JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™

2022 Pre-Week Notes

Administrative Law

I. Quasi-legislative (rule-making) power

a. Non-delegation doctrine (Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita, G.R. Nos.

168056, 168207, 168461, 168463 & 168730, September 1, 2005)

i. Generally, the powers which Congress is prohibited from

delegating are those which are strictly, or inherently and
exclusively, legislative. Purely legislative power, which can
never be delegated, has been described as the authority to
make a complete law — complete as to the time when it shall take
effect and as to whom it shall be applicable — and to determine
the expediency of its enactment.

ii. Exceptions: (1) Delegation of tariff powers to the President under

Section 28 (2) of Article VI of the Constitution; (2) Delegation of
emergency powers to the President under Section 23 (2) of Article
VI of the Constitution; (3) Delegation to the people at large; (4)
Delegation to local governments; and (5) Delegation to
administrative bodies.

b. Test for valid delegation of legislative power. Both must be present:

i. The law is complete in itself; and

- Must set forth the policies to be executed, carried out, or

implemented by the delegate

ii. The law fixes a sufficient standard

- A sufficient standard is one which defines legislative policy,

marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the
public agency to apply it.
- May be express or implied (Edu v. Ericta, G.R. No. L-32096,
October 24, 1970)
- For rate-fixing, the standard is that the rate must be
reasonable and just (Philippine Communications Satellite
Corp. v. Alcuaz, G.R. No. 84818, December 18, 1989)

(Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita, G.R. Nos. 168056, 168207, 168461,
168463 & 168730, September 1, 2005)

c. Types of permissible delegation

2022 Jurists Pre-week Notes on Administrative Law. For exclusive use of Jurists Bar reviewees. © 2022
by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading, downloading, and
storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including the filing of
administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the filing of criminal
charges. Page 1 of 5
 i. Ascertainment of fact. The legislature may delegate to
executive officers or bodies the power to determine certain
facts or conditions, or the happening of contingencies, on
which the operation of a statute is, by its terms, made to depend,
but the legislature must prescribe sufficient standards, policies or
limitations on their authority. While the power to tax cannot be
delegated to executive agencies, details as to the enforcement
and administration of an exercise of such power may be left to
them, including the power to determine the existence of facts on
which its operation depends. (Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita,
G.R. Nos. 168056, 168207, 168461, 168463 & 168730,
September 1, 2005)

ii. Filling-in the details

d. Limits on rule-making power. To be valid, therefore, the

administrative IRRs must comply with the following requisites to be
valid: (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;
and (4) it must be reasonable. (Lokin v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 179431-
32, June 22, 2010)

e. Publication and effectivity

General rule: To be valid and effective, administrative issuances should be

fully published and filed with the Office of the National Administrative Register
(ONAR). Otherwise, they are legally invalid, defective, and unenforceable.

Exceptions: (1) interpretative regulations; (2) those merely internal in nature

(i.e., regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the
public); and (3) letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors
concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the
performance of their duties.

(See Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, April 24, 1985 and Philippine
Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Torres, G.R. No. 101279, August 6,
1992)

II. Quasi-judicial power

a. Cardinal primary rights (Based on Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial

Relations, 69 Phil. 635 (1950))

1. Right to a hearing, including the right to present his/her own

case and submit evidence in support thereof;
2. Tribunal must consider evidence presented;
3. Decision must be supported;
4. Evidence must be substantial evidence;

2022 Jurists Pre-week Notes on Administrative Law. For exclusive use of Jurists Bar reviewees. © 2022
by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading, downloading, and
storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including the filing of
administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the filing of criminal
charges. Page 2 of 5
 5. Decision must be based on evidence must be presented or at
least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties
affected;
6. Person deciding on the case must act on his/her independent
consideration of law and facts and not simply accept the views of
a subordinate; and
7. Decision must show issues involved and reasons for decision.

b. Principles connected to the cardinal primary rights

i. Due process was designed to afford an opportunity to be heard,

and an actual verbal hearing need not always be held. The
necessity of conducting a hearing is addressed to the sound
discretion of the labor arbiter. (Vinta Maritime Co., Inc. v. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 113911. January 23, 1998.)

ii. Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.

iii. Form of Judgment

- The decision of a government agency must state the facts

and the law on which the decision is based. The COA
decision merely stated conclusions of law. Facts and
circumstances, as well as the why's, the what's and the
how's of the disallowance, were patently missing, inaccurate
or incomplete. (Albert v. Gangan, G.R. No. 126557, March
6, 2001)

