POLITICAL LAW REVIEW IN A CAPSULE

(PART 2)

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
(CSC, COMELEC, COA)

Key features

 These triumvirates are independent to protect their integrity because

they perform key functions in the government.

 Their offices can appoint their respective officials and employees

subject to Civil Service Law.

 They enjoy fiscal autonomy; their budgets must be automatically and

regularly released.

 Each Commission en banc can promulgate their respective internal

rules; the power of Supreme Court over rules issued by quasi-judicial
bodies under Article, Section 5(5) does not apply to the Commissions
save for judicial review.

 If the Commissions’ rule of procedure and the Rules of Court

contradict each other, the rule of the Commission prevails, but if the
proceeding is before a court, the Rules of Court should govern.1

 The Congress also cannot assume power to review the rules

promulgated by the Commission (e.g. Macalintal v. Comelec,
Congress cannot amend the Implementing Rules for the Overseas
Absentee Voting Act of 2003).

 Each Commission decides as a body, not individually; and decides by

a majority vote of all its members (not only those who participated
and took part in the deliberations).

 Decisions of the Commission can be reviewed via appeal to the Court

of Appeals within 15 days from notice.

 Certiorari under Rule 65 to the Supreme Court can be availed of only

after reconsideration of a decision of a Commission en banc because
it requires that “there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy”
(See Reyes v. RTC2); by way of exception were two cases, ABS-CBN
v. Comelec3 and Aguilar v. Comelec4)

1
Aruelo, Jr. v. CA, Oct. 20, 1993.
2
G.R. No. 198886, May 5, 1995.
3
G.R. No. 133486, Jan. 28, 2000.
4
G.R. No. 185140, June 30, 2009.
Political Law Review in a Capsule (Vol. 2) -2-

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

“It is a basic tenet in the country's constitutional system that

‘public office is a public trust’, and that there is no vested right in
public office, nor an absolute right to hold office. No proprietary
title attaches to a public office, as public service is not a property
right. Excepting constitutional offices which provide for special
immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have
any vested right in an office. The rule is that offices in
government, except those created by the constitution, may be
abolished, altered, or created anytime by statute. And any issues
on the classification for a position in government may be brought
to and determined by the courts.” – JUSTICE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ

Scope: all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the

Government including GOCCs with original charters.

APPOINTMENTS IN THE CIVIL SERVICE (UNDER THE CONSTITUTION)

Competitive Non-competitive

Based on merit and fitness (by No competitive examination, but

competitive examination)
it requires merit and fitness
Positions are classified into
policy-determining, primarily
confidential, highly technical;
nature of responsibility is the
ultimate test, not the
administrative or legislative
description
Policy-determining position refers
to one charged with the duty to
formulate a method of action for
the government or any of its
subdivisions
Highly technical position requires
the occupant to possess a
technical skill or training in the
supreme or superior degree.
Primarily confidential position
requires close proximity and
intimacy with the appointing
Political Law Review in a Capsule (Vol. 2) -3-

power. It also calls for the highest

degree of confidence between the
appointer and appointee.5
(Proximity Rule)

Entitled to security of tenure; can They are covered by guarantee of

only be removed or suspended security of tenure as long as
except for cause provided by law confidence in them endures; so
loss of confidence is a valid cause
for termination of official
relation; it involves no removal
but only expiration of term of
office.6

In CSC v. Javier,7 it enumerated positions that have been declared primarily

confidential below:

 Chief Legal Counsel of the Philippine National Bank;

 Confidential Agent of the Office of the Auditor, GSIS;
 Secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan;
 Secretary to the City Mayor;
 Senior Security and Security Guard in the Office of the Vice Mayor;
 Secretary to the Board of a government corporation;
 City Legal Counsel, City Legal Officer or City Attorney;
 Provincial Attorney;
 Private Secretary and Board Secretary II of the Philippine State
College of Aeronautics.

