201245924

PART I

1. Yes, the Congress can abolish Office of the Ombudsman.

Under the law, administrative agencies created by statute or through the

authority of a statute may be validly abolished and reorganized by the legislature.

Here, the Office of the Ombudsman was created by a statute.

Hence, the Congress can abolish Office of the Ombudsman if necessary.

2. No, my answer will not be the same.

Under the law, the bar examination is exclusively administered by the Judicial
Department. Thus, fixing the passing rate of the bar exam is subject to the
discretion of the Supreme Court only.

Here, the enacted law fixing the passing rate of the bar exam was passed by the
Congress which violated the separation of powers.

Hence, the law is not valid.

3. The bases and functions of Administrative Law was due to the growth of the vast
population of our country, the complexities of our society and the problems of the
government are rapidly increasing which cannot readily or effectively be
addressed by the traditional public agencies or solved by the other disciplines of
public law. Hence, to resolve this problem, a new field of law was created which
is the Administrative Law. The function of which was to govern the administrative
agency involving their rule-making power or quasi-legislative and power of
adjudication or quasi-judicial for the of purpose of promoting the well-being of the
community, as under laws regulating public interest, professions, trades and
callings, rates and prices, laws for the protection of public health and safety, and
the promotion of public convenience.

4. No, the administrative agency cannot decide on matters involving question of

law.

Under the law, when the matters are concerning question of law, it is
determinable by the court only, not by the administrative agency. An
administrative agency may decide only on matters involving question of facts.

5. The Congress may delegate its rule-making power to Administrative Agency

under the following conditions:
 First, the law must be complete. It is also called the Completeness Test. Here,
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. The reason behind this was to prevent the delegate to have an
opportunity to fill in the gap of the law for its incompleteness. If the law was not
complete, the delegation shall be invalid.

Second, there must be a fixed standard before it will be delegated. Here, a

sufficient standard is one which defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps
out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply. The purpose of this is
to prevent the authority of the legislative to be totally transferred to the delegate.

Lastly, the delegation must be reasonable.

PART II

a) If I were the presiding judge, I will not grant the petition of Arnel.

Under the doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies, an administrative

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

Here, the decision was not yet finalized by the Administrative body of ABC
Corporation when Arnel appealed to the RTC.

Hence, the court has no jurisdiction over the matter.

b) Yes, the ABC is correct in citing Atty. PR into contempt.

Under the law, the power to punish contempt is inherently judicial in nature and
has always been regarded as a necessary incident and attribute of the courts. It
may be granted to an administrative body only in the exercise of judicial or quasi-
judicial powers.

Here, the Board of Directors are excising their quasi-judicial power. Furthermore,
it was seen on the CCTV that Atty. PR was lying about his unavailability.

Hence, the ABC Corporation has a right to cite Atty. PR into contempt.

c)

i. No, there was no violation of due process.

 Under the law, the aggrieved party has a right to confront and cross-
examine opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation or before
administrative tribunals exercising quasi-judicial.

Here, Arnel was given an opportunity to hear his side when he was
summoned by the board of directors.

Hence, due process was not violated.

ii. Yes, the objection is tenable.

Under the law, government-owned or controlled-corporation are not

under the jurisdiction of Civil Service Commission when such agencies
are not created by original charter.

Here, ABC Corporation is a GOCC which was created by a special

charter.

Hence, CSC has no jurisdiction over the matter.

d) Yes, it is correct.

Under the law, every individual has a right to a counsel. Deputizing me by CSC
as a new lawyer is not against any law. Besides, it was the way of CSC to
exercise its power of adjudication by hiring me to resolve the administrative issue
involving question of facts. Although CSC has no jurisdiction over such matters.

Hence, the CSC is correct.