ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2023
II. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Administrative Law are all the laws and policies
that regulate or control the administrative
organization and operations of the government
through administrative agencies.
An administrative agency is an agency which
exercises some significant form or combination of
executive, legislative, or judicial powers. They are
delegates insofar as their powers are merely
delegated and not inherent.
By virtue of this, administrative agencies are
subordinate to the enabling instrument/law which
sets their boundaries, limits their powers, and
defines their jurisdiction.
Generally, the nature of powers that an
administrative agency may partake in are as follows:
DISCRETIONARY – The power or right conferred
upon them by law to act officially under certain
circumstances, according to the dictates of their own
judgment and conscience, and not controlled by the
judgment or conscience of others.
MINISTERIAL – A simple and definite duty arising
under conditions admitted or proved to exist and
imposed by law where there is nothing left to
discretion or judgment of the officer.
Aside from these powers and what the statute
confers upon an administrative agency, it must be
noted that an administrative agency cannot rise
higher than the power that creates them. This is
because such agencies are considered
delegates/agents of the higher authority.
Q: How are administrative agencies created?
1. Constitution;
2. Congress through a special law;
3. The President through an executive order;
4. Supreme Court classifying, confirming, and
invalidating an administrative agency that was
just created;
5. Articles of Incorporation and By Laws of
Administrative Agencies;
6. Ordinances of Local Governments.
SPECTRUM OF INTERFERENCE FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
1. When there is control of the higher authority
to the subordinate: Change decisions, modify
choices, discipline, and overrule.
BACK TO TOC
DAY 1
POLITICAL & PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
2. When there is supervision of the higher
authority to the subordinate: Oversee and
monitor, cannot change choices, discipline, and
declare acts as illegal.
3. When there is autonomy (e.g. Constitutional
Commissions): There is both functional and
fiscal autonomy on the part of the administrative
agency.
B. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
Q: Who is the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines?
A: Refers to the corporate governmental entity
through which the functions of government are
exercised throughout the Philippines, including,
save as the contrary appears from the context, the
various arms through which political authority is
made effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining
to the autonomous regions, the provincial, city,
municipal or barangay subdivisions or other forms
of local government (Sec. 2(1), Introductory
Provisions, Administrative Code).
Q: What is a National Government?
A: Refers to the entire machinery of the central
government, as distinguished from the different
forms of local governments (Sec. 2(2), Introductory
Provisions, Administrative Code).
Q: What is a Local Government?
A: Refers to the political subdivisions established by
or in accordance with the Constitution (Sec. 2(3),
Introductory Provisions, Administrative Code).
Q: What is an Agency?
A: Refers to any of the various units of the
Government, including a department, bureau, office,
instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled
corporation, or a local government or a distinct unit
therein (Sec. 2(4), Introductory Provisions,
Administrative Code).
Q: What is a National Agency?
A: Refers to a unit of the National Government (Sec.
2(5), Introductory Provisions, Administrative Code).
Q: What is a Local Agency?
A: Refers to a local government or a distinct unit
therein (Sec. 2(6), Introductory Provisions,
Administrative Code).
Q: What is a Regulatory agency?
A: Refers to any agency expressly vested with
jurisdiction to regulate, administer or adjudicate
matters affecting substantial rights and interest of
private persons, the principal powers of which are
exercised by a collective body, such as a
Page 147 of 200
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2023
commission, board or council (Sec. 2(11),
Introductory Provisions, Administrative Code).
Q: What is an Instrumentality?
A: Refers to any agency of the National
Government, not integrated within the department
framework vested with special functions or
jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all
corporate powers, administering special funds, and
enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a
charter. This term includes regulatory agencies,
chartered institutions and government-owned or
controlled corporations (Sec. 2(10), Introductory
Provisions, Administrative Code).
Q: What is a Government Instrumentality with
Corporate Powers (GICP)/ Government
Corporate Entities (GCE)?
A: Government Instrumentalities with Corporate
Powers (GICP)/Government Corporate Entities
(GCE) refer to instrumentalities or agencies of
the government, which are neither corporations
nor agencies integrated within the departmental
framework, but vested by law with special
functions or jurisdiction, endowed with some if
not all corporate powers, administering special
funds, and enjoying operational autonomy
usually through a charter including, but not limited
to, the following: the Manila International Airport
Authority (MIAA), the Philippine Ports Authority
(PPA), the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation
(PDIC), the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage
System (MWSS), the Laguna Lake Development
Authority (LLDA), the Philippine Fisheries
Development Authority (PFDA), the Bases
Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA), the
Cebu Port Authority (CPA), the Cagayan de Oro
Port Authority, the San Fernando Port Authority, the
Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) and the
Asian Productivity Organization (APO). [Section
3(n), Republic Act No. 10149, GOCC Governance
Act of 2011]
NOTE: Definition of “Instrumentality” under the
Administrative Code is still relevant, especially to
regulatory agencies EXCEPT for those corporate
entities or those endowed with corporate powers,
which are now covered under the definition of
GICP/GCE under the GOCC Governance Act of
2011.
