PHILIPPINE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

By
Carlo L. Cruz

Chapter 1
General Considerations

Nature

Administrative Law – that branch of modern law under which the executive department of the
government, acting in a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity, interferes with the conduct of
the individual for the purpose of promoting the well-being of the community.

Administrative law is a recent development , being a consequence of the ever increasing

complexities of society and the proliferation of problems of government that cannot readily or
effectively be addressed by the public agencies or solved by other disciplines of public law.

It was felt that thelegislative and judicial departments no longer had either the time or the
needed expertise to attend to these new problems.

Thus, the obvious solution was delegation of power.

Two major powers of the administrative agency:

1. Quasi-legislative authority– or rule making power

2. Quasi-judicial power – or adjudicatory function

Sources of Administrative Law

Addministrative law is derived from four sources or is of four (4) kinds:

1. Constitution or statutory enactments – e.g. Social Security Act which established the
Social Security Commission.

2. Decisions of courts interpreting the charters of administrative bodies

3. Rules and regulations issued by the administrative bodies – e.g. Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code.

4. Determinations and orders of the administrative bodies in the settlement of

controversies

Administration

Administration is understood in two senses:

1. institution – administration as the aggregate of individuals in whose hands the reins of

government are for the time being.

2. function – administration as the actual running of the government by the executive

authorities through the enforcement of laws and implementation of policies.
Government (as distinguished from administration) is the agency or instrumentality through
which the will of the State is formulated, expressed and realized.

Administration Distinguished from Law

Law is impersonal command provided with sanctions to be applied in case of violation, while
Administration is preventive rather punitive and is accepted to be more personal than law.

Law maintains a watchful eye on those who would violate its order. While administration on the
other hand seeks to spare individuals from punishments of the law by persuading him to observe
its commands.

Chapter 2
Administrative Agencies

Definition

Administrative agency – a body endowed with quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers for
the purpose of enabling it to carry out the laws entrusted to it for enforcement or execution.

Administrative agency may be regarded as an arm of the legislature insofar as it is authorize to

promulgate rules. It may also be loosely considered a court because it performs functions of a
particular judicial character, as when it decides factual and sometimes even legal questions as
an incident of its general power of regulation.

Creation and Abolition

The administrative body may be created by the Constitution or by a Statute.

If created by the Constitution itself, the administrative body can be altered or abolished only by
Constitution. But where the body was created only by statute, the legislature that breathed life
into it can amend or even repeal its charter, thereby resulting in its abolition which is justified if
made in good faith.

Chapter 3
Powers of Administrative Agencies

Quasi-Legislative Power – the authority delegated by the law-making body to the

administrative body to adopt rules and regulations intended to carry out the provisions of a law
and implement legislative policy.

Quasi-Judicial Power – the power of the administrative authorities to make determinations of

facts in the performance of their official duties and to apply the law as they construe it to the
facts so found.

Chapter 4
The Quasi-Legislative Power
It has already been remarked that the rule-making power of the administrative body is intended
to enable it to implement the policy of the law and to provide for the more effective enforcement
of its provisions.

Through the exercise of this power of subordinate legislation, it is possible for the administrative
body to transmit the “active power of the state from its source to the point of application,” that
is, apply the law and so fulfill the mandate of the legislature.

Kinds of Administrative Regulations

(a) Legislative – the administrative agency is acting in a legislative capacity, supplementing

the statute, filling in the details, or “making the law”, and usually acting pursuant to a specific
delegation of legislative power.

(b) Interpretative – are those which purport to do no more than interpret the statute being
administered, to say what it means. They constitute the administrator's construction of a
statute.

The interpretative regulation is issued by the administrative body as an incident to its power to
enforce the law and is intended merely to clarify its provisions for proper observance by the
people.

It is an elementary rule in administrative law that administrative regulations and policies

enacted by administrative bodies to interpret which they are entrusted to enforce,
have the force of law, are entitled to great respect, and have in their favor a presumpption of
legality.

