ADMINISTRATIVE AND ELECTION LAWS

MIDTERMS REVIEWER
Based on:

Philippine Administrative Law (Cruz, 2016)

Outline Reviewer in Political Law (Nachura, 2016)

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Administrative decisions — not reviewable

Administrative decisions may be validly rendered nal and unappealable at the administrative level
without allowing the aggrieved party a nal resort to the courts of justice.

Courts of justice will generally not interfere in the executive and administrative matters which are
addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies, such as the grant of licenses, permits,
leases or the approval, rejection or revocation of applications. Manuel v Villena

Court interference — when justi ed

Courts may interfere when the exercise of such functions by the administrative o cer is tainted by a
failure to abide by the command of the law. Leongson v Court of Appeals

When can administrative decisions be appealed:

It may be appealed to the courts of justice only if:

1. The Constitution or the law permits it; or

2. The issues to be reviewed involve questions of law.

Right to appeal — nature

The right to appeal is not a constitutional right nor is it embraced in the right to be heard as guaranteed
by due process.

Appeals in case of Constitutional Commissions

Article IX, A, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution

General rule: Any decision, order or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from the receipt of copy.

Exception: When it is otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law

Page 1 of 11
fi
fi
fi
ffi
 Civil Service Commission Rule 43 of the Rules of Court Court of Appeals

Commission on Audit Certiorari Supreme Court

Commission on Election Certiorari Supreme Court

Final orders and not interlocutory orders

Only nal orders, rulings, and decisions of the constitutional commissions rendered in the exercise of
their adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers may be subject to said appeals. Cagas v COMELEC
As to the Civil Service Commission

The Court of Appeals can entertain appeals from awards, judgments, nal orders or resolutions of the
Civil Service Commission.

As to the Commission on Elections

The decision must be a nal decision or resolution of the Commission En Banc. The Supreme Court
has no power to review via certiorari an interlocutory order or even a nal resolution of a division of the
Commission on Elections. Final decisions of a non-judicial character may not be elevated to the
Supreme Court on certiorari but need to be taken in ordinary civil actions before the trial courts.

Review by the Court of Appeals

Pursuant to Section 16 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines implementing Section 9(3) of BP Big 129:

The Court of Appeals may review nal decisions, orders, awards or resolutions of regional trial courts
and of all quasi-judicial bodies except the Commission on Elections, the Commission on Audit, and the
Sandiganbayan, and decisions issued under the Labor Code of the Philippines and by the Central Board
of Assessment Appeals.

Review by the Court of Tax Appeals

Republic Act No. 1125 provides for appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals of any decision rendered by the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs, or any provincial or city board of
assessment appeals.

METHODS OF REVIEW

1. Statutory - it is available pursuant to speci c statutory provisions.

a. Insurance Code

Any decision, order or ruling rendered by the Commissioner after a hearing shall have the force and
e ect of a judgment. Any party may appeal from a nal order, ruling or decision of the Commissioner by

Page 2 of 11
ff
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 ling with the Commissioner within 30 days from receipt of copy of such order, ruling or decision a
notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals in the manner provided fro in the Rules of Court for appeals
from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals.

b. Administrative Code

An appeal from an agency decision shall be perfected by ling with the agency within fteen days from
receipt of a copy a notice of appeal, and with the reviewing court a petition fro review of the order.

Copies of the petition shall be served upon the agency and all parties of record.

It must contain a concise statement of the issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review,
and shall be accompanied with a true copy of the order appealed from, together with copies of such
material portions of the records as are referred to therein and other supporting papers.

Petition shall be under oath and shall show, by stating the speci c material dates, that is was led within
the period xed in this Chapter.

c. Rules of Court

Petition for review

- It shall be perfected within fteen days from the receipt of the nal administrative decision.

- One motion for reconsideration may be allowed

- If the motion is denied, the movant shall perfect his appeal during the remaining period for appeal
reckoned from the receipt of the resolution of denial.

- If the decision is reversed on reconsideration, the appellant shall have fty days from receipt of
the resolution to perfect his appeal.

- The review proceeding shall be led in the court speci ed by statue, or, in the absence thereof, in any
court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions on venue of the Rules of Court.

- It shall be made on the basis of the record as a whole.

- In the absence of speci c rules governing appeals from administrative decisions, the special civil
actions and other remedies provided for in the Rules of Court may be availed of in proper cases by an
aggrieved party.

2. Non-statutory - where there is no express statute granting review, relief is obtained by means of the
common law remedies, or by the prerogative writs of certiorari, mandamus, habeas corpus, quo
warrants, or prohibition.

Reliance on the Rules of Court with respect to determination of administrative agencies

The writ of certiorari is available if all administrative decisions were conclusive upon the us in any event,
there would have been no reason at all to o er this extraordinary remedy to litigants who otherwise
would have been deprived of this only and last resort to the courts of justice.