REMEMBER:
1. When the law vests in a government
instrumentality corporate powers, the
instrumentality does not become a corporation.
Unless the government instrumentality is
organized as a stock or non-stock corporation,
it remains a government instrumentality
BACK TO TOC
DAY 1
POLITICAL & PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
exercising not only governmental but also
corporate powers (Manila International Airport
Authority v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
155650).
2. Many government instrumentalities are vested
with corporate powers but they do not become
stock or non-stock corporations, which is a
necessary condition before an agency or
instrumentality is deemed a government-owned
or controlled corporation. Examples are the
Mactan International Airport Authority, the
Philippine Ports Authority, the University of the
Philippines and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. All
these government instrumentalities exercise
corporate powers but they are not organized as
stock or non-stock corporations as required by
Section 2(13) of the Introductory Provisions of
the Administrative Code (Manila International
Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
155650).
Q: What is a Chartered Institution?
A: Refers to any agency organized or operating
under a special charter, and vested by law with
functions relating to specific constitutional policies or
objectives. This term includes the state universities
and colleges and the monetary authority of the State
(Sec. 2(12), Introductory Provisions, Administrative
Code).
Q: What are the administrative relationships of
administrative bodies and agencies?
A: Unless otherwise expressly stated in the Code or
in other laws defining the special relationships of
particular agencies, administrative relationships
shall be categorized and defined as follows: (1)
Supervision and Control; (2) Administrative
Supervision; (3) Attachment. [Section 38, Book IV,
Chapter VII, Administrative Code of 1987]
Q: Who has the Power of Control over the
executive departments, bureaus, offices, and
administrative bodies and agencies?
A: The President shall have control of all the
executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He
shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
[Section 17, Article VII, 1987 Constitution; see also
Section 1, Chapter 1, Book III, Administrative Code
of 1987]
Page 148 of 200
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2023
C. POWERS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
Q: What are the powers of administrative
agencies?
A: 1) Administrative agencies have powers and
functions which may be administrative,
investigatory, regulatory, quasi-legislative, or
quasi-judicial, or a mix of the five, as may be
conferred by the Constitution or by statute.
2) They have in fine only such powers or authority
as are granted or delegated, expressly or
impliedly, by law. And in determining whether an
agency has certain powers, the inquiry should be
from the law itself.
3) But once ascertained as existing, the authority
given should be liberally construed.
[Soriano v. Laguardia, G.R. Nos. 164785 & 165636,
[April 29, 2009], 605 PHIL 43-193]
1. QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWER
Q: What is quasi-legislative power of an
administrative agency?
A: The authority delegated by the law-making body
to the administrative body to adopt rules and
regulations intended to carry out the provisions of a
law and implement legislative policy. (Carlo Cruz,
Philippine Administrative Law 36, 2016)
It is the power to issue rules and fill in details on
how a law will be implemented.
Q: What is the Ordinance Power of the
President?
A: The President's Ordinance Power is the
Executive's rule-making authority in implementing or
executing constitutional or statutory
powers. Indisputably, there are constitutional
powers vested in the Executive that are self-
executory. The President may issue "rules of a
general or permanent character in implementation
or execution" of such self-executory constitutional
powers. The power to issue such rules is inherent in
Executive power. Otherwise, the President cannot
execute self-executory constitutional provisions
without a grant of delegated power from the
Legislature, a legal and constitutional
absurdity. (Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima,
G.R. No. 166715, [August 14, 2008], 584 PHIL 246-
331)
BACK TO TOC
DAY 1
POLITICAL & PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
a. Kinds of administrative rules
and regulations (SIC-PIP)
Q: What is a Rule?
A: "Rule" means any agency statement of general
applicability that implements or interprets a law,
fixes and describes the procedures in, or practice
requirements of, an agency, including its
regulations. The term includes memoranda or
statements concerning the internal administration or
management of an agency not affecting the rights
of, or procedure available to, the public. [Book VII,
Chapter 1, Sec. 2 (2), Administrative Code of 1987]
Q: What are the kinds of rules and regulations
that an administrative agency can make?
