1st Meeting: Intro to Admin Law

(00:00 to 20:00)

Admin Law is a public law. Public Law governs/regulates relation of the State with the
individuals or its subjects e.g. criminal law. That is why in criminal cases, they are always People of
the Philippines against the accused.

In contrast, Private Law regulates relations of individuals with one another without regard to
its relation to the State or the government e.g. civil law like custody, support, annulment. These are
cases of individual/s against another individual/s.

More specifically, Admin law is concerned about the structure of the government, the
administrative organization, the process and procedures involved in the administrative
organizations, or what we call the administrative operations of the government. And this is defined
as the law under which the executive department acting in quasi-legislative and/or quasi-judicial
capacity interferes with the conduct of the individual for purposes of promoting the well-being of
the community. It gives us the rules on how the administrative operations in the government goes
about. If there are rules and policies, we are able to determine if tama ba ang ginagawa ng mga
administrative officers being agents of the government.

To reiterate, the primary concerns of Admin Law is: the structure of the government, the
administrative organization, the administrative operations which includes the processes and
procedures, and the people. By people, we mean the administrative officers or the public officers,
kasama na their duties, liabilities, accountabilities, competence and rights of public officers.

Corollary to this, we also study administrative agencies that’s why you will also know what are the
characteristics of admin agencies.

Subdivision of Admin Law:

1. Law of internal administration- the government and the admin officers or the relation
between one admin officer and another admin officer. This includes the legal structure or the
organization of the public administration; the legal aspects of the institutional activities. This also
includes the qualification, disqualification, designation, removal, term and tenure and compensation
of admin/public officers.

2. Law of external administration- concerned with the legal relations between the admin
authorities and the people/private interest or outsiders.

For you to understand the subdivision of admin law, remember that it is a three-way relation- the
State, the public officers, the people/private interest.

a. State and admin officer or Admin officer towards another admin- internal
 b. Admin officer and the people/private interest- external

Four parts:

1.Survey of the powers and duties of admin authorities that relate directly to
the people/private interest;
2.Analysis of the scope and limits of such powers and duties;
3.Account of the sanctions, means of enforcing, and official determination;
and
4.Examination of the remedies against official actions. (sa mga naagrabyado)

Classification of Admin Law: (SPA)

· As to Source, the law that control the admin authorities and the law that is made by them.

· As to purpose, procedural and substantive.

· As to applicability, general admin law and special or particular law

· Take note of case Mendoza vs Dizon, 77 Phil 533; the very first case wherein
the SC for the very first time used the term Administrative Law in the headnote of its
decision.

· Realty Exchange Venture Corp. vs. Sendino 233 SCRA 665; this is a case where
the SC explained the importance of administrative agency. There was a time when
the people asked why is there a need for admin agencies despite the existence of
branches of government; questioning the creation of admin agencies; the SC
emphasized that one thrust of multiplication of admin agencies is that the
interpretation of certain contracts and agreements, and even the determination of
private rights is not no longer a unique judicial functions exercised only by regular
courts; it is now one of the powers/functions of admin agencies; it helps save time
kasi di naaabot sa pagfile ng cases sa court in order for the court to make the
determination that is why nagiging importante ang existence ng admin agencies.

Nature and Organization of Admin Agencies

1. Some agencies are created by the Constitution or by their Statute. If Constitutionally created,
the powers will be sourced from the Constitution; if created by a Statute, check the statute because
the powers will come from the statute.

· Cebu United Enterprise vs. Gallofin, 106 Phil 49; the SC said that duly executed
acts of an admin agency can still have valid effects even beyond the lifespan of the
admin agencies.
2. Admin agencies of statutory origin are subject to expansion or contraction of powers or
reorganization or even abolition at the will of the Congress. If the purpose of a particular statute is
to abolish an office or agency, it must be expressly stated.

· Crisostomo vs CA, 258 SCRA 134; PD 1341 converted the Phil. College of
Commerce into Polytechnic University of the Phil; Whether the PD abolished PCC;
No, because it did not expressly specify that there is an abolition. What happened
was merely a change in academic status from (PCC) College to (PUP) University.

3. Dario vs Mison, 176 SCRA 84; SC explained that Congress can delegate the power to create
positions. The President also can create, abolish or merge offices in the executive department (only).
Although this is a power given to the President as the executive head, does not also mean that all
reorganizations made by him are already proper or in accordance with law. It needs to be checked
that these organizations are pursued in good faith (the yardstick).

What is an Admin agency?