- Memorandum decisions may be valid. Requisites for

validity: (1) decision provides for direct access to the facts
and the law being adopted, which must be contained in a
statement attached to the said decision; (2) may be
resorted to only in cases where the facts are in the main
accepted by both parties and easily determinable by the
judge; and (3) there are no doctrinal complications involved
that will require an extended discussion of the laws involved.
(Solid Homes, Inc. v. Laserna, G.R. No. 166051, April 8,
2008 citing Francisco v. Permskul, G.R. No. 81006, May 12,
1989)

- The disciplining authority should not merely and solely rely

on an investigator's recommendation, but must personally
weigh and assess the evidence gathered. There can be no
shortcuts, because at stake are the honor, the reputation,
and the livelihood of the person administratively charged.
(Department of Health v. Camposano, G.R. No. 157684,
April 27, 2005)

2022 Jurists Pre-week Notes on Administrative Law. For exclusive use of Jurists Bar reviewees. © 2022
by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading, downloading, and
storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including the filing of
administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the filing of criminal
charges. Page 3 of 5
 - Disciplining authority may delegate investigation and fact-
finding to his/her subordinates (American Tobacco Company
v. Director of Patents, G.R. No. L-26803, October 14, 1975)

iv. The reviewing officer must perforce be other than the officer
whose decision is under review (Rivera v. Civil Service
Commission, G.R. No. 115147, January 4, 1995 citing Zambales
Chromite Mining Company vs. Court of Appeals, 94 SCRA 261)

v. Respondents are not entitled to the investigation report of the

investigation committee (Pefianico v. Moral, G.R. No. 132248,
January 19, 2000)

III. Other powers

a. Rate-fixing power. No rule or final order shall be valid unless the

proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general
circulation at least two (2) weeks before the first hearing thereon.
(Administrative Code, Book VII, Chapter 2, Section 9(2)).

b. Licensing power. Where the licensee has made timely and sufficient
application for the renewal of a license with reference to any activity of
a continuing nature, the existing license shall not expire until the
application shall have been finally determined by the agency.
(Administrative Code, Book VII, Section 18)

IV. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction

a. Well-entrenched is the rule that 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 agency.
Administrative agencies are given a wide latitude in the evaluation of
evidence and in the exercise of their adjudicative functions, latitude
which includes the authority to take judicial notice of facts within their
special competence. (Quiambao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128305,
March 28, 2005)

b. The application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, however, does

not call for the dismissal of the case below. It need only be
suspended until after the matters within the competence of the BED
are threshed out and determined. Thereby, the principal purpose behind
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is salutarily served. (Industrial
Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88550, April 18, 1990)

V. Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies

a. General rule

2022 Jurists Pre-week Notes on Administrative Law. For exclusive use of Jurists Bar reviewees. © 2022
by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading, downloading, and
storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including the filing of
administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the filing of criminal
charges. Page 4 of 5
 i. The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies which
mandates that relief should first be sought from the highest
or most superior administrative agency, the likes of the
Cabinet, may prove that a resort to the courts would be
unnecessary, prevent the courts from being swamped by a resort
to them in the first instance, strengthened by the rule on comity
and convenience which requires Us to raise our hands until the
administrative process has been finally completed, and thus it is
after judicial review is no longer premature that the courts may
ascertain, in proper cases, whether the administrative action or
findings are not in violation of law, whether they are free from
fraud or imposition and whether they find substantial support from
the evidence. (Paredes v. CA, G.R. No. 113357, February 1, 1996)

ii. The only effect of non-compliance with this rule is that it will
deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is a
ground for a motion to dismiss. If not invoked at the proper time,
this ground is deemed waived and the court can take cognizance
of the case and try it. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
112708-09, March 29, 1996)

b. Exceptions

i. Purely legal question (Pascual v. Provincial Board, 106 Phil.

446);
ii. Urgent (Alzate v. Aldana, G.R. No. 14407, February 29, 1960);
extremely limited time (Quasha v. SEC, G.R. No. L-47536, May
13, 1965);
iii. Small amount involved (Cipriano v. Marcelino, G.R. No. L-27793,
February 28, 1972);
iv. Administrative appeal is merely permissive (Corpuz v. Cuaderno,
G.R. No. L-17860, March 30, 1962); no express provision
requiring administrative appeal (Civil Service Commission v.
Department of Budget Management, 464 SCRA 115);
v. Administrative inaction (Department of Agrarian Reform v. Apex
Investment and Financing Corp., 401 SCRA 283);
vi. Irreparable damage involved (De Lara v. Clorivel, G.R. No. L-
21653, May 31, 1965); and
vii. Waiver (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 255 SCRA 438).

2022 Jurists Pre-week Notes on Administrative Law. For exclusive use of Jurists Bar reviewees. © 2022
by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading, downloading, and
storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including the filing of
administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the filing of criminal
charges. Page 5 of 5