Administrative Law

Powers of Administrative Agencies

1. Quasi-legislative power / Power of subordinate legislation

2. Quasi-judicial power/Power of adjudication
3. Determinative powers (Note: Senator Neptali Gonzales calls them incidental powers)

Definition of “Quasi-legislative power”

It is 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.

Distinctions between Quasi-legislative power and legislative power

1. LEGISLATIVE power involves the discretion to determine what the law shall be.  QUASI-
legislative power only involves the discretion to determine how the law shall be enforced.
2. LEGISLATIVE power CANNOT be delegated.  QUASI-legislative power CAN be delegated.

Tests of Delegation (applies to the power to promulgate administrative regulations)

1. 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.
2. 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.

Definition of Quasi-Judicial Power

It is the power of 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. The exercise of this power
is only incidental to the main function of administrative authorities, which is the enforcement of the
law.

Determinative Powers

1. ENABLING powers 

Those that PERMIT the doing of an act which the law undertakes to regulate and would be unlawful
without government approval.

Ex.  Issuance of licenses to engage in a particular business.

2.DIRECTING powers

Those that involve the corrective powers of public utility commissions, powers of assessment under
the revenue laws, reparations under public utility laws, and awards under workmen’s compensation
laws, and powers of abstract determination such as definition-valuation, classification and fact finding

3. DISPENSING powers

Exemplified by the authority to exempt from or relax a general prohibition, or authority to relieve from
an affirmative duty. Its difference from licensing power is that dispensing power sanctions a deviation
from a standard.

1
4. SUMMARY powers

Those that apply compulsion or force against person or property to effectuate a legal purpose without
a judicial warrant to authorize such action. Usually without notice and hearing.

Ex. Abatement of nuisance, summary restraint, levy of property of delinquent tax payers

5. EQUITABLE powers

Those that pertain to the power to determine the law upon a particular state of facts. It refers to the
right to, and must, consider and make proper application of the rules of equity.

Ex. Power to appoint a receiver, power to issue injunctions

Kinds of Administrative Regulations

DISTINCTIONS LEGISLATIVE INTERPRETATIVE
1. Capacity that administrative Legislative Judicial
agency is acting in

2. What administrative agency is It supplements the statute by It says what the statute means
doing filling in the details

3. Force and effect Legislative regulations have Merely persuasive/Received by

the force and effect of law the courts with much respect but
immediately upon going into not accorded with finality
effect. Such is accorded by the
courts or by express provision
of statute.

Requisites of a Valid Administrative Regulation

1. Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature.

2. It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature.
3. It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
4. It must be reasonable

Need for Previous Notice and Hearing

1. General Rule: Administrative rules of GENERAL application do NOT require previous notice
and hearing.
2. Exception: When the legislature itself requires it and mandates that the regulation shall be
based on certain facts as determined at an appropriate investigation.
3. If the regulation is in effect a settlement of a controversy between specific parties, it is
considered an administrative adjudication, requiring notice and hearing.

Prescribing of Rates

It can be either:

1. LEGISLATIVE

If the rules/rates are meant to apply to all enterprises of a given kind throughout the country.

No prior notice and hearing is required.

2. QUASI-JUDICIAL

2
If the rules and rates imposed apply exclusively to a particular party, based upon a finding of fact.
Prior notice and hearing is required.

Requirement of Publication

Administrative Regulations that MUST be published:

1. Administrative regulations of GENERAL application.

2. Administrative regulations which are PENAL in nature.

Administrative regulations that do NOT NEED to be PUBLISHED:

1. Interpretative regulations
2. Internal rules and regulations governing the personnel of the administrative agency.

1. Letters of instruction issued by administrative superiors concerning guidelines to be followed

by their subordinates.  (Tanada v. Tuvera)

Special Requisites of a Valid Administrative Regulation with a PENAL sanction

1. The law itself must make violation of the administrative regulation punishable.
2. The law itself must impose and specify the penalty for the violation of the regulation.
3. The regulation must be published.

