JOEL T ELUNA

FINAL EXAMINATIONS
Administrative Law/Election Law
& Law on Public Officers
2nd Semester, SY 2019-2020
-----------------------------------------------
General Instructions: Write legibly and answer fully; a mere “yes” and “no”
answer will not be given any credit.
I
(1) State and describe briefly the primary powers or functions of
administrative agencies.

Executive power - the authority to implement or carry out the policy set out in
the law or statute.
Quasi-legislative power - the authority to adopt rules and regulations intended
to better carry out the policy; the function of rule-making.
Quasi-judicial power - the authority to hear and decide on cases in the
performance of duty and to enforce its decisions according to the law; the
function of adjudication.
Incidental power - the authority necessary to effectively carry out the above
express powers; the use of enabling, directing, dispensing, examining and
prosecuting functions. It is often referred to as the determinative power.
(2) Assume that Congress passed a law granting the authority to the
Land Transportation Office (LTO) to: (a) enforce traffic rules and regulations
anywhere in the Philippines, (b) to prescribe and impose the appropriate fines
or penalties for violations thereof. Accordingly, LTO personnel from the
Regional Office conducted check point operations in any province within the
region, apprehended violators, and imposed a fine ranging from P2,000 to
P7,000 depending on the nature of the violation, at the discretion of the
apprehending officers.
(a) Discuss the two (2) tests to determine valid delegation of quasi-
legislative powers;

COMPLETENESS test. This means that the law must be complete in all its terms
and conditions when it leaves the legislature so that when it reaches the
delegate, it will have nothing to do but to enforce it.
SUFFICIENT STANDARD test. The law must offer a sufficient standard to
specify the limits of the delegate’s authority, announce the legislative policy
and specify the conditions under which it is to be implemented.
 (b) In the situation above, was there a valid delegation of quasi-
legislative power? Why or why not?
NO. There is no valid delegation of quasi-legislative power. In order for the
delegation of quasi-legislative power is valid, the law must be complete before
it reaches the delegate and law must offer a sufficient standard to specify the
limits of the delegate’s authority. In this instant case though the congress pass
a law authorizing the LTO to enforce traffic rules and regulation and impose
penalty but failed to comply the two tests to determine whether the
delegation of quasi-legislative power is valid. Thus, the delegation is invalid.

3. Olimpia Vanson is the owner of Xeres Bus Company operating several

public buses in the Visayas region. Due to increases in oil/fuel prices, Xeres Bus
Company agreed with the other bus operators that they would also increase
fare rates at a rate of an additional P10 per kilometer, and this was the subject
of their joint resolution sent to the Department of Transportation and
Communication (DOTC). Subsequently, the DOTC conducted public hearings
and subsequently issued a Resolution in the form of a Department Order, fixing
the fare increase rate nationwide, and for the Visayas region the increase in
fare rate was fixed at an additional fare of P5 per kilometer only. Olimpia
Vanson assailed the said Resolution as invalid and unconstitutional because of
violation of due process since there was no notice and hearing, and her
company was not given an opportunity to be heard. (a) What kind of power
was exercised? (b) Is Olimpia Vanson correct?

A. The DOTC exercise the Quasi-judicial power because it allows the agency to
hear and decide on cases in the performance of duty and to enforce its
decisions according to the law.

B. Olimpia Vanson’s contention is incorrect. State regulation is necessary in

order to ensure that the interests of all parties, most especially the riding
public, are protected. In this case, the DOTC conducted public hearings and
subsequently issued a Resolution in the form of a Department Order, fixing the
fare increase rate nationwide, and for the Visayas region the increase in fare
rate was fixed at an additional fare of P5 per kilometer only. Thus the
contention of Olimpia Vanson against Department Order issued by the DOTC is
invalid because upon the receipt of their joint resolution, the DOTC conducted
public hearing which is an act in accordance with the law to determine the
exam amount for the additional fare hike. Thus, Olimpia Vanson contention is
incorrect.
 4. X and Y are parties to an administrative case involving a homestead
patent. Y got an adverse decision from the Secretary of the DENR, so he filed a
Motion for Reconsideration. The Secretary denied his Motion for
Reconsideration. Y then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals
alleging that the Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion. X filed a
Motion to Dismiss on the ground that Y violated the rule on exhaustion of
administrative remedies because he (Y) can still appeal the decision of the
Secretary of the DENR to the President, the latter being the head of the
Executive Department. Is the contention of X meritorious?

NO, the contention of X is not meritorious. The doctrine of exhaustion of

administrative remedies says that a person challenging an agency decision
must first pursue the agency’s available remedies before seeking judicial
review. Y able to seek for remedies by filing a motion for reconsideration to the
secretary of DENR but the secretary denies his motion that is why; Y filed a
petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, thus X contention alleging that
Y action violated the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is invalid.