Page 3 of 11
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 Certiorari applies to administrative decisions up to the highest level and includes the decision rendered
by authority of the President.

The Supreme Court may review the decision of the O ce of the President on questions of law and
jurisdiction when properly raised. This part of the duty of the Supreme Court under the Constitution as
part of a system of checks and balances.

Principles governing judicial review through certiorari or prohibition of determinations of

administrative o cers or agencies

1. Before the actions may be entertained, it must be shown that all the administrative remedies
prescribed by law or ordinance have been exhausted; and

2. The administrative decision may properly be annulled or set aside only upon a clear showing that the
administrative o cial or tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion.

3. Direct attack - attempt to question in subsequent proceedings the administrative action for lack of
jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, etc.

4. Collateral attack - relief from administrative action sought in a proceeding the primary purpose of
which is some relief other than the setting aside of the judgment, although an attack on the judgment
may be incidentally involved, e.g., a damage suit against the administrative o cials.

PRIMARY JURISDICTION OR PRIOR RESORT

Doctrine of Prior Resort or Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

- It applies only where the administrative agency exercises its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function.

- Where there is competence or jurisdiction vested upon an administrative body to act upon a matter,
no resort to the courts may be made before such administrative body shall have acted upon the
matter.

- Courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of the government
agency entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special and technical training and
knowledge of such agencies. Quimbao v Court of Appeals

- It simply calls for the determination of administrative questions, which are ordinarily questions of fact,
by administrative agencies rather than courts of justice. Villa or v Court of Appeals
- It applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever
enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have
been placed within the special competence of an administrative body.

- It precludes the courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged in
an administrative body of special competence. Sta. Ana v Carpo
- Courts will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the
administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the
question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge,

Page 4 of 11
ffi
ffi
ffi
fl
ffi
 experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of
fact, and a uniformity of ruling is essential comply with the premises of the regulatory statute
administered.

Objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction

- it is meant to guide a court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until
after an administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising
in the proceeding before the court.

E ect of the exercise of primary jurisdiction

The judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view.
The Court cannot arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is
initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. Sherwill Development Corporation
v Sitio Sto. Niño Residents Association, Inc.

It does not call for the dismissal of the case but only the mere suspension until after the matters within
the competence of the administrative agency are threshed out and determined. Far East Conference v
United States

Rationale of the exercise of primary jurisdiction

The need for specialized administrative boards or commission with the special knowledge, experience
and capability to hear and determine promptly disputes on technical matters or essential factual matters,
subject to judicial review in case of grave abuse of discretion has became indispensable.

Uniformity and consistency in the regulation of the business entrusted to an administrative agency are
secured, and the limited function of review by the judiciary are more rationally exercised, by preliminary
resort, for ascertaining and interpreting the circumstances underlying legal issues, to agencies that are
better equipped than courts by socialization, by insight gained through experience, and by more exible
procedure. Far East Conference v United States

Split jurisdiction is not favored

When an administrative agency is conferred quasi-judicial functions, all controversies relating to the
subject matter pertaining to its specialization are deemed to be included within its jurisdiction.

Primary jurisdiction is to the exclusion of others

Where two administrative agencies share concurrent jurisdiction with respect to a particular issue, the
body or agency that rst takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of
others. The second case led will be dismissed on the grounds of forum shopping. Lepanto
Consolidated Mining Company v WMC Resources International Pty., Ltd

Examples:

Page 5 of 11
ff
fi
fi
fl
 1. Ombudsman with the Secretary of Justice

When’re the concurrent authority is vested in both the Department of Justice and the O ce of the
Ombudsman, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction should operate to retain the Department of Justice from
exercising its investigative authority if the case will likely be cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.

Administrative Complaints cognizable by the Ombudsman

Section 19 of RA No. 6770 grants the Ombudsman the authority to act on all administrative complaints
relation, but not limited, to acts or omissions which:

1. Are contrary to law or regulation;

2. Are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or discriminatory;

3. Are inconsistent with the general course of an agency’s functions, though in accordance with law;

4. Proceed from a mistake of law or an arbitrary ascertainment of facts;

5. Are in the exercise of discretionary powers but for an improper purpose; or

6. Are otherwise irregular, immoral or devoid of justi cation.

2. Ombudsman with the Sagguniang Bayan

The Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction with the sangguniang bayan, based on its disciplinary
authority under the Local Government Code, over administrative cases against elective barangay
o cials occupying positions below salary grade 27.

Administrative cases involving the concurrent jurisdiction o two or more disciplining authorities, the body
in which the complaint is led rst and which opts to take cognizance of the case, acquires jurisdiction
to the exclusion of other tribunals exercising concurrent jurisdiction.