Requisites for Proper Exercise of Quasi-Judicial Power

1. Jurisdiction
2. Due process

Administrative Due Process : Requirements

1. Right to Notice, be it actual or constructive

2. Reasonable opportunity to appear and defend his rights and to introduce witnesses
3. Impartial tribunal with competent jurisdiction
4. Finding or decision supported by substantial evidence

Exceptions to the Notice and Hearing Requirement

1. Urgency of immediate action

2. Tentativeness of the administrative action
3. Right was previously offered but not claimed
4. Summary abatement of a nuisance per se
5. Preventive suspension of a public servant facing administrative charges
6. Padlocking of filthy restaurants/theaters showing obscene movies
7. Cancellation of a passport of a person sought for criminal prosecution
8. Summary distraint and levy of properties of a delinquent taxpayer
9. Replacement of a temporary or acting appointee

Questions Reviewable on Judicial Review:

1. Questions of FACT

The general rule is that courts will not disturb the findings of administrative agencies acting within the
parameters of their own competence so long as such findings are supported by substantial evidence.
By reason of their special knowledge, expertise, and experience, the courts ordinarily accord respect
if not finality to factual findings of administrative tribunals.

3
2. Question of  LAW

Administrative decision may be appealed to the courts independently of legislative permission.

It may be appealed even against legislative prohibition because the judiciary cannot be deprived of its
inherent power to review all decisions on questions of law.

 Doctrine of Finality

Courts are reluctant to interfere with action of an administrative agency prior to its completion or
finality, the reason being that absent a final order or decision, power has not been fully and finally
exercised, and there can usually be no irreparable harm.

EXCEPTIONS:  Interlocutory order affecting the merits of a controversy; Preserve status quo pending
further action by the administrative agency; Essential to the protection of the rights asserted from the
injury threatened; Officer assumes to act in violation of the Constitution and other laws; Order not
reviewable in any other way; Order made in excess of power

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

1. This doctrine states that courts cannot or will not determine a controversy which requires the
expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because
technical matters of intricate questions of fact are involved.
2. Relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied
by the court even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court.

Doctrine of Prior Resort

When a claim originally cognizable in the courts involves issues which, under a regulatory scheme are
within the special competence of an administrative agency, judicial proceedings will be suspended
pending the referral of these issues to the administrative body for its view.

Note:  The doctrines of primary jurisdiction and prior resort have been considered to be
interchangeable.

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

1. Under this doctrine, 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.

1. Reasons :
1. to  enable  the  administrative  superiors  to  correct  the  errors  committed  by  their 
subordinates.
2. courts  should  refrain  from  disturbing  the  findings of  administrative. bodies  in 
deference  to  the  doctrine  of  separation  of  powers.
3. courts  should not  be saddled  with  the  review of  administrative  cases
4. judicial  review  of  administrative cases is usually effected  through  special civil 
actions which are available  only  if  their  is  no other  plain,  speedy and  adequate 
remedy.

3.  Exceptions

a.  when  the question  raised is  purely  legal, involves constitutional questions

b.   when the administrative body is in estopped

4
c.   when act complained of is patently illegal

d.   when there is urgent need for judicial intervention

e.   when claim involved is small

f.    when irreparable  damage is involved

g.   when there is no other plain, speedy , adequate remedy

h.   when strong public interest is involved

I.    when the subject of controversy is private land

1. in quo warranto proceedings

2. When the administrative remedy is permissive, concurrent
3. utter disregard of due process
4. long-continued and unreasonable delay
5. amount involved is relatively small
6. when no administrative review is provided
7. respondent is a department secretary (DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY –
ALTER EGO DOCTRINE)

Substantial evidence – defined to mean not necessarily preponderant proof as required in ordinary
civil cases but such kind of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.

The Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency

The doctrine of qualified political agency essentially postulates that the heads of the various executive
departments are the alter egos of the President, and, thus, the actions taken by such heads in the
performance of their official duties are deemed the acts of the President unless the President himself
should disapprove such acts. This doctrine is in recognition of the fact that in our presidential form of
government, all executive organizations are adjuncts of a single Chief Executive; that the heads of the
Executive Departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive; and that the multiple
executive functions of the President as the Chief Executive are performed through the Executive
Departments. The doctrine has been adopted here out of practical necessity, considering that the
President cannot be expected to personally perform the multifarious functions of the executive office.