It is an agency that exercises some significant combination of the executive, legislative,

and judicial powers. It is a government body charged with administering and implementing a
particular legislation. Admin agency is very broad; all encompassing; it includes boards, commissions,
divisions, bureaus, departments, any other office or instrumentalities or GOCCS. And for purposes of
the Bar, check the definition of each of these admin agencies.
The main characteristics of Admin agencies: (Four)

1. As to size, it does not necessarily be large. By large, it reflects a nationwide jurisdiction and
reflects on the character of their work.

2. As to specialization, may be technical, professional trainings, or experiences

3. As to responsibility for results- charged by Congress with accomplishing a particular end. That
is why, government agencies are given a list of tasks, nature of job and targets that need to be
accomplished because these is “responsibility for results.” In the current set-up, there are already
IPCRs, or performance review because these are checking if you are accomplishing the targets as
part of responsibility for results.

4. (important!) There is a variety of admin duties- as observed in admin agencies/offices.

20:01-40:00

And number four, and this is very important, the fourth characteristic of an admin agency is
that there is a variety of administrative duties. And you can observe that in an admin agency, in
offices, and government offices. Madami yung mga trabaho. And sometimes yung nakalagay nalang
sa listahan is open. When you say list of your tasks, supposedly, it's very specific. Pero minsan
nilalagay natin sa last part, “and any other tasks”. Kasi we cannot really tell kung meron bang ibang
kelangang gawin. So that reflects or that shows the variety of administrative duties in administrative
agencies.

Also, pag sinasabi nating administrative agencies, these are public or government agencies.
The public or government agencies. So therefore, they do not represent private interests. They
cannot represent private interests. But simply itong mga admin agencies, they are acting within the
scope of their authority, or in behalf of the government, as representative or as agents of the
government or the public. Even if, as incidental to their function or to the performance of their
duties, there might be some issues between private parties or private rights. So kahit meron,
incidentally, but if you check on the main function, it is really public or governmental.

Now, you might also be confused kasi some agencies, would or are vested with quasi-judicial
powers or what we call quasi-judicial bodies. So they are likened to courts, but they are not courts,
in the strict sense. Even sometimes they are being referred to as courts or likened to courts. Even if
they have some procedure that may be similar to the practice in courts, if they perform functions
that resembles the functions being performed in the courts, because admin agencies cannot
exercise purely judicial function. Because as what we have learned in the Constitution, the judicial
power is vested only or is inherent in the courts.
 Now, for admin agencies, yung tinatawag natin na quasi-judicial powers, this is not to
adjudicate impartially, but this is merely to represent the public interests. So later on, you will more
extensively study also what quasi-judicial power is.

In other agencies naman pag yung power that are vested upon the agency is quasi-legislative
power. They are likened to the powers of the Congress, of the Senate. But they are not the
legislature in the strict sense. Even if they are instrumentalities of the government. Even if they can
perform quasi-legislative function. Because all these agencies, while they exercise, quasi-legislative
and/or quasi-judicial powers, they are part of the executive branch.

Constitutional Commissions
And if you will encounter the term commission or administrative agency, often this would
designate that the agency is independent of the executive branch, or it's not subject to a superior
head. So you have your Constitutional Commissions. Even if they submit reports in the three
Constitutional Commissions, or in our case, in the Commission on Human Rights, we are all
independent office. We are all independent bodies. So for the three Constitutional Commissions, na
sa Constitution yan. In our case, we are also constitutionally created. We are a constitutionally
created office. So that's for administrative agencies.

Three Branches of the Govt

Now, earlier, I told you that one of the concerns of admin law is how would an organization
in the government go about. And this, of course, would include the structure of the Government, the
powers, the functions, and the duties of the different units of the Government or agencies of the
Government. And in studying this, we have to go back to the Constitution. Balikan natin ang
Constitution, which you have been studying even in elementary or high school, we have
fundamental knowledge that we have three branches of the government. We have the legislative,
we have the executive and we have the judicial. So pag legislative, this is the Congress, we have the
Senate in the House of Representatives. Pag sinsabi nating executive, it's the president and the
Office of the President. Judicial, of course, the Supreme Court and all the lower courts. Now, these
three branches of the government are specifically vested with specific powers, which they,
specifically, alone, can exercise. So meaning kung ano ang power ang binigay sa legislative, sa
legislative only. So, the executive is for the executive only and for the judicial is for the judicial only.

