2020 Bar Reviewer - Administrative Law

2020 Bar Reviewer on Administrative Law 8/18/2020
2020 BAR REVIEWER:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
By: Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr.
Bar Questions (Definitions)

1. What is an administrative Order?
2. What are the different kinds of
administrative rules?
3. What is an executive order?
• Please read: Ople vs. Torres, July 23, 1998
and KMU vs. NEDA, April 19, 2006;
• Sec. 2, Introductory Provisions, Executive
Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987)
Copyright@ Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr. 1

Bar Questions (Definitions)

1. What is meant by the phrase
“Government of the Republic of the
Philippines”?
2. What is a government instrumentality?
3. What is a regulatory agency?
4. What is a chartered institution?
5. When is a government-owned or
controlled corporation deemed to be
performing proprietary function?
governmental function?
IS MIAA A GOCC OR INSTRUMENTALITY?

• MIAA is not organized as a stock or non-stock corporation. MIAA
is not a stock corporation because it has no capital stock divided
into shares. MIAA has no stockholders or voting shares.
• Under its Charter, MIAA does not have capital stock that is
divided into shares. MIAA has capital but it is not divided into
shares of stock. MIAA has no stockholders or voting shares.
Hence, MIAA is not a stock corporation. MIAA is also not a non-
stock corporation because it has no members.”
• What then is the legal status of MIAA within the National
Government? MIAA is a government instrumentality vested with
corporate powers to perform efficiently its governmental
functions.
• MIAA is like any other government instrumentality, the only
difference is that MIAA is vested with corporate powers.
• MIAA vs. CA, 495 SCRA 591 (2006)

Is the MIAA subject to real property tax?

• NO. MIAA is not a GOCC but an “instrumentality” of the
National Government, and, (b) the real properties of MIAA
are owned by the Republic of the Philippines and thus
exempt from real estate tax.
• What about the collection of terminal fees and other
charges? (Mactan Cebu vs. Judge Marcos, 1996)
• “The fact that the MIAA collects terminal fees and other
charges from the public does not remove the character of the
Airport Lands and Buildings as properties for public use.
• “The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are devoted to
public use and thus are properties of public dominion. As
properties of public dominion, the Airport Lands and
Buildings are outside the commerce of man.”
• MIAA vs. CA, 495 SCRA 591 (2006)
Is the GSIS a GOCC, therefore subject to real property tax?

• NO. GSIS is not a GOCC but an “instrumentality” of the
National Government. GSIS’ capital is not divided into unit
shares. Also, GSIS has no members to speak of.
• The real properties under GSIS’s name are likewise owned
by the Republic. The GSIS is but a mere trustee of the
subject properties which have either been ceded to it by the
Government or acquired for the enhancement of the system.
• This particular property arrangement is clearly shown by the
fact that the disposal or conveyance of said subject
properties are either done by or through the authority of the
President of the Philippines.
• GSIS v. City Treasurer, 23 December 2009
• NOTE. This overturns the ruling in City of Davao v. RTC,
467 SCRA 280 (2005), wher the SC declared the GSIS
liable for real property taxes.

May the DOJ issue an administrative order consolidating

all pending cases against the same respondents?
• YES. The consolidation of the cases against Delos
Angeles, Jr., et al. from various venues was ordered
obviously to obtain expeditious justice for the parties
with the least cost and vexation to them.
• Inasmuch as the cases filed involved similar or related
questions to be dealt with during the preliminary
investigation, the Secretary of Justice rightly found the
consolidation of the cases to be the most feasible
means of promoting the efficient use of public
resources and of having a comprehensive investigation
of the cases.
• Spouses Dacudao v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No.
188056, January 08, 2013
What are the three basic powers of

administrative agencies?
• Quasi-legislative power or
rule-making power
• Quasi-judicial or
adjudicatory power
• Determinative power
8

Q: When is an agency exercising quasi-legislative or

quasi-judicial powers?
• A: Administrative agencies possess two kinds of powers,
the quasi legislative or rule-making power, and the quasi-
judicial or administrative adjudicatory power.
• The first is the power to make rules and regulations that
results in delegated legislation that is within the confines of
the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegability and
separability of powers.
• The second is the power to hear and determine questions of
fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in
accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in
enforcing and administering the same law. The administrative
body exercises its quasi-judicial power when it adjudicates
adversarial rights. The Chairman and Executive Director,
Palawan Council for Sustainable Development v. Lim,801
SCRA 304 (2016)
9
When do administrative rules take effect?
• 15 days after publication not 15 days

from date of filing with the UP Law
Center (Sec. 4, Admin. Code; Republic v Express
Telecomm (2002)).
• Exceptions:
• (a) when a different date is fixed by law
or specified in the rule;
• (b) in case of imminent danger to
public health, safety and welfare.
10