Under the doctrine of qualified political agency, department secretaries are alter egos or assistants of
the President and their acts are presumed to be those of the latter unless disapproved or
reprobated by him. Thus, as a rule, an aggrieved party affected by the decision of a cabinet
secretary need not appeal to the Office of the President and may file a petition for certiorari directly
in the Court of Appeals assailing the act of the said secretary.

Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that, for a petition for certiorari to prosper,
petitioner must show (1) the public respondent acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and (2) there is no appeal or a
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

In a petition for certiorari premised on grave abuse of discretion, it must be shown that public
respondent patently and grossly abused his discretion and that such abuse amounted to an evasion
of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of
law. In other words, the public respondent exercised his power arbitrarily and despotically by reason
of passion or hostility. (G.R. No. 140717; April 16, 2009)

DOCTRINE OF SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION

5
It is, of course, well established in our jurisdiction that, while the making of laws is a non-delegable
power that pertains exclusively to Congress, nevertheless, the latter may constitutionally delegate the
authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given legislation and effectuate its
policies, for the reason that the legislature finds it impracticable, if not impossible, to anticipate
situations that may be met in carrying the law into effect. All that is required is that the regulation
should be germane to the objects and purposes of the law; that the regulation be not in contradiction
to but in conformity with the standards prescribed by the law.9 This is the principle of subordinate
legislation which was discussed by this Court in People vs. Rosenthal 10 and in Pangasinan
Transportation vs. Public Service Commission.1

CARDINAL PRIMARY RIGHTS OF PERSONS APPEARING BEFORE AN ADMINISTRATIIVE

BODY

It is a cardinal rule in law that a decision or judgment is fatally defective if rendered in violation of a
party-litigant's right to due process.10

The right of due process is fundamental in our legal system and we adhere to this principle
not for reasons of convenience or merely to comply with technical formalities but because of a
strong conviction that every man must have his day in court.

In its most basic sense, the right to due process is simply that every man is accorded a
reasonable opportunity to be heard. Its very concept contemplates freedom from
arbitrariness, as what is required is fairness or justice. It abhors all attempts to make an
accusation synonymous with liability.11

The right to be heard is among the so-called "cardinal primary rights" which should be observed and
respected in administrative adjudications in order to comply with the imperatives of due process. 12
These cardinal primary rights are:

(1) The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one's case and submit evidence
in support thereof.

(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented.

(3) The decision must have something to support itself.

Decision must be supported by law and evidence.

(4) The evidence must be substantial.

Quantum of Evidence required in civil cases- preponderance of evidence

Criminal cases- proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Administrative cases- substantial evidence

Substantial evidence means "more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

(5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected.

Decision must be based on the evidence presented- how it is presented/ contained in

the record and disclosed to the parties-made known to the parties.

6
 (6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent
consideration of the law and facts of the controversy and not simply accept the view of a
subordinate in arriving at a decision.

Judge must be independent- he must not be influenced by others.

(7) The board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a
manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the
reason for the decision rendered.

This is true to civil, criminal and administrative cases

Parties can determine the issues involved, the facts of the case and finally the
decision rendered by the Judge

Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all situations require a trial-type
proceeding. Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an
opportunity to explain or defend himself. In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving
reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute
the minimum requirements of due process. The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as
applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side, or an opportunity to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.

The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a real
opportunity to be heard. In administrative proceedings, such as in the case at bar, procedural due
process simply means the opportunity to explain one’s side or the opportunity to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. "To be heard" does not mean only verbal
arguments in court; one may be heard also thru pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either
through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.

In administrative proceedings, procedural due process has been recognized to include the following:
(1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a
respondent’s legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of
counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in one’s favor, and to defend one’s rights; (3) a tribunal
vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a
reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is
supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in the
records or made known to the parties affected.

Regular Court- have inherent power to punish contempt

Power Is inherent, it does not have to be granted to them.

Why is power to punish contempt inherent to courts?