Principle of non-delegation
One branch cannot transfer or delegate this power to another branch of the government and so
forth. But again, in your Constitution, you studied that that is only a general rule. So sinasabi nating
general rule is always subject to exceptions. So, you have to take note of what are the exemptions to
these. Kaya if you study the principle of non-delegation. The potestas delegare and non delegare
potest Delegata potestas non potest delegari  ("no delegated powers can be further
delegated). And in studying that, we learned that one of the valid exceptions given by the
Constitution is to the extent authorized by the Constitution to the administrative agencies. So in
some ways, and for some parts, the admin agencies can perform functions and can exercise powers
similar to these branches of the government.

Power vs. Function

 Now, since we're talking about our powers, first things first again, you need to know what is
meant by power and how do we differentiate it with function. Pareho ba ang function and power or
are they different concepts? So pag sinasabi nating function, it is one that the office or the agency is
bound to do, kelangang gawin. Pag sinasabi naman nating power, it is the means that we need in
order for us to perform the function. So para pwede natin gawin the things that we are bound to
do, we need to have the powers and powers are sourced from the Constitution or from law. It's
either the Constitution or the statute. So always check natin saan ba galing ang power ng admin
agency. Is it from the Constitution? Or is it from a given law? So if it is from a statute, we have to
check the statute, because that's the source of their power.

Classification of power: as to nature

Now, still talking about powers, there are classification of powers. And the classification, as
to nature, we have three. We have investigatory, quasi-legislative or rule-making power, and quasi-
judicial or adjudicatory powers.

Classification of power: as to degree of subjective choice

Now, for classification as to degree of subjective choice, we have two. One is discretionary
and second is ministerial power. Now, if we refer to the power as discretionary, from the word
discretion, it means that the person deciding may choose the course to follow according to the
dictates of his own judgment. May discretion siya kung ano ang gagawin. Now, on the other hand,
talking about ministerial power, walang discretion. There is nothing left to one's discretion. It is
positively imposed by law. And the performance is required and not dependent upon the judgment
of the one deciding. That's in contrast with discretionary power.

Now, as early as now, as you are being acquainted with admin law, I'd like you to study and
focus really on these powers as to nature--investigatory, quasi legislative or rule-making, and quasi-
judicial or adjudicatory powers. Because if you review, past bar exam questions, majority, or if not,
all, of the questions in admin law came from powers, investigatory, quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative.
That's why if you look at our syllabus also, madami tayo cases under quasi-legislative and in quasi-
judicial powers, so that you will be familiar with these powers. And it will be easier for you to be
familiar with these powers. And it will be easier for you when you get to the review and eventually in
your bar exam.

Investigatory/Inquisitorial Power
So let's begin with the powers. We are already in the substantial topic of the admin law. The
one that I'm telling you are the three powers. We'll start with the investigatory or the inquisitorial
power. Pag sinasabi nating investigate or inquire, it's the power to inspect. And what do we inspect?
It can include records. It can include premises. We investigate the activities of persons or entities
coming under the jurisdiction of the office, or to secure or require information or disclosure of
information. And that's why in your Labor, you have studied na nag-susurprise visit ang DOLE in
some establishments because it's part of their inquisitorial or investigatory powers. Now these
inquisitorial or Investigatory powers can be a sole power. Yung lang talaga ang power ng body or this
can be an aid for other powers or other offices.

Investigative v. Judicial
 Now, you might be confused if the body or if the administrative agency is exercising
investigative or judicial power. You need to compare these two. Kaya as early as now in order to be
able to distinguish what do we mean pag sinasabi nating investigative power, and what is judicial,
let's compare the two.

Investigative power. If the agency exercises investigative power, they merely evaluate the
evidence, but they do not make final pronouncement, because hindi trabaho ng admin agency to
make the final pronouncement. Now, judicial power, on the other hand, this is an exercise of the
power and authority to adjudicate. To adjudicate, this is already involves the determination of
rights and obligations of the parties involved in the controversy. So that's judicial power.

Ruperto v. Torres
Now for you also to be able to explain this better, I also included the case of Ruperto v.
Torres in the list of your cases. 100 Phil 1098. The court here, explained that not every function or
judgment and discretion are exercise is of a judicial function. The test of a judicial function is not
the exercise of judicial discretion, but the power and the authority to adjudicate upon the rights
and obligations of the parties before it. The key word there again, is the power and authority to
adjudicate. Kasi minsan we get confused with the exercise of judgment or discretion. What we need
to look at is if nagkaroon ba ng adjudication. Because if there is an adjudication, then there is a
determination of the rights and obligations. And that's a power that solely belongs to the court.
That's the judicial power.