In sharp contrast, the following are not primarily confidential positions

under the remoteness rule:

 City Engineer;
 Assistant Secretary to the Mayor;
 Members of the Customs Police Force or Port Patrol;
 Special Assistant of the Governor of the Central Bank, Export
Department;
 Senior Executive Assistant, Clerk I and Supervising Clerk I and
Stenographer in the Office of the President;
 Management and Audit Analyst I of the Finance Ministry Intelligence
Bureau;
 Provincial Administrator;

5
CSC v. Javier, G.R. 173264, Feb. 22, 2008.
6
CSC v. Pililla Water District, G.R. No.190147, Mar. 5, 2013.
7
G.R. No. 173264, Feb. 22, 2008.
Political Law Review in a Capsule (Vol. 2) -4-

 Internal Security Staff of PAGCOR;

 Casino Operations Manager; and
 Slot Machine Attendant.

The above positions have been previously declared as primarily confidential

either by their respective appointing authorities or the legislature.

TWO CLASSES OF POSITIONS UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE CODE (P.D.

NO. 807)

Career Service Non-career Service

Entrance is based on merit and Entrance based on other than those

fitness by competitive examinations,
or based on highly technical
qualifications
Security of tenure
Opportunity for advancement to
higher career positions
usual tests of merit and fitness
Tenure is limited to a period
specified by law, or which is
coterminous with appointing
authority or subject to his pleasure or
duration of a particular project

Three-folds test of a valid abolition of office: (a) it must be done in good

faith; (b) not for personal or political reasons; and (c) does not violate the
law.

Civil Service employees can organize, but their right to strike may be
limited by law (public school teachers have no right to strike, MPSTA v.
Sec. Cariño8)

Under the spoil system or patronage system, losing candidates are appointed
to positions in the government following an election. Section 6 of Article IX
now disqualifies a losing candidate within one year after such election from
being appointed to any office of the government or any GOCC – to curb the
spoil system or patronage system.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Powers of the Comelec:

o Enforce and administers laws and regulations pertaining to the

conduct of elect, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall

8
G.R. No. 95445, Aug. 6, 1991.
Political Law Review in a Capsule (Vol. 2) -5-

o Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all elections, returns, and

qualifications of all elective regional, provincial and city officials

o Appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal

officials decided by regional trail courts or involving elective
barangay officials decided by municipal and city courts.

o Decide all questions affecting elections except the right to vote.

o Deputize (with President’s concurrence) PNP and other law

enforcement agencies and the AFP to ensure peaceful and credible
election

o Register political parties, organization, or coalition.

o Accredit citizen’s arms of the Commission

o File upon a verified complaint or motu propio petition in court for

inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate or prosecute violators of
election laws

o Recommend to the Congress effective measure to minimize election

expenditures

o Recommend to the President the removal of any officers or employee

it has deputized or imposition of disciplinary action.

o Submit to the President and Congress a comprehensive conduct of

each election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall.

How does the Commission exercise its jurisdiction?

By Division By En banc
To hear and decide election cases
including pre-proclamation
controversies
Decisions referred to is resolutions of Reconsideration is required; it cannot
substantive issues (on the merit)9 decide election cases in the first
instance, if not, any decision by the
Commission en banc in the first
instance is void.10

The respective Houses of the Congress’ Electoral Tribunals have the sole
and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relative to election returns, and
qualification of
Members of both Houses.
9
Salazar, Jr. v. Comelec, G. R. No. 85742, Apr. 19, 1990.
10
Article IX, Section 3, last sentence, 1987 Constitution.
Political Law Review in a Capsule (Vol. 2) -6-

And so, once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and
assumed office as a member of House of Representative or Senate, the
COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contest, among others, ends, and the
HRET or SET’s own jurisdiction begins.11

In Diocese of Bacolod v. Comelec12 it declared unconstitutional the letter

sent by the Comelec to the Diocese to remove the tarpaulin expressing its
objection to the RH Law; the Comelec has considered the tarpaulin an
election campaign material exceeding the dimension set by election
regulation and favoring candidates who are against the RH Law. It ruled that
the tarpaulin is constitutionally protected under the freedom of speech and of
expression clause of the 1987 Constitution.

COMMISSION ON AUDIT

Functions:

 To examine and audit all forms of government revenues

 To examine and audit all forms of government expenditures
 To settle government accounts
 To promulgate accounting and auditing rules
 To decide administrative cases involving expenditures of public funds

In DBP v. COA,13 it spelled out the exclusive and concurrent powers of the
COA.