1. For the preservation of order in the judicial proceedings;

2. For the enforcement of its judgement; and

3. For the administration of justice.

Contempt of court has been defined as a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority. In its
broad sense, contempt is a disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or orders of a legislative or
judicial body or an interruption of its proceedings by disorderly behavior or insolent language in its
presence or so near thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to impair the respect due to such a body.
In its restricted and more usual sense, contempt comprehends a despising of the authority, justice, or
dignity of a court.21 The phrase contempt of court is generic, embracing within its legal signification a
variety of different acts.22

7
The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts, 23 and need not be specifically granted by
statute.24 It lies at the core of the administration of a judicial system. 25 Indeed, there ought to be no
question that courts have the power by virtue of their very creation to impose silence, respect, and
decorum in their presence, submission to their lawful mandates, and to preserve themselves and their
officers from the approach and insults of pollution. 26 The power to punish for contempt essentially
exists for the preservation of order in judicial proceedings and for the enforcement of judgments,
orders, and mandates of the courts, and, consequently, for the due administration of justice. 27 The
reason behind the power to punish for contempt is that respect of the courts guarantees the stability of
their institution; without such guarantee, the institution of the courts would be resting on a very shaky
foundation.28

Contempt of court is of two kinds, namely: direct contempt, which is committed in the presence of or
so near the judge as to obstruct him in the administration of justice; and constructive or indirect
contempt, which consists of willful disobedience of the lawful process or order of the court. 29

Admin body- do not automatically have the power to punish contempt

Is not a court, therefore, it does not have the inherent power to punish contempt.

This power should be clearly defined and granted by law if an administrative body is authorized to
punish contempt.

Congress' role in exacting accountability is crucial as legislators play a part in checking

on possible excesses by the executive and judicial branches of government.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution provides many instances when Congress can invoke this
power: 

1. Congress has the power to remove from office impeachable government officials, including
the President, Vice President, members of the Supreme Court, members of constitutional
commissions, and the Ombudsman. The House of Representatives can tackle impeachment
complaints and submit the resolution setting the Articles of Impeachment. The Senate, meanwhile,
decides on cases of impeachment in a full-blown trial.

2. Congress has the “sole power to declare the existence of a state of war,” according to Section
23 Article VI of the Constitution. A vote of two-thirds of both Houses, voting separately, is needed.

3. Congress can revoke the President’s proclamation of martial law by a vote of at least a
majority of all members of the Senate and the House. If requested, Congress can also extend the
period of martial law beyond the mandated 60 days.

4. Congress may authorize the President to exercise powers to carry out a declared national
policy “for a limited period and subject to restrictions" in times of war or other national emergency,

5. Congressional committees can conduct hearings "in aid of legislation” on various issues that
affect the nation and release a report based on findings. For example, the Senate committee in
August 2018 conducted a hearing on the TRAIN law's impact on inflation amid rising prices of
commodities.

6. Congress is also involved in the national budget process. It can decide whether or not to add
or reduce a government agency’s budget, effectively overseeing budget appropriations and being on
guard against suspected corruption. This, however, may lead to several clashes, as seen in the 2019
budget that was just passed on Friday, February 8, after months of delay.

7. Congress, through the Commission on Appointments, can approve or reject some key
appointments made by the president to government agencies.

8
8. Congress needs to concur with any amnesty granted by the president, according to Section
19, Article VII of the Constitution. A vote of majority of all members is needed.

9. Congress is heavily involved in starting charter change. It can either convene into a
Constituent Assembly (through a vote of three-fourths of all members) and propose both amendments
and revisions, or call for an election of members of a Constitutional Convention (vote of two-thirds of
its members).

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies states that one should avail all the means
of administrative processes provided by law before seeking the intervention of the court. This is
applied in the exercise of quasi-judicial power of administrative agency.

Effect of the Doctrine

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is held whenever there is available

administrative remedy that should be used up or exhausted before a recourse to judicial action. [1] This
is in order to:

 provide an orderly procedure prescribed by law with respect to matters peculiarly within the
competence of the administrative agency.[2]
 give the agency an opportunity to decide on its own matters and to correct its own errors. [3][4]
 prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the court. [5]

The doctrine asserts that courts, for reasons of law, comity and convenience, should not entertain
cases proper for determination by administrative agencies. [6]

Violation of the doctrine may dismiss a case due to lack of 'cause of action'. [7] A motion to dismiss
must be filled on this ground, otherwise it is deemed to be waived.