A:
1. SUPPLEMENTARY – Those which supplies
details and implements the law.
2. INTERPRETATIVE – Interprets a statute and
states the official position/opinion of an
administrative agency. These are given weight and
respect but are not conclusive to the courts.
3. CONTINGENT – Those which determine when a
statute will go into effect; it also determines the
existence of a fact which is specified and defined in
the law. Power to ascertain the happening of such
facts may be delegated to administrative agencies.
4. PROCEDURAL – Those which describe the
method, procedures, and remedies by which the
agency will carry out its appointed functions.
5. INTERNAL – Those issued by a superior
administrative or executive officer to his
subordinates for the proper and efficient
administration of law. This governs the
administration and operations of a particular
administrative agency.
6. PENAL – Those that provide for the conditions
and penalties for the violation of rules as expressly
allowed under the law.
The substance of the rule should not be contrary to
law insofar as subordinate legislation is concerned.
In this case, the administrative agency (i.e.
delegate) which creates the rules is merely
subordinate to the higher authority and must not
spring above it.
The general standard for a rule is its
reasonableness as it is germane to the objects and
purposes of the law, not arbitrary, and free from
legal infirmities.
Page 149 of 200
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2023
b. Requisites for validity
Q: What are the tests for a valid delegation of
quasi-legislative power?
A: Two tests determine the validity of delegation of
legislative power: (1) the completeness test and (2)
the sufficient standard test. A law is complete
when it sets forth therein the policy to be
executed, carried out or implemented by the
delegate. It lays down a sufficient standard when
it provides adequate guidelines or limitations in
the law to map out the boundaries of the
delegate's authority and prevent the delegation
from running riot. To be sufficient, the standard
must specify the limits of the delegate's authority,
announce the legislative policy and identify the
conditions under which it is to be implemented.
(Abakada Guro v. Purisima, GR No. 166715, 2008)
The Court has recognized the following as sufficient
standards: "public interest", "justice and equity",
"public convenience and welfare" and "simplicity,
economy and welfare". [Abakada Guro v. Purisima,
GR No. 166715, 14 August 2008]
Q: What are examples of a valid delegation of
legislative power?
A:
1) Issuance prohibiting selling of shares without
prior license for public interest. (People v.
Rosenthal, GR No. 46076, 1939)
2) Prohibition of animal drawn carriage to use the
roads during certain times for public convenience
and welfare. (Calalang v. Williams, GR No. 47800,
1940)
3) Authorizing President to make reforms and
changes in GOCCs for economy and efficiency.
(Cervantes v. Auditor General, GR No. L-4043,
1952)
4) K to 12 Law implementation is complete in
conditions and parameters through the legislative
policy on the power delegated to the DepEd,
CHED, and TESDA. (Council of Teachers v.
Secretary of Education, GR No. 216930, 2018)
Q: What are examples of an invalid or undue
delegation of legislative power?
A:
1) 2013 PDAF article – Post-enactment
identification of projects by the legislators. (Belgica
v. Ochoa, GR No. 208566, 2013)
2) Section 8, PD 910 (Malampaya Fund) - The
phrase "and for such other purposes as may be
hereafter directed by the President" under
BACK TO TOC
DAY 1
POLITICAL & PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
Section 8 of PD 910 constitutes an undue delegation
of legislative power. (Belgica v. Ochoa, GR No.
208566, 2013)
3) Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993,
indicates that the Presidential Social Fund may be
used "to [first,] finance the priority infrastructure
development projects” which gives a carte blanche
authority to use the fund for any infrastructure
project that the President may deem as a priority.
(Belgica v. Ochoa, GR No. 208566, 2013)
4) EO 626 s.1980 that authorized the distribution of
confiscated carabao to charitable institutions that
the Chairman of the National Meal Inspection
Commission “may see fit;” (Ynot v. IAC, GR No.
74457, 1987)
5) Act No. 2868 authorized Governor-General to
issue “in his discretion” a proclamation fixing
price of palay and making the violation a crime. (US
v. Ang Tang Ho, GR No. L-17122, 1922)
Q: What are the requisites for a valid
administrative regulation?
A: To be valid, an administrative issuance, such as
an executive order, must comply with the following
requisites:
(1) Its promulgation must be authorized by the
legislature;
There is a delegation made by Congress subject to
the Completeness Test and the Sufficient Standard
Test.
(2) It must be promulgated in accordance with
the prescribed procedure;
a) Notice and Hearing (when required)
b) Publication
c) Filing with the UP-ONAR
NOTE: Not all rules and regulations adopted by
every government agency are to be filed with the UP
Law Center. Only those of general or of permanent
character are to be filed. Internal rules which are
meant to regulate the personnel of the GSIS are not
subject to filing with the UP Law Center. (Board of
Trustees v. Velasco, G.R. 17046, 2011).