Is publication necessary for validity?
• Yes. Rules and Regulations must be

published if their purpose is to enforce or
implement existing laws pursuant to a valid
delegation.
• The publication must be in full or its no
publication at all. (Tanada vs. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446).
• Exceptions:
• (a) Interpretative Rules;
• (b) Internal Rules;
• (c) Letters of Instructions.
11
Rules with Penalties

• Every rule establishing an offense or
defining an act which, pursuant to law is
punishable as a crime or subject to a
penalty shall in all cases be published
in full text. (Sec. 6, Admin. Code)
• The law itself must so declare the act as
punishable.
• The rule cannot amend, modify, or expand
the provisions of the law (The Hon. Secretary
Vincent S. Perez v. LPG Refillers Assn. of the Phils.,
G.R. No. 159149, June 26, 2006)
12

Is notice & hearing necessary?
• No. Where the rule is procedural, or

merely legal opinions, or even
substantive rules implementing the
law. (See Corona v. United Harbor Pilots Association of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 111953, December 12, 1997)
• Exceptions:
• A. Subordinate legislation
• B. Rate-Fixing (Increasing Burdens)
13
Subordinate Legislation
• Power of administrative
agency to promulgate rules
and regulations on their
matters of their own
specialization.
14

Rules on Rate-Fixing
– If it’s pursuant to a legislative
function (i.e., increasing fees for
renewal of driver’s license or NBI
clearance), prior notice or
hearing is NOT REQUIRED. (See
Philippine Consumers Foundation v. Secretary, DECS,
153 SCRA 622)
– As regards rates prescribed in the
exercise of quasi-judicial
function, prior notice and
hearing are REQUIRED.
15
Sample Problem
• The Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA)
issued new rules and regulations governing
pilotage services and fees, and the conduct of
pilots in Philippine ports.
• This it did without notice, hearing nor
consultation with harbor pilots or their
associations whose rights and activities are to
be substantially affected.
• The harbor pilots then filed suit to have the
new MARINA rules and regulations declared
unconstitutional for having been issued
without due process. Decide the case.
16

Answer
• The issuance of the new rules and regulations violated
due process.
• Under Sec. 9, Chapter II, Book VII of the Administrative
Code of 1987, as far as practicable, before adopting
proposed rules, an administrative agency should publish
or circulate notices of the proposed rules and afford
interested parties the opportunity to submit their views;
• In accordance with this provision, in Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v CA, G.R. No. 119761, 261 SCRA 236,
August 29, 1996, it was held that when an administrative
rule substantially increases the burden of those directly
affected, they should be accorded the chance to be heard
before its issuance.
17
Q: Where should a case be filed assailing an

administrative rule or regulation?
• A: If what is being assailed is the validity or
constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by an
administrative agency in the performance of its
quasi-legislative functions, then the Regional Trial
Court has jurisdiction to pass upon the same.
• The determination of whether a specific rule or set of
rules issued by an administrative agency contravenes
the law or the Constitution is within the jurisdiction of
the RTC.
• Smart Communications, Inc. v. National
Telecommunications Commission, G.R. No. 151908 and
G.R. No. 152063, August 12, 2003, 408 SCRA 678, 686.
18

QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS
• A grant of investigatory power does not

include a grant of quasi-judicial or quasi-
legislative functions in the absence of an
express statutory provision to that effect.
• Hence, a purely investigatory body (such as
the CHR) does not exercise judicial
functions. Its power is limited to investigation
of facts and making findings thereon
• (Carino v. CHR, GR No. 96681, 204 SCRA 483
December 2, 1991).
19
When is an agency – quasi-judicial?
• An agency is a quasi-judicial body if it has

the power to adjudicate.
• A government agency performs adjudicatory functions
when it renders decisions or awards that determine the
rights of adversarial parties, which decisions or awards
have the same effect as a judgment of the court.
• The fact that the PCSD conducts public consultations
or hearings does not mean that it is performing quasi-
judicial functions.
• Villanueva v. Palawan Council for Sustainable
Development, G.R. NO. 178347. FEBRUARY 25,
2013
20

