers
established in the Constitution. The only instances
when judicial intervention may lawfully be invoke are
Petitioner was imprisoned in the new Bilibid Prison
when there has been a violation of a constitutional
until such time when he shall reveal to the Senate
inhibition, or when there has been an arbitrary
the name of the person who received the part of the
exercise of the legislative discretion.
purchase price.
Petitioner contended that the Senate of the

Philippines has no power to punish him for contempt
for refusing to reveal the name of the person to
whom he gave the money to, that the Legislature
lacks authority to punish him for contempt.
ISSUE:
WON the courts have the right to review the findings
of legislative bodies in the exercise of the
prerogative of legislation, or interfere with their
proceedings.
RULING:
There was an inherent fundamental error in the
course of action that the lower court followed. It
assumed that courts have the right to review the
findings of legislative bodies in the exercise of the
prerogative if legislation, or interfere with their
proceedings or their discretion in what is known as
the legislative process.
US vs Ang Tang Ho, GR No. 17122, February 27, complete when it left the legislature as it failed to
1922 specify what conditions the Governor-General shall
issue the proclamation as the said Act states “for any
Facts: cause”. It also failed to define “extraordinary rise” that
such proclamation by the Governor-General aims to
At its special session of 1919, the Philippine prevent. Lastly, the said Act authorized the
Legislature passed Act No. 2868, entitled "An Act promulgation of temporary rules and emergency
penalizing the monopoly and holding of, and measures by the Governor-General.
speculation in, palay, rice, and corn under
extraordinary circumstances, regulating the It must be conceded that, after the passage of act No.
distribution and sale thereof, and authorizing the 2868, and before any rules and regulations were
Governor-General, with the consent of the Council of promulgated by the Governor-General, a dealer in rice
State, to issue the necessary rules and regulations. could sell it at any price, even at a peso per "ganta,"
and that he would not commit a crime, because there
August 1, 1919, the Governor-General issued a would be no law fixing the price of rice, and the sale of
proclamation fixing the price at which rice should be it at any price would not be a crime. That is to say, in
sold. the absence of a proclamation, it was not a crime to
sell rice at any price. Hence, it must follow that, if the
August 8, 1919, a complaint was filed against the defendant committed a crime, it was because the
defendant, Ang Tang Ho, charging him with the sale of Governor-General issued the proclamation. There was
rice at an excessive price when he sold to Pedro no act of the Legislature making it a crime to sell rice
Trinidad, one ganta of rice at the price of eighty at any price, and without the proclamation, the sale of
centavos (P.80), which is a price greater than that fixed it at any price was to a crime.
by Executive Order No. 53 of the Governor-General of
the Philippines, dated the 1st of August, 1919, under
the authority of section 1 of Act No. 2868.
Upon this charge, he was tried, found guilty and

sentenced to five months' imprisonment and to pay a
fine of P500, from which he appealed to this court,
claiming that the lower court erred in finding Executive
Order No. 53 of 1919, to be of any force and effect, in
finding the accused guilty of the offense charged, and
in imposing the sentence.
The official records show that the Act was to take effect
on its approval; that it was approved July 30, 1919; that
the Governor-General issued his proclamation on the
1st of August, 1919; and that the law was first
published on the 13th of August, 1919; and that the
proclamation itself was first published on the 20th of
August, 1919.
Issue:
Whether or not the Philippine Legislature passed Act

No. 2868 delegation to the Governor General a valid
delegation of power?
Held:
No. The said Act constituted an invalid delegation of