(3) It must be within the scope of the authority
given by the legislature (must not be ultra vires);
and
Must not go beyond (i.e. must not expand or
diminish) the limits or parameters conferred by the
Constitution or Statute.
(4) It must be reasonable.
Page 150 of 200
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2023
Grounded on reason. Free from arbitrariness.
Sufficient justification for depriving life, liberty,
property. Fair play. Done in the exercise of police
power (i.e. promote general welfare). The police
power legislation must be firmly grounded on public
interest and welfare, and a reasonable relation must
exist between purposes and means. And if
distinction and classification ha[ve] been made,
there must be a reasonable basis for said
distinction. (PBOAP v. DOLE)
(Executive Secretary v. Southwing Heavy
Industries, Inc., G.R. Nos. 164171, 164172 &
168741, [February 20, 2006], 518 PHIL 103-133)
Q: When e NOTICE & HEARING required and not
required as a prescribed procedure?
A:
GENERAL RULE: However, notice and hearing are
required when an administrative agency exercises
its quasi-legislative power. The reason is that in the
exercise of quasi-legislative power, the
administrative agency makes no "determination of
past events or fact." (PBOAP v. DOLE). Thus, not
required in the following:
i) Interpretative Rule - no real consequence more
than what the law prescribes (Cawad v. Abad, GR
No. 207145, 2015);
ii) Administrative regulation or issuance is of general
application (i.e. applies to all; not just to a selected
class) (Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. v.
Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports, G.R.
No. 78385, 1987);
iii) Internal in nature (Board of Trustees v. Velasco,
GR No. 170463, 2011)
iv) Rule is procedural (Rules of Procedure; since it’s
also of general application);
v) Rule is merely a legal opinion (hence, advisory
and no adjudication; e.g. BIR or SEC opinions);
vi) Substantive rule where class affected is at large
and questions to be resolved require use of
discretion by the rule-making body. (Corona v.
United Harbor Pilots, GR No. 111953, 1997)
EXCEPTIONS: Prior notice & hearing required if:
i) Legislature itself requires it and mandates that the
regulation shall be based on certain facts as
determined at an appropriate hearing or
consultation (i.e. contained in the law itself);
ii) Rule requires determination of past events or
facts (through a hearing or proceeding);
BACK TO TOC
DAY 1
POLITICAL & PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
iii) Regulation is settlement of a controversy
between specific parties (hence, considered as
adjudication) (Philcomsat v. Alcuaz, GR No. 84818,
1989);
iv) Rate-fixing in the exercise of quasi-judicial
authority (Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. v.
Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports, G.R.
No. 78385, 1987)
Q: When is PUBLICATION required and not
required as a prescribed procedure?
A:
GENERAL RULE: Publication required in the
following:
i) Administrative rules and regulations must also be
published if their purpose is to enforce or implement
existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation.
(Tañada v. Tuvera, GR No. L-63915, 1986)
ii) If the administrative rule substantially adds or
increases the burden of those governed, publication
is required. (Manila Public School Teachers v.
Garcia, GR No. 192708, 2017)
iii) Every rule establishing an offense or defining an
act which, pursuant to law, is punishable as a crime
or subject to a penalty shall in all cases be published
in full text. [Sec. 6(2), Chapter 2, Book VII,
Administrative Code of 1987]
EXCEPTIONS: Publication not required in the
following:
i) Interpretative rule/circular/regulations, which add
no real consequence more than what the law itself
prescribes (Cawad v. Abad, GR No. 207145, 2015;
Tañada v. Tuvera, GR No. L-63915, 1986)
ii) Those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating
only the personnel of the administrative agency and
not the public, need not be published. (Board of
Trustees v. Velasco, GR No. 170463, 2011; Tañada
v. Tuvera, GR No. L-63915, 1986
iii) Letters of instructions issued by administrative
superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be
followed by their subordinates in the performance of
their duties. (Tañada v. Tuvera, GR No. L-63915,
1986)
NOTE: Special Requisites on Penal Rules --
1) The law which authorizes the promulgation of
rules and regulations must itself provide for the
imposition of a penalty for their violation;
2) The law must fix or define such penalty;
3) The violation for which the rules and regulations
impose a penalty must be punishable under the law
itself; and
Page 151 of 200
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2023
4) The rules and regulations must be published in
the Official Gazette or Newspaper of General
Circulation and archived at the UP Law Center.
2. QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER
Q: What is quasi-judicial power of an
administrative agency?
A: The power and function which involve the
decision or determination by administrative
agencies of the rights, duties, and obligations of
specific individuals and persons. It is also applicable
to actions and discretions of public administrative
bodies that are required to investigate facts, or
ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and
draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their
official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial
nature (Midland Insurance Corporation v. IAC, 143
SCRA 458 (1986)).
As compared to quasi-legislative power, quasi-
judicial power involve persons specially and involve
determinations in the narrowest sense (i.e. as
applicable to pertinent parties only and not
generally).
a. Administrative due process
Technical rules of procedure and evidence are not
strictly applied in administrative due process; it is
enough that a party is given the chance to be heard
before the case against him/her is decided.
However, despite the liberality of procedure in
administrative actions, such is still subject to the
fundamental requirement of the Constitutional
guarantee to due process.
Thus, the essence of due process in administrative
proceedings is the opportunity to explain one's side
or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. As long as parties were given fair
and reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit
in support of their arguments before judgment was
rendered, the demands of due process are met (Var
Orient Shipping Co., Inc. V. Achacoso, 161 SCRA
732 (1988)).
Additionally, there are no violations if:
1. No opportunity to cross-examine the adverse
party and his witnesses (Audion Electric Co.,
Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,
308 SCRA 340 (1999)).
2. Resolving a case through position papers,
affidavits, or documentary evidence.
In the end, what is repugnant to due process is the
denial of the opportunity to be heard. (Philippine
BACK TO TOC
DAY 1
POLITICAL & PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 198 SCRA 748 (1991)).
Q: What are the rights of persons in
administrative proceedings? (HIP DESK)
1. The RIGHT TO A HEARING, which includes the
right to present one’s case and submit evidence
in support thereof.
2. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must
act on its or his own INDEPENDENT
CONSIDERATION of the law and facts of the
controversy, and not simply accept the views of
a subordinate in arriving at a decision.
3. The decision must be based on the EVIDENCE
PRESENTED at the hearing or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the
parties affected.
4. The DECISION must have something to
support itself.
5. The tribunal must CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE
presented.
6. Evidence supporting the conclusion must be
SUBSTANTIAL.
7. The board or body should, in all controversial
questions, render its decision in such a manner
that the parties to the proceeding can KNOW
the various ISSUES involved and the
REASONS for the decision rendered. (Ang
Tibay v. CIR, G.R. No. L-46496, 1940)
b. Administrative appeal and
review
Q: What are the kinds of administrative appeal
and review within the context of administrative
bodies and agencies? (ROBC DHP)
1. Inheres in the RELATION of
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERIOR to
ADMINISTRATIVE SUBORDINATE where
determinations are made at lower levels of the
same department.
2. Statute provides for a determination to be made
by a particular OFFICER or BODY subject to
appeal, review, or determination by another
officer or body in the same agency or same
administrative system.
3. Statute attempts to make a COURT a part of the
administrative scheme by providing in terms the
way the Court should exercise powers of such
extent that they differ from ordinary judicial
functions.
4. Statute provides that an order made by a
DIVISION of a Commission or Board has the
same force and effect as if made by the
Commission subject to a rehearing by the full
Commission.
Page 152 of 200
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2023
5. Statute provides for an appeal to an officer on
an intermediate level with subsequent appeal to
the HEAD of the department of the agency.
6. Statute provides for an appeal at the highest
level (i.e. the PRESIDENT).
NOTE: Some considerations for administrative
appeals:
1. The review must not be whimsical, arbitrary, or
devoid of substantial basis (De Leon v. Heirs of
Gregorio Reyes, 155 SCRA 584 (1987)).
2. The scope and extent of review will depend on
the statutory scheme of distribution of powers
between the officer/body making the initial
decision and the one reviewing.
3. The reviewing officer must not be the same as
the officer who gave the initial decision
(Zambales Chromite Mining Company v. Court
of Appeals, 94 SCRA 261 (1979)).
c. Administrative res judicata
Q: What is the rule for res judicata concerning
acts or decisions of administrative agencies?
A: The rule of res judicata applies to the judicial and
quasi-judicial acts of administrative officers and
boards acting within their jurisdiction (Macailing v.
Andrada, 31 SCRA 126 (1970)). It is applicable for
administrative actions that are adjudicatory, judicial,
or quasi-judicial; it is not applicable for those
determinations which are administrative, executive,
quasi-legislative, or ministerial in nature.
There is also res judicata when the statute makes or
attempts to make a Court a part of the administrative
scheme by providing in terms or effect that the
Court, on review of the action of an administrative
agency.