While the Ombudsman would have plenary power to discipline elective o cials over the same
disciplinary authority of the president under the Local Government Code, he would have the option to
refer certain complaints to the proper disciplinary authority for the institution of appropriate
administrative proceedings against erring public o cers or employees.

Jurisdiction conferred by statute

When the law bestows upon a government body the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving
speci c matters, it is to be presumed that such jurisdiction is exclusive, unless it be proved that another
body is likewise vested with the same jurisdiction, in which case, both bodies have concurrent
jurisdiction over the matter.

DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies

Page 6 of 11
ffi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ffi
ffi
ffi
 - calls for the resort rst to the appropriate administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy
falling under their jurisdiction before the same may be elevated to the courts of justice for review.

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

- Recourse through action cannot prosper until after all such administrative remedies would have rst
been exhausted.

- It does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve or interfere in a controversy,
the jurisdiction over which is lodged initially with an administrative body of special competence.

- Through this, the courts must allow the administrative agencies to carry out their functions and
discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence.

Reasons for the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies

1. The administrative superiors, if given the opportunity, can correct the errors committed by their
subordinates.

2. Courts should as much as possible refrain from disturbing the ndings of administrative bodies in
deference to the doctrine of separation of powers.

3. On practical grounds, it is best that the courts, which are burdened enough as they are with judicial
cases, should not be saddled with the review of administrative cases.

4. Judicial review of administrative cases is usually e ected through the special civil actions of
certiorari, mandamus and prohibition, which are available only if there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy.

E ect of failure to exhaust administrate remedies

- Non-observance of the doctrine results in lack of a cause of action, which is one of the grounds
allowed by the Rules of Court for the dismissal of the complaint.

- Where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for administrative review, and provides for a system
of administrative appeal, or reconsideration, the courts, for reasons of law, comity and convenience,
will not entertain the case unless the available administrative remedies have been resorted to and the
appropriate authorities have been given an opportunity to act and correct the error committed in the
administrative forum.

- Thus, a party aggrieved must not merely initiate the prescribed administrative procedure to obtain
relief, but also must pursue it to tis appropriate conclusion before seeking judicial intervention in order
to give that administrative agency an opportunity to decide the matter by itself correctly and prevent
unnecessary and premature resort to court.

- Failure to exhaust administrative remedies would not a ect the jurisdiction of the reviewing court and
would merely result in the lack of a cause of action which may be invoked in a motion to dismiss.

- Exhaustion must be raised at the earliest possible time, even before ling the answer to the complaint
or pleading asserting a claim, by a motion to dismiss; otherwise it shall be deemed waived.

- It may also constitute forum shopping and warrant to the dismissal.

- Forum shopping - it exists when both actions involve the same transactions, same essential facts
and circumstances and raise identical causes of action, subject matters and issues.

Underlying presumption on the exhaustion of administrative remedies

Page 7 of 11
ff
fi
fi
ff
ff
fi
fi
fi
 It rests on the presumption that the administrative agency, if a orded a complete chance to pass upon
the matter, will decide the same correctly. University of the Philippines v Catungcal, Jr.

The ling of a motion for reconsideration is in fact encouraged before resort is made to the courts as
matter of exhaustion of administrative remedies, to a ord the agency rendering the judgment an
opportunity to correct any error it may have committed through a misapprehension of facts or
misappreciation of the evidence. Gerona v Dantingaling

Exhaustion of administrative remedies as condition precedent

Before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should have
availed of all the means of administrative processes a orded him. If a remedy within the administrative
machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative o cer concerned every opportunity to
decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted rst before
the court’s judicial power can be sought. The premature intervention of the courts is fatal to one’s cause
of action. Paat v Court of Appeals

Exhaustion principle Concept of due process

Applies when the ruling court or tribunal is not
given the opportunity to re-examine its ndings
and conclusions because of an available
opportunity that a party seeking recourse agains
the four or the tribunals ruling omitted to take.
A violation occurs when a court or tribunal rules
against a party without giving him or her the
opportunity to be heard.

It is based on the perspective of the ruling court or It is from the point of view of the litigating party
tribunal. against whom a ruling was made.