Now, investigative powers must be exercised within limits lang. Pag sinasabi nating limits,
we check again on the statute. If the body is created by the statute, more often, andun nakalagay
ang limitations of the powers granted upon the body. Now, investigation may be initiated either by a
complainant, or it can be motu propio (it's by the office on its own). So let's say there's an article in
the paper, or it became viral in the social media, so that triggered the investigation, the motu propio
investigation. Hindi all the time na kailangan may complainant. If there's a controversy that needs to
be investigated, and the agency is properly vested with the powers to investigate, it can do so on its
own. That's motu propio investigation. We already mentioned earlier, that the investigative power
includes the power to enter premises, to inspect the premises, to examine the premises, including
the books and records of the office. And it can require the attendance of personnel witnesses. It can
include production of evidence through subpoena.

Hearing not necessary

But take note also since this is an administrative investigation, a hearing is not mandatory.
It's not necessary. In the same manner, since it's an administrative investigation, a lawyer or a
counsel is also not imperative or not mandatory. So hindi pwedeng sabihin ng party na "I have a
right to my counsel". Kasi in administrative investigations, these are not imperative--hearing and
counsel, these are not the imperative in administrative investigations.

In addition, also in your Constitution, you studied that, under Article III, your Bill of Rights,
Section 12, any confession or admission obtained in violation of this article, in Section 12, shall be
inadmissible in evidence against the person. That's what we often refer to as the fruit of poisonous
tree, or we also include the right against self-incrimination. But this constitutional provision, this
applies only to admissions made in criminal investigations. This do not apply in administrative
investigation. So we have to take note of that. Tatlo na ang ating points there. Hearing, counsel, not
imperative. Right against self-incrimination and fruit of poisonous tree, also, are constitutional
provisions that are applicable only in criminal investigations. So these are the points that you need
to remember and to understand if you study the investigative or the inquisitorial powers of an
administrative agency.
40mins

Quasi-legislative/Rule-making power
Now let's proceed to the second power, or the rulemaking power. Some authors would call
this quasi-legislative. But they're the same rule making power and quasi-legislative power. Simply,
this is the power to make rules and regulations. And if an agency has the power to make rules and
regulations, this is similar to the power being performed by the legislature. It's very similar to
creating laws. That's why it's called a quasi-legislative power.

And you also need to distinguish the two: ano ba ang difference ng Quasi-legislative and
legislative powers because one belongs to the administrative agency, the other belongs only to the
legislature.

Now, you studied in your Consti, that legislative power is the power to make, or to alter
and to repeal laws, this the power to create laws for the rulemaking power. It's the power to make
rules and regulations. And that is why authors of admin law would often refer rulemaking power as a
legislation on the administrative level legislation on the administrative level.

Also, the rulemaking power or the power to make IRR (Implementing Rules and Regulations)
This is fairly legislative in character. And that is why it results in a delegated legislation. And in most
problems, in most cases, this is where you're being asked to determine whether or not there hasn't
been a valid delegation. This usually the issue in the exercise of rulemaking power is always
determination of whether or not there is a value delegation. And how do we determine that? Paano
natin masabi na valid? and that is if it is valid, therefore, it is an exception to the rule on our non-
delegation of legislative power. But to be able to determine the validity of the delegation, we are
required to look into two tests.
So you have the completeness test, and you have the sufficient standard.
1. Now complete, it is simply complete in itself. It sets forth already the policy to be
executed by the agency. There's nothing left to do for the agency but to executed it.
2. Sufficient standard. It fixes a standard by mapping out the boundaries of the
agency's authority. That is our sufficient standard test.

So to explain, let me just repeat completeness, this tells us the law must be complete in all
terms and conditions. Well, it leaves the legislature so that when it reaches the delegate, it will have
nothing else to do but to enforce it.
So a sufficient standard test tells us that 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 the law is to be implemented. So you need to know this tool and dapat compliant sa
dalawa. Di pwede na na-comply ang completeness so it's already valid. We need to be able to see
that there is compliance with the two tests before we can say there is a valid delegation. HIndi
pwedeng isang test lang. Hindi pwedeng completeness lang, hindi pwedeng sufficient standard lang,
but it must be both tests. Both tests must be complied with.