By contrast, the legislative regulation is issued by the administrative body pursuant to

a valid delegation of legislative power and is intended to have the binding the force
and effect of a law enacted by the legislature itself.

Classification of Legislative Regulation

(a) Supplementary – intended to fill in the details of the law and “to make explicit what is only
general.”

(b) Contingent – issued upon the happening of a certain contingency which the administrative
body is given the discretion to determine or to ascertain some circumstances and on the basis
thereof may enforce or suspend the operation of a law.

Requisites of Administrative Regulation

(a) Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature;

(b) It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature;

(c) It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure;

(d) It must be reasonable.

First Requisite: Promulgation Must Be Authorized by the Legislature

Authority to promulgate the regulation is usually conferred by the Charter itself of the
administrative body or by the law it is supposed to enforce.
When Congress authorizes promulgation of administrative rules and regulations to implement
given legislation, all that is required is that the regulation be not in contravention with it, but to
conform to the standards that the law prescribes.

Second Requisite: Regulation Must Be Within the Scope of the Authority Given by the
Legislature

Assuming a valid authorization, it is still necessary that the regulation promulgated must not be
ultra vires or beyond the authority conferred.

Third Requisite: Regulation Must Be Promulgated in Accordance with the Prescribed

Procedure

As in the enactment of laws, the promulgation of administrative regulations of general

application does not require previous notice and hearing, the only exception being where the
legislature itself requires it . In the absence of such a requirement, the administrative body can
promulgate the regulation in its exclusive discretion.

But where the regulation is in effect a settlement of a controversy between specific parties, it is
considered an administrative adjudication and so will require notice and hearing.

As for publication, the applicable rule is now found in Executive Order No. 200 which provides
that laws “shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of their publication
either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it
is otherwise provided.”

Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the
personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published.

Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of
the contents of the law.

The Supreme Court, it would seem, requires publication of the administrative regulation only if it
is of general application and penal in nature.

Fourth Requisite: Regulation Must Be Reasonable

Like statutes, administrative regulations promulgated thereunder must not be unreasonable or

arbitrary as to violate due process.

Penal Regulations

The power to define and punish crime is exclusively legislative and may not be delegated to the
administrative authorities. While administrative regulations may have the force and effect of
law, their violation cannot give rise to criminal prosecution unless the legislature makes such
violation punishable and imposes the corresponding sanctions.

Special requisites of a valid administrative regulation with a penal sanction:

(a) The law itself must make violation of the administrative regulation punishable;

(b) The law itself must impose and specify the penalty for the violation of the regulation;

(c) The regulation must be published.

Construction and Interpretation

Regulation should be read in harmony with the statute and not in violation of the authority
conferred on the administrative authorities.

The administrative regulation that contravenes the statute is, of course, invalid.

Enforcement

It is established that the power to promulgate administrative regulations carries with it the
implied power to enforce them. This may be effected through judicial action or through
sanctions that the statute itself may allow the administrative body to impose.

Amendment or Repeal

Like the statute, the administrative regulation promulgated thereunder is subject to amendment
or repeal by the authorities that promulgated them in the first place. Of course, it may be
changed directly by the legislature.

Chapter 5
The Quasi-Judicial Power

Quasi-judicial power – is the power of the administrative agency to determine questions of fact
to which the legislative policy is to apply, in accordance with the standards laid down by the law
itself.

The proper exercise of the quasi-judicial power requires compliance with two conditions, to wit:

(1) Jurisdiction must be properly acquired by the administrative body

(2) Due process must be observed in the conduct of the proceedings

A. Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction – may be simply defined as the competence of an office or body to act on a given
matter or decide a certain question.

Without jurisdiction, the determination made by the administrative bodies are absolutely null and
without any legal effect whatsoever.

It is the legislature that has the power to confer jurisdiction upon the administrative body and so
limit or expand its authority.