This doctrine is held in legal cases such as:

Exceptions to the Doctrine

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply:

 when the issue involved is a pure question of law

 when the due process is clearly violated
 when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
 when there is urgent need for judicial intervention
 when there is unreasonable delay or official inaction
 when there is no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy provided by law
 when there is estoppel on the part of the agency concerned
 when there is great and irreparable damage which can only be prevented by court action
 when the resort to administrative remedy will amount to the nullification of a claim
 when the law specifically provides that the issue shall be brought up to the court
o when the subject matter is private land in land case proceedings
 Separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of government responsibilities into
distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The
intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.
 The Constitution provides specific powers of the branches in the Philippine government are:
 • The legislative branch is responsible for enacting, amending and repealing the laws of the
state and appropriating the money necessary to operate the government. (Art. VII Sec. 1)

9
 • The executive branch is responsible for implementing and administering the public policy
enacted and funded by the legislative branch. (Art. VI Sec. 1)
 • The judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the constitution and laws and applying their
interpretations to controversies brought before it. (Art. VIII Sec.1)
 Moreover, in current Philippine setting, the Constitution establishes three separate but equal
branches of the government as stated above. The primary purpose is to prevent
concentration of authority in one person or group of persons that might lead to an irreversible
error or abuse in its exercise to the detriment of republican institution. “to secure action, to
forestall overaction, to prevent despotism and to obtain efficiency” [Pangasinan
Transportation Co. vs. Public Service Commission, 40 O.G, 8th Supp. 57].
 Although the principles of Separation of Powers delegated the power to each branch to
perform its function mandated by the Constitution, they are separate entity that cannot be
ruled by other one and independent from each other. On the other hand, the principle of
Checks and Balances plays a vital role in our government system. Under the provision of the
Constitution there is no absolute separation among the three principal organs of government.
Constitutional provisions authorize a considerable amount of encroachment or checking by
one department in the affairs of the others. The system of checks and balances is also
observed along with the doctrine of separation of powers to make the presidential system
workable. The three co-equal departments are established by the Constitution in as balanced
positions as possible, each department is given certain powers with which to check the other.
In connection, to ensure the working of the three branches in its power and function, then the
principle of checks and balances should be observed. Furthermore, the purpose of this
principle is to avoid any of the branches of government to become too strong that can lead to
“absolutism”.
 The following are examples provided by the Constitution on how the Principle of Checks and
Balances can be observed.
 1. Legislative to check the Executive through:
 • Power to impeach the President (Art. XI, Sec. 2 & 3)
 • Power to override the veto of the President (Art. VII,Sec.27)
 • Power to declare war (Art. VI, Sec. 23)
 • Power to confirm or reject certain appointments (Art. VII, Sec. 16)
 • Power to revoke the proclamation of Martial Law or the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of Habeas Corpus (Art VII, Sec. 18)
 • Power to determine the salary of the President and Vice-President (Art.VII, Sec.6)
 • Conduct legislative inquiries (Art. VI, Sec. 21 & 22)
 • Power to pass budgets of the government (Art.VI, Sec.24, 25 & 29)
 2. Legislative to check the Judiciary
 • Power to pass the budget (Art. VIII, Sec. 10)
 • Power to impeach the Members of the Supreme Court (Art. XI, Sec. 2)
 • Power to conduct legislative inquiries (Art. VI, Sec. 21 & 22)
 • Power to reorganize the lower court except the Supreme Court (Art. VIII, Sec. 2[2]
 3. Executive to check the Legislative
 • Power of the President to sign the bills into law
 • Power of the President to veto the bills (At. VI, Sec 27[1])
 • Power to reject any item/s in appropriation, revenues or tariff (At. VI, Sec 27[2])
 4. Executive to check the Judiciary
 • Power to execute judicial decision/s
 • Power to countermand court’s decision through the exercise of presidential judicial power
 • Power to grant pardon, reprieve and commutation (Art. VII, Sec.19)
 5. Judiciary to check the Legislative
 • Power to declare a law passed by the Congress unconstitutional (Art. VIII, Sec. 4[2])
 6. Judiciary to check the Executive
 • Power to declare the acts of the President and subordinates unconstitutional
 • Power to inquire into the sufficiency of the factual basis of proclamation of Martial Law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus.
 In addition, according to the concurring opinion of Associate Justice Marvic Leonen in the
case of Mamiscal v. Clerk of Court Macalinog S. Abdullah, to wit ,