Exceptions to the exhaustion of administrative remedies

1. Where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine

2. Where the challenge administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction

3. Where there is unreasonable delay or o cial inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant

4. Where the amount involved is relatively small as to make the rule impractical and oppressive

5. Where the question raised is purely legal and will ultimate have to be decided by the courts of justice

6. Where judicial intervention is urgent

7. Where its application may cause great and irreparable damage

8. Where the controverted acts violate due process

9. When the issuance of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot

10. Where there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy

11. When strong public interest is involved

12. In quo warrants proceedings

13. *When the subject of the controversy is private land

14. *When the subject of the controversy is under the exercise of the doctrine of quali ed political
agency

Page 8 of 11
fi
ffi
fi
ff
ff
ff
ffi
fi
fi
 QUESTION REVIEWABLE

Questions of Law Questions of Fact

De ned Exists when the doubt or controversy Exists if the doubt centers on the truth or
concerns the correct application of falsity of the alleged facts.
law or jurisprudence to a certain set
of facts; or when the issue does not
call for examination of the probative
value of the evidence presented, the
truth or falsehood of facts being
admitted.

What comprises The resolution of issue must rest
solely on what the law provides on
the given set of circumstances.
It occurs when it is clear that the issue
invites a review of the evidence presented.
Thus, if there is re-evaluation of the
credibility of witnesses, or the existence or
relevance of surrounding circumstances and
their relation to each other.

Nature of appeal Appealable to the courts of justice There might be a need for its express
even without legislative permission or stipulation under the law or to exhaust
against legislative prohibition administrative remedies.*

Test to Whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or
determine evaluation the evidence. If it is in the a rmative, a question of law; otherwise, a
whether it is a question of fact.
question of fact
or law

Findings of fact by administrative board or o cial, following a hearing — binding

The ndings of fact by an administrative board or o cial, following a hearing are binding upon the courts
and will not be disturbed.

Factual ndings — nature

If it is a rmed by the Court of Appeals, the factual ndings of administrative agencies are conclusive
upon and not reviewable by the Supreme Court.

It is however subjected to judicial review despite being declared nal by law. Factual ndings of
administrative agencies are not infallible and will be set aside where they fail the tests of arbitrariness, or
upon proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law.

Grave abuse of discretion — when it exists

It exists when there is capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion,

Page 9 of 11
fi
fi
ffi
fi
ffi
ffi
fi
ffi
fi
fi
 prejudice or personal hostility amounting to an evasion positive duty, or to a virtual refusal to perform the
duty enjoined, or to at all in contemplation of law.

Exceptions

1. When the ndings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures

2. When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible

3. When there is grave abuse of discretion

4. When the judgement is based on a misapprehension facts

5. When the nds of fact are con icting

6. When in making its ndings, the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its ndings
are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee

7. When the ndings are contrary to the trial court

8. When the ndings are conclusion without citation of speci c evidence on which they are based

9. When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main ada reply briefs are not
disputed by the respondent

10. When the ndings of fact are premise don the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by
the evidence on record; and

11. When the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not dispute by the parties,
which if properly considered, would justify a di erent conclusion.

Doctrines on factual ndings of administrative bodies

1. Findings of fact are respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence, even if not
overwhelming or preponderant.

a) Findings of administrative officials and agencies who have acquired expertise because
their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect
but at times even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence.

b) However, the principle that factual findings of administrative bodies are binding upon the
Court may be sustained only when no issue of credibility is raised. Thus, when the
factual findings of the NLRC do not agree with those of the Labor Arbiter, the Court must,
of necessity, review the records to determine which findings should be preferred as more
conformable to the evidentiary facts

2. It is not for the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses,
or otherwise substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency on the sufficiency of evidence.
The Court recognizes that the trial court or the administrative body, as the trier of facts, is in a better
position to assess the demeanor of the witnesses and the credibility of their testimonies as they were
within its proximal view during the hearing or investigation.

3. The administrative decision in matters within the executive jurisdiction can only be set aside on proof of
grave abuse of discretion, fraud, collusion or error of law.

a) In Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 137473, August 2, 2001, the
Supreme Court said that courts will not generally interfere with purely administrative

Page 10 of 11
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fl

ff

fi

fi
 matters addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies, unless there is a
clear showing of arbitrary, capricious or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction.

Doctrine of respect for administrative or practical construction

In applying the doctrine or principle of respect for administrative or practical construction, the courts often
refer to several factors which may be regarded as bases of the principle, as factors leading the courts to
give the principle controlling weight in particular instances, or as independent rules in them-selves. These
factors are the respect due the governmental agencies charged with administration, their competence,
expertness, experience, and informed judgment and the fact that they frequently are the drafters of the
law they interpret; that the agency is the one on which the legislature must rely to advise it as to the
practical working out of the statute, and practical application of the statute, presents the agency with
unique opportunity and experiences for discovering de ciencies, inaccuracies, or improvements in the
statute.

Effect of rendering option or issues a statement of policy

When an administrative agency renders an opinion or issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets a
pre-existing law and the administrative interpretation is at best advisory for it is the courts that nally
determine what the law means.

The interpretation of an agency of its own rules should be given more weight than the interpretation by
the agency of the law it is merely tasked to administer.

Page 11 of 11

fi

fi