It can be said that each administrative body has its own peculiar jurisdiction as conferred upon it
by the specific provisions of its charter.

The law may allow some administrative bodies to award certain kinds of damages while denying
the same power, for no apparent reason, to other administrative bodies.

For example, the SEC and NLRC are allowed to award damages virtually to the same extent as a
court of justice. Yet similar authority has not been conferred by its charter to NTC.

It is a well-settled principle that unless expressly empowered, administrative agencies are bereft
of quasi-judicial power.
1. Rules of Procedure

Where an administrative body is expressly granted the power of adjudication, it is deemed also
vested with the implied power to precribe the rules to be observed in the conduct of its
proceedings.

But to be valid, the rules must not violate fundamental rights or encroach upon constitutional
prerogatives.

2. The Subpoena Power

The power to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum is not inherent in administrative
bodies.

It is settled that administrative bodies may summon witnesses and require the production of
evidence only when duly allowed by law, and always only in connection with the matter they are
authorized to investigate. Unless otherwise provided by law, the agency may, in case of
disobedience, invoke the aid or Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case
falls. The Court may punish customacy or refusal as contempt.

The Supreme Court distinguished between the power to “investigate” and the power to
“adjudicate:”

“The purpose of investigation, of course, is to discover, to finnd out, to learn, obtain information.
Nowhere included or intimated is the notion of settling, deciding or resolving a controversy
involve in the facts inquired into by application of the law x x.

In the legal sense, “adjudicate” means to settle in the exercise of judicial authority x x.
“Adjudge” x x implies a judicial determination of a fact, and the entry of judgment.”

3. The Contempt Power

Like the subpoena power, the power to punish for contempt is essentially judicial and cannot be
claimed as an inherent right by the administrative body.

To be validly exercised, it must be expressly conferred upon the body and, additionally, must be
used only in connection with its quasi-judicial as distinguished from its purely administrative or
routinary functions.

As a rule, where, say, a subpoena of the administrative body is disregarded, the person
summoned may not be directly discipline by that body. The proper remedy id for the
administrative body to seek assistance of the courts of justice for the enforcement of its order.

The power to hold in contempt must be exercised not on the vindictive, but on the preservative
principle.

B. Notice and Hearing

The right to notice and hearing is essential to due process and its non-observance will as a rule
invalidate the administrative proceedings. Persons are entitled to be notified of any pending
case affecting their interests so that, if they are minded, they may claim the right to appear
therein and present their side or refute the position of opposing parties.
Nevertheless, there are instances when notice and hearing can validly be omitted. Among the
justifications for such omissions are the urgency of immediate action (which does not preclude
the enjoyment of the right at a later time without prejudice to the person affected) and the fact
that the right had previously been offered but not claimed.

1. Administrative Due Process

While administrative determinations of contested case are by their nature judicial, there is no
requirement for strict adherence to technical rules as are observed in truly judicial proceedings.

It is a general rule that they are unrestricted by the technical or formal rules of procedure which
govern trials before a court. This rule is applied to questions of evidence, pleading and other
matters.

Nevertheless, it is essential that due process must be observed, for the requirements of fair play
are not applicable to judicial proceedings only.

Cardinal rights or principles to be observed in administrative proceedings:

a. the first of these rights is the right to a hearing;

b. the tribunal must consider the evidence presented;

c. the tribunal must have something to support its decision;

d. evidence must be substantial evidence – relevant evidence that a reasonable mind

may accept as adequate to support a conclusion

e. the decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties;

f. the court must act on its or their own independent consideration of the law and facts
of controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision;

g. the court should render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the
proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions
rendered

It is basic to due process that the tribunal considering the administrative question be impartial,
to ensure a fair decision.

The law does not require another notice and hearing for a review of the decision of the board.

In M.F. Violago Oiler Tank Trucks vs. NLRC, there was no denial of due process where the
petitioners received notice of the scheduled investigation the day before said date of the hearing
or investigation but failed to present evidence. On the other hand, there was clearly such a
denial where it appears that a decision rendered against a person who was not a party to or even
notified of the proceedings taken before a labor arbiter.