“Whether or not the constitutional power of the COA to

examine and audit the DBP is exclusive and precludes a
concurrent audit of the DBP by a private external auditor.
The COA's power to examine and audit is non-exclusive. …
the COA's authority to define the scope of its audit, promulgate
auditing rules and regulations, and disallow unnecessary
expenditures is exclusive.

Moreover, as the constitutionally mandated auditor of all

government agencies, the COA's findings and conclusions
necessarily prevail over those of private auditors, at least
insofar as government agencies and officials are concerned.
The superiority or preponderance of the COA audit over
private audit can be gleaned from the records of the
Constitutional Commission…

11
Aggabao v. Comelec, G.R. No. 163756, Jan. 26, 2005.
12
G.R. No. 205728, Jan. 21, 2015.
13
G.R. No. 88435, Jan. 16, 2002.
Political Law Review in a Capsule (Vol. 2) -7-

The… COA and the Central Bank have concurrent jurisdiction,

under the Constitution, to examine and audit government
banks.

However, despite the Central Bank's concurrent jurisdiction

over government banks, the COA's audit still prevails over that
of the Central Bank since the COA is the constitutionally
mandated auditor of government banks. And in matters falling
under the second paragraph of Section 2, Article IX-D of the
Constitution, the COA's jurisdiction is exclusive. Thus, the
Central Bank is devoid of authority to allow or disallow
expenditures of government banks since this function belongs
exclusively to the COA.”

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

In League of Cities v. Comelec (2008),14 it held that the creation of local

government units must follow the criteria under the Local Government Code
of 1991 and Congress cannot write such criteria in another law like cityhood
law. It declared the cityhood laws (converting 16 municipalities into cities)
was unconstitutional for violation of the equal protection clause.

In 2009, the Supreme Court reversed its 2008 Decision declaring the
cityhood laws constitutional saying that spirit of law prevails to exempt 16
municipalities from income requirements.15

In Navarro v. Ermita (2010),16 it declared Rep. Act No. 9355 creating the
Province of Dinagat Islands unconstitutional because it fell short of the
population and land area requirements. But in 2011 on motion for
reconsideration, it reversed and declaring that –”land area requirement shall
not apply where proposed province is composed of one or more islands”.17

NATIONAL ECONOMY & PATRIMONY

Who may acquire or lease Who may acquire private lands?

agricultural lands of the public
domain?

Qualified individuals (a maximum of Filipino citizens

14
G.R. No. 176951, Nov. 8, 2008.
15
Decision dated Dec. 21, 2009 on second MR.
16
G.R. No. 180050, Feb. 10, 2010.
17
Resolution dated April 12, 2011.
Political Law Review in a Capsule (Vol. 2) -8-

12 hectares of alienable lands)

Private corporation (can lease up to Private corporation or association
maximum of 1,000 hectares for 25 including sole corporation
years, renewable for another 25 years
Qualified individuals (can lease up to Aliens by hereditary succession
a maximum of 500 hectares)
Natural-born citizens of Philippines
who lost Philippine citizenship under
Sec. 8

Filipino citizens or corporation of at

Public utility franchises
least 60% of capital owned by
citizens, not more than 50 years; may
be amended, altered, or repealed by
the Congress for common good.
(Note: Foreigners cannot be granted
franchise to operate a PU, but they
can own facilities e.g. Tatad Case, a
foreign corp. can construct and own
facilities for LRT but it may not be
given franchise to operate the
system.

Governing body limited to their

Foreign investment proportionate share in its capital, but
all executive and managing officers
must be Filipino citizens.
Political Law Review in a Capsule (Vol. 2) -9-

LAWS CHAMPIONING SOCIAL JUSTICE & HUMAN RIGHTS

 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (all agricultural lands

or those lands which are arable and suitable agricultural lands;
inclusion of lands devoted to raising of livestock, poultry & swine is
unconstitutional, Luz Farms Case; the law has two components:
exercise of police power, retension limits which are coercive, and
eminent domain because it deprives owners of lands in excess of
maximum allowed, there is compensable taking)
 Law Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (constitutional
standards are “in accordance with law”, i.e. due process; and in a just
and humane manner”; eviction of illegal settlers should be provided
by the government through the LGUs concerned)
 Generics Law of 1988 (to make health care affordable)

What are human rights?

