Evolution of the Anti-Red Tape Policy of the Philippines

Prior to the term of then President Corazon Aquino, numerous reforms have
been initiated by previous administrations to curb red tape and improve public
service delivery. As President Corazon Aquino directed transparency during her
term, the Do Away with Red Tapos (DART) Program was launched. In the next
administration of Presidents Fidel V. Ramos and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, the
Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption, Election Modernization
Act, Inter-Agency Anti-Graft Coordinating Council, and the National Anti-
Corruption Commission were instituted or created to fight corruption and red tape
in the government.(Reducing Red Tape in the Government by Dr. Francisco
Magno, SPARK, December 2016 issue, Stratbase ADR Institute).

Following the impeachment of then President Joseph Estrada due to graft

and corruption, former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo initiated numerous
anti-corruption efforts including the National Anti-Corruption Plan of the
Philippines and the lifestyle check for government officials (Id.).

Thereafter, in response to the urgent need to eliminate red tape, improve

frontline service delivery,1 and to improve the country’s 113th rank out of 155
countries in the World Doing Business survey, 2 the Thirteenth Congress enacted on
2 June 2007, RA 9485 or the Anti-Red Tape Act.3

The Anti-Red Tape Act requires government offices and agencies including
local government units (LGU) and government-owned or controlled corporations
(GOCC) that provide frontline services, excluding those performing judicial,
quasi-judicial, and legislative functions, to adopt fixed deadlines to complete
transactions, and regularly assess and upgrade their frontline services.4

The law provides a five-day deadline for the completion of simple

transactions, and a 10-day deadline for the completion of complex approved
1
CSC Resolution No. 081471, Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9485, third Whereas Clause.
2
Doing Business in 2006, A co-publication of the World Bank and International Finance Corporation, 2006.
3
A product of Senate Bill No.2589 authored by Senators Juan Flavier, Edgardo Angara, Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., and
Panfilo Lacson and House Bill No. 3776, authored by Reps. Jose de Venecia, Rodriguez Dadivas, Ace Barbers,
Eduardo Zialcita, Rey Aquino, Edgar Chatto and Florencio Noel.
4
Sec. 3, Anti-Red Tape Act.
transactions that require background checks. While the law deems as approved
transactions that are not acted upon, it penalizes heads of department or offices
who allow such transactions to lapse. The law also limits the number of signatories
to five, in contrast to past transactions that would have required more than 20
signatures.5

Government offices must set up information billboards (Citizen’s Charter)

and public assistance desks, and frontline agencies will be subject to a report card
survey of its IRR by the CSC Resolution No. 081471 dated 24 July 2008.

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo then issued Administrative Orders No.

241 and 24`-A,7 mandating the speedy implementation of the provisions of the
6

Anti-Red Tape Act in all covered government agencies.

In the next administration, the late President Benigno Simeon Aquino

running under his slogan “Kung Walang Corrupt, Walang Mahirap,” focused on
building anti-corruption initiatives that promotes transparency and accountability
(Redicing the Red Tape in the Government by Dr. Francisco Magno, SPARK,
December 2016 Issue, Stratbase ADR Institute).

Echoing President Benigno Simeon Aquino’s call to accelerate business

activity in the country and to address worsening bureaucratic red tape, Senate Bill
No. 13118 and House Bill No. 65799 were file in the 17th Congress. The bills aim to
expand the Anti-Red Tape Act into consideration the dismal ranking of the
Philippines in the 2016-1017 Edition of the Global Competitiveness Index of the
World Economic Forum, where the country ranked 137 th out of 138 economies in
the number of procedures to start business and 115 th as to the length of time to start
one. In the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business”, the Philippines have gone
down four rungs, from number 95 in 2015, to 99 in 2017, out of 190 economies.
Further in the 2015 report of the World Bank, the country is the 161 st in starting a

