AS DISTINGUISHED FROM application in concrete

ADMINISTRATIVE BODY contested cases in court, as the

Court explained in Santiago v.
 For example, an administrative
Bautista.
body, like the office of the
public prosecutor, tasked by REASONS FOR CREATION OF QUASI-
law to determine whether or JUDICIAL AGENCIES
not probable cause exists to
 There is a need for the ACTIVE
warrant the filing in court of
INTERVENTION of
criminal charges for violation of
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENECIES in
a penal statute and to handle
dealing with matters calling for
its prosecution is not a quasi-
technical knowledge and speed
judicial body.
in countless controversies
 Why? It is still an
which cannot possibly be
administrative body exercising
handled by regular courts.
a function which is principally
 Furthermore, as a result of the
administrative or executive in
growing complexity of the
nature.
modern society, it has become
 However, in Cojuangco v.
necessary to create more and
PCGG, the Court held that by
more administrative bodies to
the very nature of his function,
help in the regulation of its
a prosecutor is and must be
ramified activities.
considered to be a quasi-
 So again, that is the reason for
judicial officer, subject to the
the increasing vesture of quasi-
due process requirement of
legislative and quasi-judicial
the cold neutrality of an
power.
impartial judge. The ruling
accentuates the difficulty of VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR A QUASI-
drawing the line between JUDICIAL OFFICER
administrative function and  I would just like to mention
quasi-judicial power, and that there are two types of
where to draw the line arbitration: VOL and INVOL.
between one and the other  Voluntary arbitration is the
may not be generalized but referral of a dispute by the
may only be done by actual parties pursuant to a voluntary
 arbitration clause or
agreement to an impartial third
person or panel for a final
resolution. Involuntary
arbitration is one compelled by
the government to accept the
resolution of the dispute
through the arbitration of a
third party.
 The voluntary arbitrator or
panel of arbitrators makes the
award or decision which
becomes final after a certain
period from receipt of the copy
JURISDICTION, EXTENT
of the award or decision by the
parties. By the nature of his
functions, a voluntary
arbitrator acts in quasi-judicial
capacity.
JURISDICTION
 In the case of MITSUBISHI
MOTORS PHILIPPINES
CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs.
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS,
jurisdiction is defined as the
power and authority of a court
to hear, try, and decide a
case. In order for the court or
an adjudicative body to have
authority to dispose of the case
on the merits, it must acquire,
among others, jurisdiction over
the subject matter. It is
axiomatic that jurisdiction over
the subject matter is the power
to hear and determine the
general class to which the
proceedings in question
belong; it is conferred by law
and not by the consent or
acquiescence of any or all of
the parties or by erroneous
belief of the court that it
exists.34 Thus, when a court has
no jurisdiction over the subject
matter, the only power it has is
to dismiss the action.
 The rule is that an
administrative body to which
quasi-judicial power has been
delegated is a tribunal of
limited jurisdiction and as such
it could wield only such powers
as are specifically granted to it
by its enabling statute. Its
jurisdiction is interpreted in
strictissimi juris. This rule is
based on the settled principle
that an administrative agency
or officer can exercise only
such powers as are expressly
granted as well as those which
are necessarily implied
therefrom.