When the DOJ reviews the finding of probable cause of

fiscals, is it exercising quasi-judicial powers?
• NO. The prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does not
determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. He does not
exercise adjudication nor rule-making functions.
• Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and is often the
only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably
charged with a crime and to enable the fiscal to prepare his
complaint or information. It is not a trial of the case on the
merits and has no purpose except that of determining whether
a crime has been committed and whether there is probable
cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof.
• While the fiscal makes that determination, he cannot be said to
be acting as a quasi-court, for it is the courts, ultimately, that
pass judgment on the accused, not the fiscal.
• SANTOS, et al. v. WILSON GO, G.R. No. 156081, 19 October 2005,
21
When the DOJ reviews the finding of probable cause of

fiscals, is it exercising quasi-judicial powers?
• NO. A preliminary investigation is not a quasi-judicial proceeding
since the prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does not
determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
• A quasi-judicial agency performs adjudicatory functions such that
its awards, determine the rights of parties, and their decisions
have the same effect as judgments of a court.
• Such is not the case when a public prosecutor conducts a
preliminary investigation to determine probable cause to file an
information against a person charged with a criminal offense, or
when the Secretary of Justice is reviewing the former’s order or
resolutions.
• A preliminary investigation thus partakes of an investigative or
inquisitorial power for the sole purpose of obtaining information on
what action of a judicial nature may be taken. (Atty. Alice
Odchigue-Bondoc v. Tan Tiong Bio, G.R. No. 186652, 06 October
2010)
22

When the Office of the Mayor issues notices /demolition

orders, is it exercising quasi-judicial powers?
• YES. Under existing laws, the office of the mayor is
endowed with authority to hear issues involving property
rights of individuals and to come out with an effective order
or resolution thereon. In this manner, it exercises quasi-
judicial functions.
• It cannot be denied as well that in determining whether or
not a structure is illegal or it should be demolished, property
rights are involved thereby needing notices and opportunity
to be heard as provided for in the constitutionally
guaranteed right of due process. In pursuit of these
functions, the city mayor has to exercise quasi-judicial
powers.
• City Engineer of Baguio vs. Hon. Domogan, G.R. No.
150270, 26 November 2008
23
Is the CHR a quasi-judicial body?

• NO. The CHR is only a fact-finding body, not a court
of justice or a quasi-judicial agency. It is not
empowered to adjudicate claims on the merits or
settle actual case or controversies. The power to
investigate is not the same as adjudication.
• The CHR can only investigate, i.e., receive evidence
and make findings of fact as regards claimed human
rights violations involving civil and political rights.
But fact-finding is not adjudication.
• [First Class Cadet Aldrin Jeff Cudia vs. The
Superintendent of the PMA, G.R. No. 211362, 25
February 2015. ]
24

May the MTRCB impose preventive suspension?
• MTRCB issued a preventive suspension against

petitioner Eliseo P. Soriano for his offensive and
obscene language in the TV show Ang Dating Daan.
• It is Soriano’s stand that the preventive suspension
imposed against him and the relevant IRR provision
authorizing it are invalid inasmuch as P.D. 1986 does not
expressly authorize the MTRCB to issue preventive
suspension.
• Does the MTRCB have the authority to impose
preventive suspension? Does the MTRCB have the
authority to impose preventive suspension against
Soriano?
25
May the MTRCB impose preventive suspension?
• The MTRCB, to be sure, may prohibit the broadcast of

such television programs or cancel permits for exhibition,
but it may not suspend television personalities, for such
would be beyond its jurisdiction.
• The power to issue preventive suspension forms part of
the MTRCB’s express regulatory and supervisory
statutory mandate and its investigatory and disciplinary
authority subsumed in or implied from such mandate.
Any other construal would render its power to regulate,
supervise, or discipline illusory.
• But the MTRCB does not have the power to suspend the
program host or even to prevent certain people from
appearing in television programs.
• Soriano vs. MTRCB, G.R. No. 164785, Apr.29, 2009
26