Res judicata is not applicable in:
a) Citizenship cases (Zita Ngo Burca v. Republic,
G.R. No. 122226, 1998 & United Pepsi Cola v.
Laguesma, G.R. No. L-24252, 1973)
b) When WCC Referee awards the employee less
than what the law provides (BF Goodrich v.
WCC, G.R. No. L-42319, 1978)
3. FACT-FINDING,
INVESTIGATIVE, LICENSING,
AND RATE-FIXING LAW
POWERS
Q: What is investigative power within the
context of administrative law?
A:
INVESTIGATIVE
Investigatory power includes the power to inspect
the records and premises, investigate activities of
persons or entities under its jurisdiction, secure or
BACK TO TOC
DAY 1
POLITICAL & PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
require the disclosure of information by means of
accounts, records, reports, statements and
testimony of witnesses. This power is implied and
not inherent in administrative agencies. (Secretary
of Justice v. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, 2000).
It is different from judicial functions as the power is
limited to investigating the facts and making findings
in respect thereto (Ruperto v. Torres, [unrep.] 100
Phil. 1098 [1957].). The standard is when the
purpose for the investigation is to evaluate evidence
as based on the facts and circumstances and there
is no final pronouncement affecting the parties,
there is still no judicial function (Montemayor v.
Bundalin, 405 SCRA 264 (2003)).
On the other hand, the test of judicial function is
when there is an adjudication upon the rights and
obligations of the parties before it. If the Board lacks
such powers, then there could be merely
investigatory powers.
Q: What is fact-finding power within the context
of administrative law?
A:
FACT-FINDING
Fact-finding power is part of an administrative
agency’s implied power to collate information and
facts that may be useful to its purpose as an
administrative agency.
However, where a delegation to a fact-finding body
empowers it to create the conditions which
constitute the fact, the delegation is invalid (Eastern
Shipping Lines, Inc. v. POEA, 166 SCRA 533
(1988)).
Q: What is licensing power within the context of
administrative law?
A:
LICENSING
The action of an administrative agency in granting
or denying, or in suspending or revoking, a license,
permit, franchise, or certificate of public
convenience and necessity. It is not judicial but is
administrative or quasi-judicial.
Further, it involves the grant, renewal, denial,
revocation, suspension, annulment, withdrawal,
limitation, amendment, modification, or conditioning
of a license.
Q: What is rate-fixing power(s) within the
context of administrative law?
A:
RATE-FIXING
The function of prescribing rates by an
administrative agency against particular
Page 153 of 200
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2023
classes/individuals of the population upon which the
administrative agency is concerned.
When the rates are prescribed by an administrative
agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial function,
PRIOR NOTICE and HEARING are essential to its
validity (Assoc. of International Shipping Lines v.
Philippine Ports Authority, 454 SCRA 701 (2005)).
However, an administrative agency may be
empowered to approve provisionally temporary
rates of public utilities, even without a hearing, due
to urgent public need (Padua v. Ranada, 390 SCRA
663 (2002)); an exception to this exception is when
prescribed by a statute that a hearing is a must.
The basic requirement for a rate is that it must not
be confiscatory and must have been established in
the manner prescribed by the legislature – in short,
it must be reasonable enough to not be oppressive
or confiscatory.
D. JUDICIAL RECOURSE AND
REVIEW
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY ADMINISTRATIVE
JURISDICTION
Q: What is the doctrine of primary administrative
jurisdiction?
A: If the case is such that its determination requires
the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of
the proper administrative bodies because technical
matters or intricate questions of facts are involved,
then relief must first be obtained in an administrative
proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the
courts even though the matter is within the proper
jurisdiction of a court. This is the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction.
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; in such case the judicial
process is suspended pending referral of such
issues to the administrative body for its view"
(United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co., 352
U.S. 59, emphasis supplied). (Industrial
Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
88550, [April 18, 1990], 263 PHIL 352-360)
REMEMBER: Primary jurisdiction of
administrative agencies as quasi-judicial
bodies is provided in their charters/enabling
BACK TO TOC
DAY 1
POLITICAL & PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
statutes, e.g. DARAB – agrarian reform
disputes; NPC – privacy violations; DHSUD –
sale of commercial real estate like subdivisions
and condominiums; LCR – clerical error
correction in birth certificate.
NOTE:
1. Courts cannot or 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, experience and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and
intricate matters of fact. (Professional Regulation
Commission v. Alo, G.R. No. 214435, 2022)
2. Relief must first be obtained in an administrative
proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the
court, even if the matter is within the jurisdiction of a
court. (Republic of the Philippines v. Martinez, G.R.