10
  “Separation of powers is basic in our constitutional design. As explained by this court in the
landmark case of Angara v. Electoral Commission: The separation of powers is a
fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains not through express provision
but by actual division in our Constitution. Each department of the government has exclusive
cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere. But it does
not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the
Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The
Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure
coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government.”

Veto power of the President

Article VI, Section 27 of the 1987 Constitution affords the President the power to exercise line-item
veto in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill. However, Congress may reconsider the president's
veto by a vote of two-thirds of all the members of the house.

SECTION 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to
the President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same
with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its
Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of
such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other
House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of
that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by
yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The
President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days
after the date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.

(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation,
revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object.

Power of the purse

The 1987 Constitution provides that "No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance
of an appropriation made by law."

Power of judicial review

The 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly vests in the Supreme Court the power of judicial review
which is the authority to examine an executive or legislative act and to invalidate that act if it is
contrary to constitutional principles.

The power conferred by the Constitution which has the authority to declare an executive or legislative
acts as unconstitutional/ invalid, there the acts are unenforceable.

Due process

What are the requirements of due process in administrative proceedings. Specifically, is a

“court-type” hearing required?

Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that “(n)o person shall be deprived of
life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection
of the law.” The first rights guaranteed in our Bill of Rights are the rights to due process and equal
protection of the law.

11
The question actually posited is about procedural due process in administrative proceedings.
Procedural due process, as distinguished from substantive due process, is all about “procedural
fairness.” As the great American statesman and Sen. Daniel Webster describes due process, it is a
“law which hears before it condemns.”

Procedural due process in judicial proceedings should be distinguished from procedural due process
in administrative proceedings. In the landmark case of  Banco Espanol Filipino v Palanca, 31 Phil.
921, 934 (1918), the Supreme Court enumerated the following essential requirements of procedural
fairness in judicial proceedings: “(1) There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to
hear and determine the matter before it; (2) jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of
the defendant or over the property which is the subject of the proceedings; (3) the defendant must be
given the opportunity to be heard; and (4) judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.”

However, there are also cases which are decided not by courts but by administrative agencies (like
the DepEd). Thus, while such administrative agencies are not always bound by the strict requirements
of judicial due process as mentioned above and spelled out in more detail in the Revised Rules of
Court (or other relevant laws passed by Congress), they are still required to respect the due process
clause of our Constitution. The landmark case of Ang Tibay v Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil.
635 (1940), enumerated the following “cardinal primary requirements” of procedural due process in
administrative proceedings: “(1) The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s case
and submit evidence in support thereof; (2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented; (3)
The decision must have something to support itself; (4) The evidence must be substantial. Substantial
evidence means such reasonable evidence as a reasonable mind accept as adequate to support a
conclusion; (5) The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected; (6) The tribunal or body or any of its
judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not
simply accept the views of a subordinate; (7) The Board or body should, in all controversial questions,
render its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues
involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.”

If we simplify what these two leading cases are actually saying, we could see that procedural due
process, whether judicial or administrative, is all about “notice and an opportunity to be heard.”

The answer now to the specific question asked of me, as to whether a “court-type” hearing is
necessary, was already answered by the Supreme Court in several cases, one of which is Ledesma v
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 166780, December 27, 2007, 541 SCRA 44 .

“Opportunity to be heard” in relation to due process in administrative proceedings, does not always
require a “trial-type proceeding.” Thus, in the leading case of Ledesma v Court of Appeals, the
Supreme Court ruled that “(d)ue process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all
situations require a trial-type proceeding. Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the
charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. In administrative
proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to
answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process. The
essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to explain one’s side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of.”

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30