C. Administrative Appeals and review

Unless otherwise provided by law or executive order, an appeal from a final decision of the
administrative agency may be taken to the department head, whose decision may further be
brought to the regular courts of justice, in accordance with the procedure specified by law.
D. Enforcement of Decision

In the absence of any statute providing for the enforcement of an administrative determination,
the same cannot be enforced except possibly by appeal to the force of public opinion.

Usually, however, the administrative body is allowed certain sanctions that it may impose
directly for the enforcement of its own decisions, i.e. revocation of or refusal to renew licenses,
destruction of unlawful articles, summary closure of stores, refusal to grant clearances, issuance
of cease and desist orders, detention and deportation of aliens, and imposition of fines.

Significantly, many administrative bodies, such as the SEC and the NLRC, have been vested with
authority to grant provisional reliefs, such as writs of preliminary attachment or injunction,
intended to ensure the enforcement of their adjudications.

It is established that administrative agencies who have not been conferred the power to enforce
their quasi-judicial decisions may invoke court action for the purpose.

E. Res Judicata

The general rule is that an administrative decision is not considered res judicata so as to
preclude its subsequent reconsideration or revocation. Decisions of the previous incumbents of
the administrative body may be modified or reversed by their successors in the exercise of their
own powers of adjudication.

Where the administrative decision has been affirmed by a court decision, the doctrine of res
judicata is applicable. The effect of res judicata attaches to the judgment of the reviewing court
rather than to the administrative judgment.

This rule has however been modified in this jurisdiction.

It is now well-settled in our jurisprudence that the decisions and orders of administrative
agencies, rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority, have upon their finality, the force
and binding effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata.

This principle is, however, not applicable to all administrative proceedings, such proceedings that
are non-litigious and summary in nature without regard to legal technicalities obtaining in courts
of law.

Chapter 6
Judicial Review

General Rules

An administrative decision may be appealed to the courts of justice only if the Constitution or the
law permits it or if the question to be reviewed is a question of law.

However, jurisprudence is replete with cases where the Supreme Court has applied the
exceptions rather than the rule.
In the case of the constitutional commission, i.e., the Commission on Elections, the Commission
on Audit, and the Civil Service Commission, it is provided that “any decision order or ruling of
each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party
within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof.”

On the basis of Sec. 16 of the Interim Rules and Guideline implementing Sec. 9 (3) of BP Blg.
129, the Court of Appeals may “review final decisions, orders, awards or resolutions or regional
trial courts and of all quasi-judicial bodies, except the Commission on Elections, the Commission
on Audit, the Sandiganbayan, and decisions issued under the Labor Code of the Philippines and
by the Central Board of Assessment Appeals.”

Other appeals are prescribed by special laws, such as RA No. 1125, providing for appeal to the
Court of Tax Appeals of any decision rendered by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the
Commissioner of Customs, or any provincial or city board of assessment appeals.

Methods of review

The methods of judicial review are prescribed by the Constitution, statutes or the Rules of the
Court. These methods may be specific or general.

It is provided in RA No. 5434 that an appeal from a final award, order or decisions of the Patent
Office shall be taken by filing with said body and with the Court of Appeals a notice of appeal
within 15 days from notice of such award, order or ruling, copies being served on all interested
parties.

The Administrative Code generally provides that an appeal from an agency decision shall be
perfected by filing with the agency within 15 days from receipt of a copy thereof a notice of
appeal, and with the reviewing court a petition for review of the order. Copies of the petition
shall be served upon the agency and all parties of record.

The petition shall contain a concise statement of the issues involved and the grounds relied upon
for the review, and shall be accompanied with a true copy of the order appealed from, together
with copies of such material portions of the records as are referred to therein and other
supporting papers.