No. 158253, 2007).
3. Can be barred by estoppel if not timly
invoked. (Republic v. Gallo)
Q: What is the weight of factual findings made
by quasi-judicial bodies?
A: In general, the factual findings made by quasi-
judicial bodies and administrative agencies when
supported by substantial evidence are accorded
great respect and even finality by the appellate
courts. This is because administrative agencies
possess specialized knowledge and expertise in
their respective fields. As such, their findings of fact
are binding upon the Court unless there is a showing
of grave abuse of discretion, or where it is clearly
shown that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in
disregard of the evidence on record. (Japson v. Civil
Service Commission (G.R. No. 189479, 2011)
Q: What are the Exceptions to the Doctrine of
Primary Jurisdiction? (SUPER GLID-MCQ)
1. Where there is estoppel on the part of the party
invoking the doctrine;
2. Where the challenged administrative act is
patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction;
3. Where there is unreasonable delay or official
inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the
complainant;
4. Where the amount involved is relatively small so
as to make the rule impractical and oppressive;
5. Where the question involved is purely legal and
will ultimately have to be decided by the courts
of justice;
6. Where judicial intervention is urgent;
Page 154 of 200
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2023
7. When its application may cause great and
irreparable damage;
8. Where the controverted acts violate due
process;
9. When the issue of non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies has been rendered
moot;
10. When there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy;
11. When strong public interest is involved; and,
12. In quo warranto proceedings. (Aklan v. Jody
King Construction & Development Corp, G.R.
No. 197592, 2013)
13. When courts and administrative agencies have
concurrent jurisdiction. (Republic of the
Philippines v. Martinez, G.R. No. 158253, 2007).
DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
Q: What is the doctrine of 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. It is a condition precedent that must be
complied with. (Sps. Sadang v. CA, G.R. No.
140138, 2006).
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies is a cornerstone of our judicial system.
The thrust of the rule is that courts must allow
administrative agencies to carry out their
functions and discharge their responsibilities
within the specialized areas of their respective
competence. The rationale for this doctrine is
obvious. It entails lesser expenses and provides
for the speedier resolution of controversies.
Comity and convenience also impel courts of
justice to shy away from a dispute until the
system of administrative redress has been
completed. (Universal Robina Corp. v. Laguna
Lake Development Authority, G.R. No. 191427,
[May 30, 2011], 664 PHIL 754-763)
Non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies would result in lack of
cause of action, and consequently, the dismissal of
the case. (Ejera v. Merto, 725 Phil. 180, 2014)
Q: When is the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies not applicable (i.e.
EXCCEPTIONS)? (DRAPED LIPS IN DJ LAND
VQU):
1. If it should appear that an irreparable Damage
will be suffered by a party unless resort to the
court is immediately made.
2. When the respondent is the Alter ego of the
President
BACK TO TOC
DAY 1
POLITICAL & PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
3. When no administrative Review is provided as
a condition precedent for court action
4. Where insistence on its observance would
result in the Nullification of the claim asserted
5. When there was No decision rendered
6. When there are special circumstances
demanding immediate Judicial intervention
7. When the administrative remedy is Permissive
or concurrent
8. When the question raised is essentially and
purely Legal
9. Where the issue raised is the Constitutionality
of the statute, rule or regulation
10. Where it is a civil action for Damages
11. Where the officer acted in utter disregard of Due
process
12. When there is no other plain, speedy, adequate
Remedy
13. When act complained of is patently Illegal
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
14. When the administrative body or the person
invoking the doctrine is in Estoppel
15. When there is long-continued and
unreasonable Delay
16. When the subject of controversy is private Land
17. When strong public Interest is involved
18. When the controversy involves Possessory
action involving public lands
19. When the claim involved is Small so that to
require exhaustion would be oppressive and
unreasonable
20. When there is a Violation of due process
21. In Quo warranto proceedings
22. When to require exhaustion of administrative
remedies would be Unreasonable
Q: Must a decision of an administrative agency
with quasi-judicial power be appealed to the
Office of the President as part of the Doctrine of
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies?
A: It depends.
Yes if there is no special law allowing immediate
judicial relief.
No if there is a special law allowing immediate
judicial relief.
In Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v.
Board of Investments, a decision or order issued by
a department or agency need not be appealed to the
OP when there is a special law that provides for a
different mode of appeal. (cited in Peñafrancia v.