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex,
nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights
include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture,
freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and
many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination. –
United Nations.

The powers and functions of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) are:

 Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of

human rights violations involving civil and political rights;
 Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for
contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court;
 Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights
of all persons within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing
abroad, and provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to
the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need
protection;
 Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;
 Establish a continuing program of research, education, and
information to enhance respect for the primacy of human rights;
Political Law Review in a Capsule (Vol. 2) -10-

 Recommend to the Congress effective measures to promote human

rights and to provide for compensation to victims of violations of
human rights, or their families;
 Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international
treaty obligations on human rights;
 Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or
whose possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or
convenient to determine the truth in any investigation conducted by it
or under its authority;
 Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in
the performance of its functions;
 Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and
 Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law.

In EPZA v. CHR,18 it clarified that CHR “is not a court of justice nor even a
quasi-judicial body”; hence, it has no authority to grant injunctive relief.

“The constitutional provision directing the CHR to ‘provide for

preventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged
whose human rights have been violated or need protection’ may
not be construed to confer jurisdiction on the Commission to issue
a restraining order or writ of injunction for, if that were the
intention, the Constitution would have expressly said so.
‘Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or by law.19

… the ‘preventive measures and legal aid services’ mentioned in

the Constitution refer to extrajudicial and judicial remedies
(including a preliminary writ of injunction) which the CHR may
seek from the proper courts on behalf of the victims of human
rights violations. Not being a court of justice, the CHR itself has no
jurisdiction to issue the writ, for a writ of preliminary injunction
may only be issued ‘by the judge of any court in which the action
is pending [within his district], or by a Justice of the Court of
Appeals, or of the Supreme Court. It may also be granted by the
judge of a Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial Court] in
any action pending in an inferior court within his district.’ (Sec. 2,
Rule 58, Rules of Court). A writ of preliminary injunction is an

18
G.R. No. 101476, April 14, 1992.
19
Citations omitted.
Political Law Review in a Capsule (Vol. 2) -11-

ancillary remedy. It is available only in a pending principal action,

for the preservation or protection of the rights and interest of a
party thereto, and for no other purpose.”

GONZALES III V. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT20

On September 4, 2012 Decision, it validated Section 8(2) of the

Ombudsman Act of 1989 that – the President has disciplinary jurisdiction
over the Deputy Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor.

In a Decision on MR dated January 28, 2014 – it reversed the main decision

declaring Sec. 8(2) unconstitutional for violating the independence of the
Ombudsman; so the President has no disciplinary jurisdiction over the
Deputy Ombudsman; but its reversal did not apply to the Special Prosecutor,
who is not constitutionally within the Office of the Ombudsman.

STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT

Suit is either expressed or implied. There is expressed consent when a law

has expressly granted authority to sue the State or any of its agencies; there
is implied consent when the State enters into a private contract unless
contract is only incidental to the performance of a governmental function;
State enters into an operation that essentially a business operation unless it is
merely incidental to the performance of a governmental function for
example arrastre service; and State sues a private party unless suit is entered
into only to resist a claim

If the State is held liable, execution of money judgment is not that simple,
the claimant must seek for the equivalent appropriation from the COA under
Commonwealth Act No. 327 because it will entail disbursement of public
funds that requires the corresponding appropriation.

In EPG Const. v. Vigilar,21 a perfected contract with the State that had been
declared void based on additional works introduced by the contractor, the
contractor is entitled for compensation for additional construction under the
quantum meruit rule; it emphasized that the state immunity doctrine must
not be instrument to perpetrate injustice on citizens.

20
G.R. No. 196231, Sept. 4, 2012.
21
G.R. No. 131544, Mar. 16, 2001.
Political Law Review in a Capsule (Vol. 2) -12-

A suit is against the State if:

 Republic is sued by name

 Against an unincorporated government agency
 On its face against a government officer but the ultimate liability
belongs not to the officer but to the government

FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY (TWO DOCTRINES)

 JURE IMPERII – public acts or in pursuit of a sovereign activity; not

intended for profit or gain (waiver of immunity would not attach)
 JURE GESTIONIS – private acts or not engaged in regular conduct of
a business (there is waiver here)

Some illustrations:

 DFA v. NLRC22 (Asian Development Bank is immune from suit under

ADB’s Charter and Headquarters Agreement between ADB and
Philippine Government;

 SEAFDEC-AQD is an international agency that is beyond the

jurisdiction of courts or local agency of the Philippine government.
Decision rendered by NLRC is void for want of jurisdiction.23

AMENDMENT OR REVISION

Stages: (1) proposal (formulation of the changes contemplated); then (2)

submission of the proposed amendment or revision to people; (3)
ratification.