Now, earlier, we were saying that rule making power, it is legislative power in the
administrative level. And that's why it's important for us to be able to differentiate the two; what is
legislative power, and what is quasi legislative power. So in the case of Victoria Milling vs Social
Security Commission, 4 SCRA 627, the court here said that administrative rule or regulation has the
force and effect of a valid law and administrative interpretation interprets a pre-existing law. Now,
a legislative power, there is discretion to determine what the law should be and legislative power, as
a rule, cannot be delegated. Quasi-legislative power, on the other hand, the discretion here is to
determine how the law shall be enforced and this can be delegated. And that's why in your IRR and
that's why you will notice kapag mayroong new law, before it will take effect, there will be a creation
of the IRR. Hindi pwedeng palitan ni IRR what is substantially provided in the law. Because the IRR
there is a determination only on how the law should be implemented or should be enforced. That's
your legislative as distinguished from quasi legislative power.

There are some notes also given by some authors that will help you determine if the rules
and regulations are invalid:
1. The rule is invalid if it exceeds the authority conferred to it.
2. A rule is invalid if it is in conflict with a governing statute.
3. A rule is invalid if it extends or modifies a statute.
4. A rule is invalid if it has no reasonable relationship to the statutory purpose. And
the courts will often set aside rules that are deemed to be unconstitutional or
arbitrary or unreasonable.

So these are some points, but we can easily determine If the rules and regulations are
violated. Now, in some, just compare it with the law and the law is always the governing one. Hindi
pwedeng si rules yung maggo-govern over the statute. So if we check on the rules and it modifies
the law, or if it extends the law, or if it is in conflict with the law, then that tells us that that rule is
void. It's not valid because it's contrary to the statute.
In the case of Manuel vs General Auditing Office, 42 SCRA 660. This is about leaves and in
the revised Administrative Code, section 280: vacation and sick leaves shall be cumulative. Now he
comes Civil Service Rule 14. Sabi naman sa Civil Service Rule, the rules and regulation are the leave is
not cumulative. So here comes Petitioner Manuel questioning this, whether or not he is entitled to
the commutation of leaves and the court of course here ruled that the rule, the rules and regulations
cannot supplement the plain and explicit statutory command. It is always the statute or the law
that should govern over the rules and regulations. So administrative interpretations, such as the
one in the case at bar, this is utmost merely advisory, hindi sya governing policy. We have to take
note that administrative authorities must not act arbitrarily in the enactment of rules and
regulations in the exercise of delegated power to create these rules and regulations, because these
have the effect of law. So, therefore, we must always check that these rules and regulations must
bear reasonable relation to the statutory purpose or the purpose that is sought to be accomplished.
These rules and regulations must be supported by good reasons and they must not be contrary to
the Constitution so dapat walang constitutional infirmities or walang arbitrariness of the rules and
regulations.

In another case, Lupangco vs CA, 160 SCRA 848. This is when the PRC issued Resolution No.
105, prohibiting accountancy, or examinees, from attending review classes from receiving hand outs
and tips three days before the board examination. So therefore, the PRC resolution is being
questioned on whether or not it is invalid resolution. Now, the court here noted that the resolution
is unreasonable, even if it has a good aim and infringes on the rights of the examinees to their liberty
guaranteed by the Constitution, and it also violates the academic freedom of the schools or the
university is constrained and therefore, it must be struck down as invalid or as void a rule or
resolution. So that's the case of Lupangco vs. CA.

Then I would also want you to check on the Chapter 2 of the Administrative Code, because
it will explain there, it will provide you with the provision on the promulgation of rules and
regulations and promulgation of rules and regulations. So generally, notice and hearing or
publication generally are not essential. If there is no determination of past events, this is
unnecessary. The publication, the notice and hearing are necessary if the rules and regulations
apply exclusively to name or to specific parties, if it was prescribed by the law. And of course, if
they have the force and effect of law, you studied this in your civil law, that publication is a
condition precedent to inform the public of the contents of the rules before their rights will be
affected by these rules and regulations. So just to go over the prohibition in your Administrative
Code on promulgation of rules and regulations.

So we'll stop there in the rulemaking powers, but review, review what we have discussed,
and as you go over your notes, you study it alongside the cases listed under the rulemaking power
for you to better comprehend kung ano ba talaga yung rule making power and if you will study it
alongside with the cases, you will be able to determine the issue on valid delegation. The issue on
whether or not there has been a proper issuance of the rules and regulations. So, you have a long list
of cases there, but similar yung kanilang mga issues. So it will make you more familiar with this topic
on the rulemaking power. And also for next meeting, continue on quasi-judicial or the adjudicatory
powers and include the cases under that the list of cases under that.