Rules on Subpoena
• All agencies with quasi-judicial functions have
the power to issue subpoena, even if the
administrative agency’s charter is silent as to
such power.
• Rationale: power to adjudicate will be
rendered inutile if there is no power to issue
subpoena.
• Test for valid enforcement of subpoena:
• (1) within the authority of the agency;
• (2) demand not too indefinite;
• (3) information is reasonably relevant.
(Evangelista v Jarencio (1975))
27
Rules on Contempt
• Not all agencies with quasi-judicial functions
have the power to cite for contempt, as the
power must be expressly granted in the
agency’s charter;
• If there is no express grant, the agency must
invoke the aid of the courts.
• Rationale: power to punish for contempt is
inherently judicial.
• The power to declare contempt cannot be used
in the discharge of ministerial functions, but only
in relation to quasi-judicial functions. (Guevarra
v COMELEC (1958))
28

May an admin. agency issue a warrant of arrest?
• No. Under Art. III Sec. 2 of the Const., only

judges may issue search warrants and
warrants of arrest; and
• The exception is ONLY in cases of
deportation of illegal and undesirable
aliens, whom the President or the
Commissioner may order arrested,
following a final order of deportation,
(Salazar v Achacoso (1990))
29
May administrative agencies impose

fines and penalties?
• Yes. Test for valid imposition:

– subject matter must be within authority
of Congress to legislate;
– penalty to be imposed must be
administrative or civil in character;
– agency expressly authorized to impose
penalty; (RCPI v Board of Communications (1977))
30

Administrative Due Process

• 1. Right to a hearing
• 2. The tribunal must consider the
evidence presented;
• 3. Decision must be supported by
evidence;
• 4. Evidence must be substantial;
• 5. Decision must be rendered on the
evidence presented at the hearing;
• 6. Independent consideration of judge;
31
Is notice and hearing always necessary

prior to the deprivation of a right?
• When required:
• (1) when the law specifically requires it;
(Equitable Bank vs NLRC (1997)
• (2) when it affects a person’s status and
liberty (Commissioner of Immigration v Fernandez, 1999);
• When not required:
• Grant of provisional authority for increased
rates, or to engage in a particular line of
business (PLDT v. NTC, 190 SCRA 717);
• In the valid exercise of police power
(Pollution Adjudication Board v CA (1991);
32

Is notice and hearing always necessary

prior to the deprivation of a right?
• When not required:
• Cancellation of a passport by the DFA where
no abuse of discretion is exercised (Suntay v
People (1957));
• Summary abatement of a nuisance per se
which affects the immediate safety of persons
or property (Art. 704, Civil Code);
• Preventive suspension of a public officer
or employee pending investigation; (Sec.
51, Book V, Title 1-A, Administrative Code of 1987);
33
Quantum of Proof in
Administrative Proceedings
• It is well-entrenched that in an administrative
proceeding, the quantum of proof required for a
finding of guilt is only substantial evidence or
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion and not proof beyond reasonable
doubt which requires moral certainty to justify
affirmative findings.
• Ombudsman v. Mapoy, G.R. NO. 197299,
FEBRUARY 13, 2013
34

The CUDIA vs PMA Case

• 1CL Cudia and five other cadets arrived two minutes late in
their class. They were given demerits and tour of duties.
Cudia protested on the ground that “their previous class was
dismissed a bit late.”
• Because he protested, a disciplinary case was filed against
him for lying. It was alleged that the previous class was
dismissed on time.
• The Honors Committee was constituted to investigate him.
The HC initially voted 8-1. Under PMA Rules, the case
should be dismissed if voting was not unanimous. The HC
Chairman called for an executive session and a second
voting was done. The result was now unanimous.
• Cudia was ordered dismissed from the PMA.
• Was there a violation of his rights to due process?
35
Administrative Due Process

in the Cudia Case
• The HC is given leeway on the voting procedures in
actual cases taking into account the exigency of the
times. What is important is that, in the end, there must
be a unanimous nine votes in order to hold a cadet
guilty of violating the Honor Code.
• Granting, for argument’s sake, that the HC violated its
written procedure, there is nothing inherently wrong
with the practice of “chambering” considering that the
presence of intimidation or force cannot automatically
be inferred therefrom.
February 2015. ]
36