II
(1) Distinguish the doctrine of primary jurisdiction from the principle of
exhaustion of administrative remedies.

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its
determination requires the expertise, specialized training and knowledge of an
administrative body, relief must first be obtained in an administrative
proceeding before resort to the courts is had even if the matter may well be
within their proper jurisdiction while the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies says that a person challenging an agency decision
must first pursue the agency’s available remedies before seeking judicial
review. It was created by courts in order to promote an efficient justice system
and autonomous administrative state.
(2) Julio Makatao was appointed Provincial Agriculturist in 2008. Upon
the prodding of some politicians to join the electoral race, Julio filed his
certificate of candidacy for the position of Board Member of the Provincial
Board in the May, 2013 National and Local Elections. Meanwhile, he continued
to report to his office as Provincial Agriculturist. His opponent, Miguel
Makadios, filed a petition questioning his candidacy on the ground that he
(Julio) is already deemed resigned from his position as Provincial Agriculturist
the moment he filed his certificate of candidacy. Is Makadios correct? Rule
with reasons.
Makadios contention is correct. Under section 4 (a) of Resolution 8678 which
state that Any person holding a public appointive office or position including
active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and other officers and
employees in government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be
considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate
of candidacy, thus Julio Makatao is ipso facto resigned from his office as
provincial agriculturist. Therefore, Makadios’s contention is correct.
3. Cite at least five (5) election offenses.
• Vote-buying and vote-selling
• Conspiracy to bribe voters
• Wagering upon result of election.
• Carrying firearms outside residence or place of business.
• Carrying Deadly weapons
4. Rolando, a businessman, was planning to run for mayor in his
hometown. Ten months prior to the date of the election, and before the date
of filing of certificates of candidacy and campaign period, he gave donations,
printed decals, posters, and streamers with his picture on it, and with the label
“Your Next Mayor”. Santiago, the incumbent mayor, filed a case of
illegal/premature campaigning against Rolando. Will the action prosper?

NO, Santiago’s action will not prosper, Rolando’s act in giving donations,
printed decals, posters, and streamers with his picture on it, and with the label
“Your Next Mayor” did not violate the Automated Election Law or Republic Act
8436 as amended by RA 9369 and will not face disqualification for. The SC ruled
in the case filed against Penera by her rival, Edgar Andanar, who accused the
mayor of premature campaigning in violation of Section 80 of the Omnibus
Election Code that premature campaigning, is no longer considered an offense
under the automated election law, thus Santiagos’s action against Rolando will
not prosper.

III
5. Sgt. Patricio Kubalan retired from the Philippine National Police at the
age of 55. Since he was still physically healthy and very athletic, the City Mayor
hired him as Chief Security Officer. Sgt. Kubalan’s task was to coordinate and
supervise all security personnel units in order to maintain peace and order and
to give protection to all the officials and employees in the City Hall. Sgt.
Kubalan served for three years, but when the City Mayor was defeated in the
elections, the new City Mayor hired another Chief Security Officer. Sgt.
Kubalan protested contending that he has a right to security of tenure under
existing civil service laws. Rule on his contention.
Sgt. Kubalan contention is correct. Under our Constitution (Section 18, Article
II) and the Labor Code (Article III), all workers are guaranteed the right to
security of tenure. This means that they can be validly terminated from service
only for a valid cause supported by substantial evidence and after due process
or after the workers are afforded the opportunity to be heard and to present
their defense. In this instant case, Sgt. Kubalan will be dismiss from being a
Chief Security Officer because he is a supporter of then mayor which is not valid
ground for suspension or termination stated in the Civil Service Law, thus he’s
dismissal is illegal.

6. Cite at least five (5) grave offenses as specific grounds for removal or
suspension of public officials or employees.

 Serious Dishonesty;
 Gross Neglect of Duty;
 Grave Misconduct;
 Being Notoriously Undesirable;
 Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;

7. What are the requisites to a complete appointment?

For an appointment to be valid under Section 15, Article VII, the

appointment papers must have already been signed, issued or released
prior to the constitutional ban, addressed to the head of the office
concerned or the appointee himself. Once this is accomplished, the
appointee's acceptance through an oath, assumption of office or any
positive act need not be done before the constitutional ban.

The regular appointments which are contemplated under the first paragraph of
Article VII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution must go through the following
stages to make it valid and constitutional.

· nomination - President shall nominate and

· consent - with the consent of the Commission on Appointments
· appointment - He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government
whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom
he may be authorized by law to appoint
· Acceptance by the nominee
8. Cite at least five (5) election offenses.
 Vote-buying and vote-selling
 Conspiracy to bribe voters
 Wagering upon result of election.
 Carrying firearms outside residence or place of business.
 Carrying Deadly weapons