Who may propose?

 Congress (via constituent assembly)

22
G.R. No. 113191, Sept. 18, 1996.
23
SEAFDEC-AQD v. NLRC, G. R. No. 86773, Feb. 14, 1992.
Political Law Review in a Capsule (Vol. 2) -13-

 Constitutional convention
 Electorate through initiative (only amendments)

Ratio of votes required:

 3/4 of all members of Congress; ratified by majority of votes cast in a

plebiscite (not earlier than 60 days not more than 90 days after
approval of amendments or revisions)
 2/3 of all members to call for Concon, or a majority of all members to
submit to electorate the question of calling a convention
 Electorate (only amendments); upon petition of at least 12% of the
total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district
must be represented by at least 3% of registered voters
 Amendment through initiative (once every 5 years): ratified by a
majority of votes cast in plebiscite not earlier than 60 days not more
than 90 days after certification by Comelec of sufficiency of the
petition

JUDICIAL REVIEW

 Decision of Congress to call a constitutional convention

 Proposal by constituent assembly

To call is a matter within the Congress discretion; but manner of calling is

subject to judicial review vis-à-vis requirement of majority vote that is a
legal question.

But, the substance of proposal is beyond judicial review; but manner of

making the proposal is subject to judicial review; whether it has acted
according to the Constitution is a matter for judicial cognizance, for example
Tolentino v. Comelec,24 if approved proposal has been properly submitted to
the people for ratification is within the compass of judicial review.

INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM

It is the people who proposes to amend provided the thresholds are meet –
approval of at least 3% of registered voters of each district and 12% of total
24
G.R. No. L- 34150, Oct. 16, 1971.
Political Law Review in a Capsule (Vol. 2) -14-

number of registered voters nationwide; this is followed by referendum

where people vote to reject or ratify the proposal. Article XVII, Section 2 of
the Constitution is not self-executory. On August 4,1989, the Initiative and
Referendum Law (R.A. No. 6735) was approved.

In Santiago v. Comelec,25 it declared that R.A. No. 6735 is inadequate to

cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and have
failed to provide sufficient standard for subordinate delegation (declaring
those parts of Comelec Resolution 2300 void prescribing rules and
regulations on the conduct of initiative or amendments to the Constitution)

Three-fold requirements (ratification) by analogy: (1) plebiscite; (2)

supervised by independent Comelec, (3) only registered voters can take
part.26

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

1. Quasi-legislative or rule-making power (to promulgate rules intended

to carry out the provisions of particular laws)

2. Quasi-judicial or adjudicatory power (to resolve essentially judicial,

factual and sometimes legal questions incidental to its primary power
of enforcement of the law

To illustrate, the National Telecommunications Commission granting

of certificate of public convenience and necessity for installation,
operation, etc. of communications facilities and services based on
rules it promulgated; but what if there is an oppositor, NTC has to
resolve the contest – it become quasi-judicial.

3. Fact-finding, investigative, licensing and rate-fixing powers

Manner of creation

 Constitution (e.g. constitutional bodies such as CSC, Comelec, COA

which can be changed or abolished only by constitutional amendment)
25
G. R. No. 127325, Mar. 19, 1997.
26
Javellana v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. L-36142, Mar. 31, 1973.
Political Law Review in a Capsule (Vol. 2) -15-

 Statutory (such as NLRC, PRC, SEC which Congress can amend or

repeal its charter, hence abolishing it provided that it is done in good
faith and not attended by grave abuse of discretion)

Statutory administrative agencies can be reorganized pursuant to that law

creating it or another law authorizing reorganization. What is important
reorganization is as long as it does not involve abolition or transfer of offices
and is carried out in good faith.