Are PMA cadets entitled to procedural due process

during disciplinary hearings?
• YES. A cadet facing dismissal from the military
academy for misconduct has constitutionally protected
private interests (life, liberty, or property); hence,
disciplinary proceedings conducted within the bounds
of procedural due process is a must.
• For that reason, the PMA is not immune from the
strictures of due process. Where a person's good
name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake
because of what the government is doing to him, the
minimal requirements of the due process clause must
be satisfied. [First Class Cadet Aldrin Jeff Cudia vs. The
February 2015. ]
37
Can a PMA cadet under investigation for Honor

Code Violation invoke the right to counsel?
• NO. There is nothing in the 1987 Constitution stating that a
party in a non-litigation proceeding is entitled to be
represented by counsel. The assistance of a lawyer, while
desirable, is not indispensable.
• A party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be
assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature of the
charges and of the respondent's capacity to represent
himself, and no duty rests on such body to furnish the
person being investigated with counsel.
• Hence, the PMA as an administrative body is under no duty
to provide the person with counsel because assistance of
counsel is not an absolute requirement. [First Class Cadet
Aldrin Jeff Cudia vs. The Superintendent of the PMA,
G.R. No. 211362, 25 February 2015. ]
38

Is the CHR a quasi-judicial body?

• NO. The CHR is only a fact-finding body, not a court
of justice or a quasi-judicial agency. It is not
empowered to adjudicate claims on the merits or
settle actual case or controversies. The power to
investigate is not the same as adjudication.
• The CHR can only investigate, i.e., receive evidence
and make findings of fact as regards claimed human
rights violations involving civil and political rights.
But fact-finding is not adjudication.
February 2015. ]
39
Can a PMA cadet under investigation for Honor

Code Violation invoke the right to counsel?
• NO. There is nothing in the 1987 Constitution stating that a
party in a non-litigation proceeding is entitled to be
represented by counsel. The assistance of a lawyer, while
desirable, is not indispensable.
• A party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be
assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature of the
charges and of the respondent's capacity to represent
himself, and no duty rests on such body to furnish the
person being investigated with counsel.
• Hence, the PMA as an administrative body is under no duty
to provide the person with counsel because assistance of
counsel is not an absolute requirement. [First Class Cadet
Aldrin Jeff Cudia vs. The Superintendent of the PMA,
G.R. No. 211362, 25 February 2015. ]
40

Can one invoke the right against

self-incrimination in admin cases?
• Yes. Cabal v. Kapunan, 6 SCRA 1064,
• It was held that since the administrative charge of
unexplained wealth may result in the forfeiture of
property, the complainant cannot call the
respondent to the witness stand without
encroaching on his right against self-
incrimination.
• In the case of Pascual v. Board of Medical
Examiners, 28 SCRA 345, the same rule was
followed since the proceedings could possibly
result in the loss of his privilege to practice
medicine.
41
Res Judicata
• The doctrine applies in all
administrative cases, which are
“adversarial” in nature. (Fortich vs. Corona, G.R.
No. 131457. April 24, 1998)
• Exceptions:
• Naturalization proceedings or those
involving citizenship and immigration;
• Labor relations;
• Family relations, personal status or
condition, and capacity of persons.
42

Will “res judicata” apply to cases involving

exercise of administrative power?
• As a rule, the doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial
or quasi-judicial proceedings, and not to the exercise of
administrative powers. [Montemayor v. Bundalian, 453
Phil. 158, 169 (2003)].
• As an exception, when the administrative proceedings take
on an adversary character, the doctrine of res judicata
certainly applies. As held in the case of Fortich v. Corona
[52 Phil. 461 (1998)].:
• “The rule of res judicata which forbids the reopening of a
matter once judicially determined by competent authority
applies as well to the judicial and quasi-judicial acts of
public, executive or administrative officers and boards
acting within their jurisdiction as to the judgments of
courts having general judicial powers.”
43
Q: Several parcels of land were subdivision road

lots that were illegally converted into residential lots
and thereafter sold by the subdivision developer.
Can the sale be annulled by the courts?
• A: NO.
• The HLURB is the sole regulatory body for housing and
land development.
• The extent to which an administrative agency may
exercise its powers depends on the provisions of the
statute creating such agency.
• Courts will not determine a controversy where the
issues for resolution demand the exercise of sound
administrative discretion. [Badillo v. Court of Appeals,
555 SCRA 435 (2008)]
44