5
Secs. 7,8 and 9, Anti-Red Tape Act.
6
Issued on October 2, 2008
7
Issued on November 10, 2008
8
An Act Establishing A National Policy of Ease of Doing Business, Creating For the Purpose The Ease Of Doing
Business Commission , and for the Other Purposes, with Senator Ralph Recto as Principal Author, and with co-
author Senators Paolo Benigno “Bam” Aquino IV, Grace L. Poe, Juan Miguel Zubiri, Cynthia Villar, Richard
Gordon, and Panfilo Lacson.
9
An Act Establishing A National Policy of Ease of Doing Business, Creating For the Purpose The Ease Of Doing
Business Commission with Representative Vilma Santos-Recto as the principal author.
business, 127th in ease of paying taxes, 115th in the paper work to employ workers.
Lastly, in the 2017 ranking by World Bank, the Philippines was the 171 st in starting
business, 85th in dealing with construction permits, and 112 th in registering a
property.10

A Bicameral Report was then issued reconciling the disagreeing provisions

of Senate Bill No. 1311 and House Bill No. 6579 in response to the call of
President Rodrigo Roa Duterte during his State of the Nation Address (SONA) – to
cut red tape in the government.11 Thus, on May 28, 2018, RA 11032 or the Ease of
Doing Business Act, was enacted, and became effective on June 17, 2018 after it
was published in a newspapaer of general circulation on June 2, 2018. 12 Thereafter,
on July 17, 2018, the CSC, ARTA, and the Department of Trade and Industry
(DTI) issued Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2019-001 or the IRR of the Ease of
Doing Business Act.

The Ease of Doing Business Act covers all LGUs, national government
agencies (NGA) and other government instrumentalities that provide services
covering business and non-business related transactions, thereby removing the
exceptions mentioned in the Anti-Red Tape Act. The prescribed processing time
for transactions in the government were further reduced: (a) simple transactions
from 5 to 3 working days; (b) complex transactions from 10 to 7 working days;
and (c) highly technical applications to 20 working days. 13 It also provides for
automatic approval of permits and licenses in case the LGU/NGA fails to
approve/disapprove the application with the prescribed processing time. 14

To ensure the attainment of the objective of the Ease of Doing Business Act,
the Anti-Red Tape Authority or ARTA was organized which is an attached agency
to the Office of the President. 15 President Rodrigo Roa Duterte then issued
Administrative Order No. 23 on February 21, 2020 for purposes of eliminating
overregulation to promote efficiency in government processes.
10
Co-Sponsorship Speech of Ease of Doing Business Act, Senate Minority Leader Ralph G. Recto, February 8,
2017.
11
Sponsor Speech of Senator Juan Miguel F. Zubiri on the Highlights of the Bicameral Report on Senate Bill No.
3111 and House Bill No. 6579, February 21, 2018.
12
Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2019-001, IRR of the Ease of Doing Business Act, second and third Whereas
Clause.
13
Section 9, Ease of Doing Business Act.
14
Section 10, Ease of Doing Business Act.
15
Sectio 17, Ease of Doing Business Act.
The ARTA has jurisdiction over the NTC

During the proceedings before the ARTA, Commissioner Cordoba alleged

that the ARTA has no jurisdiction over the NTC since it is an agency that performs
quasi-judicial functions and the Automatic Approval clause in the Ease of Doing
Business Act is explicitly limited only to the issuance of a license, a clearance, a
permit, a certification, or an authorization. The Automatic Approval clause finds
no application in the allocation, assignment, or distribution of government assets,
properties forming part of the national patrimony, or scarce natural resources such
as radio frequencies. The foregoing contention of the Commissioner Cordoba/NTC
was found to be meritorious by the DOJ, thus its Resolution dated July 9, 2021
declaring ARTA’s lack of jurisdiction over the NTC.

In this case, however, the NTC and Commissioner Cordoba, through the
OSG, now avers that the Ease of Doing Business Act expanded the Anti-Red Tape
Act’s coverage which now includes all government agencies that provide business
and nonbusiness related transactions which includes the NTC, but it is bound by
international laws and treaties. As such, the Philippines is obliged to observe the
reservation made in the WRC Resolution Com 4/8 (WRC-19) allocating the
frequency band of 24.25 GHz-27.5 GHz to mobile telecommunications use,
particular for 5G network. Hence, the NTC cannot allocate the 25.35 GHz – 26.35
GHz frequency range to Newsnet.