The Supreme Court instructed certain universally accepted axioms governing judicial review
through the extraordinary actions of certiorari or prohibition of determinations of administrative
officers or agencies:

First, before said actions may be entertained, it must be shown that all the administrative
remedies prescribed by law or ordinance have been exhausted; and,

Second, that the administrative decision may properly be annulled or set aside only upon a clear
showing that the administrative official or tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction,
or with a grave abuse of discretion.

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction or Prior Resort

There are two doctrines that must be considered in connection with the judicial review of
administrative decisions:(1) doctrine of primary jurisdiction or prior resort; and (2) the doctrine
of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction simply calls for the determination of

administrative questions, which ordinarily questions of fact, by administrative
agencies rather courts of justice.
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 the court

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, an administrative

decision must first be appealed to the administrative superior up to the highest level
before it may be elevated to a court of justice for review.

A. Reasons

(1) The administrative superiors, if given the opportunity, can correct the errors committed by
their subordinates;

(2) Courts should as much as possible refrain from disturbing the findings of administrative
bodies in deference to the doctrine of separation of powers;

(3) On practical grounds, it is best that the courts should not be saddled with the review of
administrative cases;

(4) Judicial review of administrative cases is usually effected through the special civil actions
of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition, which are available only if there is no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy.

B. Exceptions

(1) When the question raised is purely legal (question of law is involved);

(2) When the administrative body is estoppel;

(3) When the act complained of is patently illegal;

(4) When there is urgent need for judicial intervention;

(5) When the claim involved is small;

(6) When irreparable damage will be suffered;

(7) When there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;

(8) When strong public interest is involved;

(9) When the subject of the controversy is private land;

(10) In quo warranto proceedings

C. Appeal to the President

Of special interest is the question of whether or not a decision of the cabinet member has to be
appealed first to the President before it may be brought to a court of justice. Jurisprudence on
this matter is rather indecisive.
In the early case of demaisip vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that appeal to the President
was not necessary because the Cabinet member was after all his alter ego and, under the
doctrine of qualified political agency, the acts of the secretary were the acts of the President.

This view was abandoned in Calo vs. Fuertes, where it was held that appeal to the President was
the final step in the administrative process and therefore a condition precedent to appeal to the
courts.

In Bartulata vs. Peralta, however, the court reinstated the Demaisip doctrine, again on the basis
of alter ego justification.

Tan vs. Director of Forestry, thereafter revived Calo andagain required appeal to the President as
a prerequisite to an appeal of a Cabinet member's decision to the courts of Justice.

D. Effect of Non-compliance

The failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of the court and
merely results in the lack of a cause of action which may be invoked in a motion to dismiss.

If this ground to dismiss the court action is not properly or reasonably invoked, the court may
proceed to hear the case.

As previously noted, the court has the discretion to require the observance of the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies and may, if it sees fit, dispense with it and proceed with
the disposition of the case.

Questions Reviewable

Two kinds of questions are reviewable by the courts of justice, to wit: the question of fact and
the question of law.

On the question of fact, review of the administrative decision lies in the discretion of the
legislature, which may or may not permit it as it sees fit.

But when it comes to the question of law, the administrative decision may be appealed to the
courts of justice independently of legislative permission or even against legislative prohibition.
The reason is that the judiciary cannot be deprived of its inherent power to review all decisions
on questions of law, whether made initially by lower courts and more so by an administrative
body.

A. Questions of fact

Even if allowed to review administrative decisions on questions of fact, courts of justice generally
defer to such decisions and will decline to disturb them except only where there is a clear
showing of arbitrariness or grave abuse of discretion.

The Supreme Court ruled in Osias Academy vs. DOLE that “findings of administrative
agencies which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to
specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but finality.”

B. Questions of Law

Administrative bodies may be allowed to resolve questions of law in the exercise of their quasi-
judicial function as an incident of their primary power of regulation.
However as a rule, it is only the judicial tribunal that can interpret and decide the
question of law with finality.