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

• A case that requires for its determination the
expertise, specialized skills, and knowledge of
some administrative board or commission because
it involves technical matters or intricate questions of
fact, relief must first be obtained in an appropriate
administrative proceeding before a remedy will be
supplied by the courts although the matter comes
within the jurisdiction of the courts.
• The application of the doctrine does not call for the
dismissal of the case in the court but only for its
suspension until after the matters within the
competence of the administrative body are threshed
out and determined. [Mateo v. DAR, February 15,
2017]
45
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

• Q: The Secretary of National Defense issued a memorandum
directing the AFP Chief of Staff to facilitate the interment of
Former President Ferdinand Marcos at the LNMB.
• Several petitioners filed a petition directly with the Supreme
Court seeking to enjoin the interment of Marcos at the LNMB.
• Did the petitioners violate the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies?
• A: YES.
• Contrary to their claim of lack of plain, speedy, adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, petitioners should be
faulted for failing to seek reconsideration of the assailed
memorandum and directive before the Secretary of National
Defense.
• The Secretary of National Defense should be given opportunity
to correct himself. [Ocampo v. Enriquez, November 8, 2016]
46

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

• Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies, recourse through court action cannot prosper
until after all such administrative remedies have first been
exhausted.
• If remedy is available within the administrative machinery,
this should be resorted to before resort can be made to
courts. It is settled that non-observance of the doctrine
of exhaustion of administrative remedies results in
lack of cause of action, which is one of the grounds in
the Rules of Court justifying the dismissal of the
complaint.
• While there are exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies, petitioners failed to prove the
presence of any of those exceptions. [Ocampo v.
Enriquez, November 8, 2016]
47
Exhaustion of Admin. Remedies

• EXCEPTIONS:
• when there is a violation of due process;
• when the issue involved is purely a legal
question;
• when the administrative action is patently illegal;
• when the administrative agency is in estoppel;
• when there is irreparable injury;
• doctrine of qualified political agency applies;
• when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy
and adequate remedy, and
• when there’s urgency of judicial intervention.
48

2020 Bar Reviewer - Administrative Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

2020 Bar Reviewer - Administrative Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2020 Bar Reviewer on Administrative Law 8/18/2020

2020 BAR REVIEWER:

Bar Questions (Definitions)

Copyright@ Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr. 1

Bar Questions (Definitions)

IS MIAA A GOCC OR INSTRUMENTALITY?

Copyright@ Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr. 2

Is the MIAA subject to real property tax?

Is the GSIS a GOCC, therefore subject to real property tax?

Copyright@ Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr. 3

May the DOJ issue an administrative order consolidating

What are the three basic powers of

Copyright@ Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr. 4

Q: When is an agency exercising quasi-legislative or

When do administrative rules take effect?

• 15 days after publication not 15 days

Copyright@ Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr. 5

Is publication necessary for validity?

• Yes. Rules and Regulations must be

Rules with Penalties

Copyright@ Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr. 6

Is notice & hearing necessary?

• No. Where the rule is procedural, or

Copyright@ Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr. 7

Copyright@ Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr. 8

Q: Where should a case be filed assailing an

Copyright@ Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr. 9

• A grant of investigatory power does not

When is an agency – quasi-judicial?

• An agency is a quasi-judicial body if it has

Copyright@ Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr. 10

When the DOJ reviews the finding of probable cause of

When the DOJ reviews the finding of probable cause of

Copyright@ Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr. 11

When the Office of the Mayor issues notices /demolition

Is the CHR a quasi-judicial body?

Copyright@ Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr. 12

May the MTRCB impose preventive suspension?

• MTRCB issued a preventive suspension against

May the MTRCB impose preventive suspension?

• The MTRCB, to be sure, may prohibit the broadcast of

Copyright@ Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr. 13

Copyright@ Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr. 14

May an admin. agency issue a warrant of arrest?

• No. Under Art. III Sec. 2 of the Const., only

May administrative agencies impose

• Yes. Test for valid imposition:

Copyright@ Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr. 15

Administrative Due Process

Is notice and hearing always necessary

Copyright@ Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr. 16

Is notice and hearing always necessary

Copyright@ Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr. 17

The CUDIA vs PMA Case

Administrative Due Process

Copyright@ Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr. 18

Are PMA cadets entitled to procedural due process

Can a PMA cadet under investigation for Honor

Copyright@ Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr. 19

Is the CHR a quasi-judicial body?

Can a PMA cadet under investigation for Honor

Copyright@ Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr. 20

Can one invoke the right against

Copyright@ Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr. 21