power since the said Act authorized the Governor-
General to promulgate laws and not merely rules and
regulations to effect the law. The said Act was not
ANTIPOLO REALTY CORPORATION vs. THE ISSUE:
NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY (NHA), Hon. G.V. Whether or not in hearing the complaint of Yuson and in
Tobias, in his capacity as General Manager of the ordering the reinstatement of the
National Housing Authority, The Hon. Jacobo C. Clave, Contract to Sell between the parties NHA assumed the
in his capacity as Presidential Executive Assistant and performance of judicial or quasi-judicial functions which it
Virgilio A. Yuson (G. R. No. L-50444 August 31, 1987) was not authorized to perform.
FACTS: HELD:
Jose Hernando acquired prospective and beneficial No. It is by now commonplace learning that many
ownership over Lot. No. 15, Block IV of the Ponderosa administrative agencies exercise and perform
Heights Subdivision in Antipolo, Rizal, from the petitioner adjudicatory powers and functions, though to a limited
Antipolo Realty Corporation under a Contract to Sell. On extent only. Limited delegation of judicial or quasi-judicial
28 August 1974, Hernando transferred his rights over the authority to administrative agencies (e.g., the Securities
said lot to private respondent Virgilio Yuson, embodied in and Exchange Commission and the National Labor
Relations Commission) is well recognized in our
a Deed of Assignment and Substitution of Obligor.
jurisdiction,basically because the need for special
However, for failure of Antipolo Realty to develop the
competence and experience has been recognized as
subdivision project in accordance with its undertaking essential in the resolution of questions of complex or
under Clause 17 of the Contract to Sell (subdivision specialized character and because of a companion
beautification), Mr. Yuson paid only the arrearages recognition that the dockets of our regular courts have
pertaining to the period up to, and including, the month of remained crowded and clogged.
August 1972 and stopped all monthly installment
payments falling due thereafter. The Court held that under the law creating NHA it is
empowered to regulate the real estate trade
On 14 October 1976, the president of Antipolo Realty and business involving ...specific performance of
sent a notice to private respondent Yuson advising that contractual and statutory obligations filed by
the required improvements in the subdivision had already buyers of subdivision lots or condominium units against
been completed, and requesting resumption of payment the owner, developer, dealer, broker or
of the monthly installments on Lot No. 15. For his part, salesman..
Mr. Yuson replied that he would conform with the request
as soon as he was able to verify the truth of the The Court held that under the "sense-making and
representation in the notice. In a second letter dated 27 expeditious doctrine of primary jurisdiction . . . the courts
November 1976, Antipolo Realty reiterated its request cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a
citing the decision rendered by the National Housing
question which is within the jurisdiction of an
Authority (NHA) on 25 October 1976 in Case No. 252
(entitled "Jose B. Viado Jr., complainant vs. Conrado S. administrative tribunal where the question demands the
Reyes, respondent") declaring Antipolo Realty to have exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the
"substantially complied with its commitment to the lot special knowledge, experience, and services of the
buyers pursuant to the Contract to Sell. A formal demand administrative tribunal to determine technical and
was made for full and immediate payment of the amount intricate matters of fact, and a uniformity of ruling is
of P16,994.73, representing installments which, Antipolo essential to comply with the purposes of the regulatory
Realty alleged, had accrued during the period while the statute administered."
improvements were being completed —i.e., between
September 1972 and October 1976.
Yuson refused to pay the September 1972 - October

1976 monthly installments but agreed to pay the post
October 1976 installments. Antipolo Realty responded by
rescinding the Contract to Sell, and claiming the forfeiture
of all installment payments previously made by Mr.
Yuson. Yuson brought his dispute with Antipolo Realty
before NHA. Antipolo Realty filed a motion to dismiss,
which NHA denied. After hearing, the NHA rendered a
decision on 9 March 1978 ordering the reinstatement of
the Contract to Sell. A motion for reconsideration of
Antipolo Realty was also denied.
DARIO VS MISON
FACTS:
 President Aquino promulgated Proclamation