168 Shipping, GR No. 188952, 2016).
In Moran v. OP, a special law, RA 7394, likewise
expressly provided for immediate judicial relief from
decisions of the DTI Secretary by filing a petition
for certiorari with the "proper court." Hence, private
Page 155 of 200
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2023
respondent should have elevated the case directly
to the CA through a petition for certiorari. In filing a
petition for certiorari before the CA raising the issue
of the OP's lack of jurisdiction, complainant Moran,
Jr. thus availed of the proper remedy. (Moran v. OP,
G.R. No. 192957, 2014)
NOTE: If there is a special law allowing immediate
judicial relief, failure to comply would mean losing
the right to the period to appeal.
Q: Is the enumeration of quasi-judicial agencies
that can appeal to the Court of Appeals under
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court exhaustive or
exclusive?
A: NO. Enumeration is not exclusive as per Alliance
v. Garin (i.e. appeal from FDA) citing Cayao-Lasam
v. Ramolete (i.e. appeal from PRC). Absence from
the enumeration is not exclusion.
DOCTRINE OF FINALITY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Q: What is the doctrine of finality of
administrative action?
A:
General Rule: Decisions of administrative agencies
must be final before Judicial Review.
Courts should be reluctant to interfere with
administrative action prior to its completion or
finality. The reason being that absence of a final
order or decision, the power of the administrative
agency concerned has not been fully exercised and
there can be no irreparable harm. (Paredes v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 113357, 1996).
Q: When is the doctrine of finality of
administrative action not applicable? (SPA
DIVE)
1. To grant relief to preserve STATUS QUO
pending further action by the administrative
agency;
2. Essential to the PROTECTION OF RIGHTS
asserted;
3. When ALLOWED by law;
4. When the order is NOT REVIEWABLE and the
complainant will suffer great and obvious
DAMAGE if the order is carried out;
5. An INTERLOCUTORY ORDER affecting the
merits of a controversy;
6. An administrative officers acts in VIOLATION of
constitution and other laws and
7. To an order made in EXCESS of power,
contrary to specific prohibitions in the statute.
BACK TO TOC
DAY 1
POLITICAL & PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
Q: What are the defenses that an administrative
agency may raise?
A:
1. Ripeness – In the instance where there is no
actual injury on the part of the complainant.
2. Primary Jurisdiction – In the instance where a
case was filed directly with the Court before the
administrative agency, the agency is
empowered to resolve that specific controversy
first.
3. Finality of Administrative Action – In the
instance where the case is pending before the
administrative agency’s higher level, and such
was filed in Court, the doctrine of finality of
administrative action applies where there must
be reluctance to interfere on the part of the
Court.
4. Non-Exhaustion of Remedies – In the
instance where the case could have been filed
in the higher level of an administrative agency
and that the subsequent action (e.g. appeal)
was filed in Court, then there was non-
exhaustion. However, there are grounds to
allege that the doctrine is not applicable.
Q: What happens when the administrative action
or decision attains finality?
A: ONCE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND
JUDGMENT IS FINAL, IT BECOMES
IMMUTABLE AND UNALTERABLE, i.e. RES
JUDICATA. Well-settled is the rule that a judgment
that has acquired finality "becomes immutable and
unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any
respect, even if the modification is meant to correct
erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether
it be made by the court that rendered it or by the
Highest Court of the land." The rationale of this
doctrine is to avoid delay in the administration of
justice and in order to put an end to judicial
controversies.
In the case of Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty
Development Corp., the Court explained the
principle of immunity of judgment in this wise: “The
doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on
fundamental considerations of public policy and
sound practice, and that, at the risk of
occasional errors, the judgments or orders of
courts must become final at some definite time
fixed by law; otherwise, there would be no end
to litigations, thus setting to naught the main role
of courts of justice which is to assist in the
enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance
of peace and order by settling justiciable
controversies with finality.”
EXCEPTIONS
Page 156 of 200
ATENEO CENTRAL DAY 1
BAR OPERATIONS 2023 POLITICAL & PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Nonetheless, this doctrine may be relaxed in order

to serve substantial justice in case compelling
circumstances that clearly warrant the exercise of
the Court's equity jurisdiction are extant. Thus, like
any other rule, it has exceptions, such as: (1) the
correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-
called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no
prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and
(4) whenever circumstances transpire after the
finality of the decision rendering its execution
unjust and inequitable. After all, the rules of
procedure intend to promote the ends of justice,
thus, their strict and rigid application must always be
eschewed when it would subvert its primary
objective. (Spouses Navarra v. Liongson, G.R. No.
217930, [April 18, 2016], 784 PHIL 942-959)

————- end of topic ————-

BACK TO TOC Page 157 of 200