Reorganization can be exercised by the President and be delegated under the

doctrine of qualified political agency, can delegate to cabinet members
exercising control over a particular executive department.

KINDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

 Those offering gratuities, grant or special privileges (Phil. Veterans

Administration)
 Actual business of government (Bureau of Customs)
 Business service for the public (defunct Bureau of Posts, now Postal
Service Corp.)
 Regulate business affected with public interest (LTFRB)
 Regulate private business and individuals under police power (SEC)
 Adjust individual controversies because of social policy (NLRC)
 To make the government a private party (GSIS)

DETERMINATIVE POWERS (to better enable the administrative body to

exercise its quasi-judicial authority)

 Enabling powers and directing powers

 Directing powers including dispensing, examining and the summary
powers

Enabling powers allow the doing of an act which the law undertakes to
regulate and which would be unlawful without government approval e.g.
issuance of licenses to engage in a particular business like operation of a
liquor store or restaurant.
Political Law Review in a Capsule (Vol. 2) -16-

Directing powers order doing or performing of a particular acts to ensure

compliance with law and are often exercised for corrective purposes e.g.
DENR may require factories to use certain chemicals to protect the
environment, DOTC may require common carriers to install specific safety
devices to prevent accidents like helmets, seat belts.

Dispensing powers, to relax the general operation of a law or exempt from

performance of a general duty, e.g. exempting students physical education
because of physical disability; Comelec granted immunity from suit to
violators of election offense in exchange of information and to testify on
violators of election laws.27

Summary powers, those involving use of administrative authorities of force

upon persons or things without judicial warrant, e.g. padlocking by mayor of
dirty restaurants.

Examining powers, to inspect records and premises, & investigate activities

of persons or entities under its jurisdiction (subpoena, interrogation of
witnesses, production of books, papers, etc.)

QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWER

Administrative regulations and policies enacted by administrative bodies to

interpret the laws have the force and effect or partake of the nature of a
statute. (They have the force of law and entitled to great respect) because
they express the policies, purpose, objectives, remedies and sanctions
intended by the legislature generally.

Tests of delegation – completeness test and sufficient standard test.

They cannot substitute their judgment before authorized agency of

government has set aside of any applicable law or regulations because of
their belief that such law or regulation is unconstitutional or illegal and void.

Kinds of administrative regulations

 Interpretative regulations
 Legislative regulations (supplementary & contingent)

27
Comelec v. Espanol, G. R. No. 149164-73, Dec. 10, 2003.
Political Law Review in a Capsule (Vol. 2) -17-

Interpretative (to enforce law and is intended merely to clarify its

provisions for proper observance by the people or to provide guidelines to
the law so it can enforce the law, e.g. circulars issued by BIR, Bangko
Sentral; merely persuasive, respected by courts but not with finality)

Legislative (to implement a primary legislation by providing the details;

have the force and effect of law; e.g. IRR)

Supplementary (intended to fill in the details of the law & to make explicit
what is only general, e.g. “fee” under the Labor Code is clarified by IRR that
includes costs of medical and psychological examination, etc.)

Contingent (to address the happening of a certain contingency,

administrative body is given discretion to enforce or suspend the operation
of law because of circumstances; has the force and effect of law, e.g.
Supreme Court upheld a law that prohibits importation of cattle causing
rinderpest epidemic, but allowed the Governor—General to lift after a fact-
finding investigation if there is no more threat that imported livestock would
contaminate local livestock.28

Requisites of valid administrative regulations

 Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature

 It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature
 It must e promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure
 It must be reasonable.

Requisites (administrative regulations with penal sanction)

 The law itself must make violation of the administrative regulation

punishable;
 It must impose and specify the penalty for the violation of the
regulation; and
 the regulation must be published.

Quasi-judicial power

28
Cruz v. Youngberg, G.R. No. L-34674, Oct. 26, 1931.
Political Law Review in a Capsule (Vol. 2) -18-

Proper exercise of quasi-judicial requires two conditions:

 Jurisdiction
 Due process (notice and hearing requirements)

Notably, even if not judges, administrative officers can interpret and apply
the law to the facts as ascertained by them because this function is necessary
to the discharge of their primary function of - regulation; but legal issues are
subject to review by courts of justice because they are not truly judges
exercising full judicial functions.
Powers of quasi-judicial bodies

 To promulgate rules of procedure

 Subpoena power (must be expressed in the statute)
 Contempt power (must be expressed in the statute)

Administrative due process

 No strict adherence to technical rules (not trial-type proceedings;

quantum of proof is only substantial evidence; and fair and reasonable
opportunity rule applies).