No. 3 Declaring a National Policy to implement
the reforms mandated by the people, protecting
their basic rights, adopting a provisional
constitution and providing for an orderly
transition to a government under a new
Constitution.
 Then the President issued a number of executive

orders and directives reorganizing various other
government offices, which led to EO No. 127
provided for the reorganization of the Bureau of
Customs and prescribed a new staffing pattern.
 The petitioner was a Deputy Commissioner at

the Bureau of Customs.
 The petitioner was one of the personnel that

were terminated from office.
ISSUE:
 WON the petitioner’s dismissal was legal.
HELD:
 With respect to EO No. 127, Commissioner

submits that under Section 59 thereof, those
incumbents whose positions are not included
therein or who are not reappointed shall be
deemed separated from the service. He submits
that because the removed personnel have not
been reappointed they are considered
terminated. To begin with the Commissioner’s
appointing power is subject to the provisions of
EO No. 39. Under EO No. 39 the Commissioner
of Customs may appoint all Bureau personnels
except those appointed by the President.
 Accordingly with respect to Deputy
Commissioner Dario, Commissioner Mison could
not have validly terminated them, they being
Presidential appointees.

Admin Law Case Digest 2 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Admin Law Case Digest 2 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Chenery Lumiqued vs.

Exevea, 282 SCRA 125 (1997)

Antipolo Realty Co. vs. NHA, 153 SCRA 399 (1987)

Philippine International Trading Co. vs. Angeles, 263

Christian General Assembly vs. Ignacio, 597 SCRA

Mitchell Coke and Coke Company vs. Pennsylvania

US vs. Dorr, 2 Phil 332 (1903)

Cebu United Enterprises vs. Gallofin, 106 Phil 491

Crisostomo vs. CA, 258 SCRA 134 (1996)

Viola vs. Alunan III, 277 SCRA 409 (1997)

Larin vs. Executive Secretary, 280 SCRA 713 (1997)

Dario vs. Mison, 176 SCRA 84 (1989)

Tondo Medical Center Employees Assoc. vs. CA, 527

Banda vs. Ermita, 618 SCRA 488 (2010)

Pichay, Jr. vs. Office of the Deputy Executive

Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force vs. CA, 171

Balanguan vs. CA, 562 SCRA 184 (2008)

Dacudao vs. Gonzales, 688 SCRA 109 (2003)

Olaguer vs. RTC, 170 SCRA 478 (1989)

Padua vs. Ranada, 390 SCRA 663 (2002)

Joson vs. Executive Secretary, 290 SCRA 279 (1998)

Eugenio vs. CSC, 242 SCRA 196 (1995)

Blaquera vs. Alcala, 295 SCRA 411 (1998)

‘B. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by

‘C. Cases involving specific performance of contractual

There is no question that a statute may vest exclusive

No. Although PITC has quasi-legislative power, this does

Thus, even before the trade balancing measures issued

3 a) From further charging the petitioners the Counter Export Development

Issue: W/N PD 1341 abolished the PCC?

5 dismissal or separation actually occurs because the position itself ceases to

11 RECOMMENDATORY FUNCTIONS TO THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE

16 a valid exercise of the President's continuing authority to reorganize the Office

ISSUE: W/N - Considering the allegations, issues and arguments

- The Court of Appeals found fault in the DOJ's failure to

Issue: Whether or not AO 29 and AO 268 were issued in

Held: The Pres. is the head of the government.

Control means the power of an officer to alter or modify

The "Grant of Authority and Agreement to Operate

- On December 8, 1986 the President issued Issue:

The President, in the exercise of her legislative

- Under the system of separation of powers set up

- There can be no justification for judicial

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the

Although Congress may delegate to another branch

(a) be complete in itself — it must set forth therein

HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction over complaints

In general, the quantum of judicial or quasi-judicial

He contends that since the Constitution vests the

ISSUE: Whether or not EO 475 and 478 are

HELD: Under Section 24, Article VI of the

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition

This Court cannot but be mindful that any decision

For this latter group of Filipinos yet to be born, their

Verily, the mineral wealth and natural resources of

WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to GRANT

Governing Board Resolution No. 1: the

The reason is the increasing complexity of

• However, in separate order which in

• Because of such orders, the complaint of

• Aggrieved, Spouses Dacudao filed a petition

Whether or not the Secretary of DOJ commited

No. The Secretary of DOJ did not commit grave