 The key is fair opportunity to be heard or seek reconsideration of an

action or ruling.

 Complainant bears the burden of proving allegations in the complaint

by substantial evidence.

Res judicata

The decisions and orders of administrative agencies rendered pursuant to

their quasi-judicial authority, have upon their finality, the force and binding
effect of a final judgment.29 The rule applies to the judicial and quasi-judicial
acts of public, executive or administrative offices and boards acting within
their jurisdiction as the judgments of courts having general judicial powers. 30

Res judicata rule does not apply to the following:

29
Brillantes v. Castro, 99 Phil. 497 (1956); Ipekdjian v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-15430, Sept. 30,
1963.
30
NAFTU v. Mainit Lumber, G.R. No. 79526, Dec. 21, 1990.
Political Law Review in a Capsule (Vol. 2) -19-

 Labor relations proceedings (merely exercise of administrative

powers)31
 If related with the exercise of purely administrative functions32
 Judgments based on prohibited or null and void contracts33

The Doctrine of Finality of Judgment

This doctrine is based on “the fundamental principle of public policy and

sound practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts
and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final on some definite
date fixed by law. The only exceptions to the general rule are the correction
of clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no
prejudice to any party, void judgments, and whenever circumstances
transpire after the finality of the decision which render its execution unjust
and inequitable”.34

Judicial Review

The Constitution, statutes or rules of court prescribe the methods of review,

which may be specific or general. Aggrieved party has 15 days to appeal;
reconsideration is allowed as to remaining period to perfect an appeal
counted from receipt of resolution of denial. Questions of fact and law are
the subject of review by courts of justice.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

An administrative decision must first be appealed to the administrative

superiors up to the highest level before it may be elevated to a court of
justice for review.35 For example, a review may be sought only if appeal is
first made of a decision of a provincial treasurer to the Secretary of Finance.

Exceptions

31
Nasipit Lumber Co. v. NLRC, G.R. 54424, Aug. 31, 1989.
32
Montemayor v. Bundalian, G.R. No. 149335, July 1, 2003.
33
B.F. Goodrich v. WCC, G.R. No. L-38569, Mar. 28, 1988.
34
G. R. No. 161062, July 31, 2009.
35
Napocor v. CA, G. R. No. 137034, Feb. 23, 2004.
Political Law Review in a Capsule (Vol. 2) -20-

 When the question raised is purely legal

 When the administrative body is in estoppel
 When the act complained of is patently illegal
 When the claim involved is small
 When irreparable damage will be suffered
 When there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy
 When strong public interest is involved
 When the subject of the controversy is a private land
 In quo warranto proceedings

What is the effect if not complied with? If a party fails to exhaust

administrative remedies it does not affect the court’s jurisdiction and merely
results in the lack of a cause of action, which may be invoked in a motion to
dismiss.36

What is the effect if a party fails to invoke it in a motion to dismiss? It is

considered a waiver; the court may proceed to hear the case. So it must be
timely raised even before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading
asserting a claim by a motion to dismiss to prevent a waiver.37

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction or prior Resort

Court will not interfere in matters that are addressed to the sound discretion
of the government agency entrusted with the regulation of activities coming
under the special training and technical training and knowledge of such
agency.38

For instance, jurisdiction over cases involving the sale of subdivisions lots is
with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board.39

Who takes cognizance if two administrative agencies share concurrent

jurisdiction about a particular issue? The rule of thumb is – the body or
36
Rule 16, Sec.1(g), Revised Rules of Court.
37
Calub v. CA, G.R. No. 115634, Apr. 27, 2000.
38
Davao New Town Development Corp. v. COSLAP, G. R. No. 141523, June 8, 2005.
39
Estate Developers and Investors Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 924461, Sept. 2, 1992.
Political Law Review in a Capsule (Vol. 2) -21-

agency that first takes cognizance of the complaint should exercise

jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others; 40 second case should be dismissed
for forum shopping.41

In Honasan II v. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the Department of

Justice,42 it held that the DOJ Panel (exercising concurrently to investigate
with Ombudsman) should give way to Office of the Ombudsman under the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction given that the case would likely be
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.

Appeal to the President

It is the final step in the administrative process; a condition precedent to a

judicial appeal (Court of Appeals) under the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies.

The action of a department head bears only the implied approval of the
President, and the President is not prevented from exercising the power to
review the decision of department head conformably with his power of
control over all executive departments, bureaus, and offices.43

Preventive Suspension

Ombudsman Sandiganbayan
Grounds:
 Evidence of guilt is strong Mandatory but not self-executory or
 Charge involves dishonesty, automatic
oppression or grave misconduct
or neglect in the performance of
duty
 Charge would warrant removal
from the service
 Respondent’s continued stay in
office may prejudice the case

40
Rubio, Jr. v. Paras, G. R. No. 156047, Apr. 12, 2005.
41
Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. WMC Resources, G.R. No. 162331, Nov. 20, 2006.
42
G.R. No. 159747, Apr.13, 2004.
43
Land Car, Inc. v. Bachelor Express, Inc., G. R. No. 154377, Dec. 8, 2003 (reviving the 1962 Calo
Doctrine contra the 1959 Demaisip Doctrine).
Political Law Review in a Capsule (Vol. 2) -22-

filed against him.

Not more than 6 months, without pay Not more than 90 days (3 months)

Neither a punishment nor a penalty;

a preliminary step in an Not a penalty45
administrative investigation.44
Prior notice and hearing are not There must a motion by the
required before suspension may be prosecution, hearing to determine if
meter out.46 the information is valid, if the court
is satisfied, it should order his
preventive suspension.

The court is required to ascertain

whether:
 The accused has been afforded due
preliminary investigation prior to
filing of information;
 The acts constitute a violation of
Rep. Act No. 3019 or Tile 7, Bk.
II of Rev. Penal Code;
 Information van be quashed under
Section 2, Rule 117, Rev. Rules of
Court.47
Purpose is to prevent the accused
from using his position and powers
of his office to influence potential
witnesses or tamper with records that
are vital in the prosecution of case
against him.48

De Facto Officer Doctrine

One who assumed office under a color of a known appointment or election,

void because the office was not eligible or because there was a want of
44
Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole, G. R. No. 108072, Dec. 12, 1995.
45
Bunye v. Escareal, G. R. No. 110216, Sept. 10, 1993.
46
Lastimosa v. Vasquez, G. R. No. 116801, Apr. 6, 1995.
47
Socrates v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 116258-60, Feb. 20, 1996.
48
Pimentel v. Garchitorena, G. R. No. 98340, Apr. 10, 1992.
Political Law Review in a Capsule (Vol. 2) -23-

power in the electing body, or by reasons of some defect or irregularity in its

exercise, such ineligibility, want of power, or defect being unknown to the
public.49

Elements of a de facto officership

 There must be a de jure office

 There must be color of right or authority
 There must be actual physical possession of the office in good faith
 There must be a general acquiescence by the public or recognition by
the public who deals with him of his authority as holder of the
position.

Diplomatic privileges and immunities

 Personal inviolability
 Inviolability of premises and archives
 Right of official communication
 Exemption from local jurisdiction
 Exemption from taxation

Consular privileges and immunities

 Right to communicate freely with his government, diplomatic and

consular representatives of his government stationed in the same
country
 No general immunity either from criminal or civil jurisdiction of the
receiving state save for acts done in the performance of consular
functions
 Generally exempt from arrests for minor offenses
 No general exemption from giving testimony exists under
international law
 Not entitled as of right to exemption from taxation under customary
international law
 Do not enjoy any immunity apart from those extended by treaty or
local usage, although they are entitled to special protection
 Inviolability of consular archives and official correspondence

49
Aparri v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-30057, Jan. 31, 1984.
Political Law Review in a Capsule (Vol. 2) -24-

 Cannot grant asylum to refugees

 Allowed to display the coat of arms of their countries on the doors of
their consulates and to fly their national flag on consular buildings

***