The averments of the NTC/Commissioner Cordoba are devoid of merit.

Contrary to the assertion of the NTC, applications for the issuance of a

certificate of authority to operate a CATV pertain to its purely administrative
function. In the fairly recent case of National Telecommunications Commissions v.
Brancomm Cable and Television Network Co. (G.R. No. 204487, December 5,
2019), The Supreme Court clearly distinguished between the purely administrative
proceedings and quasi-judicial proceedings before the NTC, viz.:

Nature and Functions of the NTC

The NTC is mandated, under Executive Order (E.O.) No. 546,
among others, to establish and prescribe rules, regulations, standards
and specifications in all cases related to the issued Certificate of
Public Convenience, promulgate rules and regulations as public
safety and interest may require, and supervise and inspect the
operation of radio stations and telecommunications faculties. Under
Section 16 of E.O. No. 546, the NTC likewise exercises quasi-
judicial powers. The scope of such function to implement the
necessary rules and regulations was later on expanded in E.O. No.
546 to include the operation of CATV services. Finally, Republic
Act No. 7925 or the Public Telecommunications Policy Act of the
Philippines (PTPA) was enacted which provided for the power and
functions of the NTC and which governed for the power and
functions of the NTC and which governed the issuance or granting of
franchises to qualified entities.

Nature of NTC Proceedings

Under Section 16 of the PTPA, the NTC has the power to impose
conditions on the issuance of a franchise such as the Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) and a certificate
of authority, so that qualified entities may lawfully engage in the
operation of public telecommunications services such as
providing CATV. Pursuant to its power to promulgate rules as
well as its power to adopt “an administrative process which
would facilitate the entry of qualified service providers “under
Section 5 (a) of the PTPA, the NTC adopted the NTC Rules.
Under the NTC Rules, there are two (2) major categories or sets
of procedures: (a) Procedure in Application (Part II): and
Procedure in Complaints (Part III). In an application proceeding,
the applicant “seeks authorization or permission to undertake any
matter or activity” within the NTC’s regulatory power or the
object is to obtain a CPCN or any other form authority from the
NTC; while in a complaint proceeding, the object is to subject a
holder of CPCN (or any other NTC authority) or any other
person operating a service or activity, or possessing any
instrument or equipment without any NTC license or permit, to
any penalty or disciplinary measure for violation of any provision
of law, rules or regulations.

As to the nature of the aforementioned NTC proceedings, there is

a need to distinguish between purely administrative proceedings
and quasi-judicial proceedings.

On one hand, a purely administrative proceedings is one which

does not involve the settling of disputes involving conflicting
rights and obligations. It is merely concerned with either: (a)
direct implementation of laws to certain given facts as a
consequence of regulation; or (b) an undertaking to gather facts
needed to pursue a further legal action or remedy in the case of
investigation. In other words, it does not make binding
pronouncements as to a party’s rights and/or obligations as a
result of a conflict or controversy whether legal or factual.
Covered by this type of proceeding is an agency’s grant or denial
of applications, licenses, permits, and contracts which are
executive and administrative in nature.

On the other hand, a quasi-judicial proceeding is the power to

hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative
policy is to apply, and to decide in accordance with the standards
laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the
same law. It involves: (a) taking and evaluating evidence; (b)
determining facts based upon the evidence presented; and (c)
rendering an order or decision supported by the facts proved. In
other words, it involves a determination, with respect to the
matter in controversy, of what the law is, what the legal rights
and obligations of the contending parties are: and based thereon
and the facts obtaining, the adjudication of the respective rights
and obligations of the parties.

In the case of the NTC, the foregoing discussion inevitably leads

to the legal conclusion that application proceedings pertain to
 its purely administrative function while complaint proceedings
pertain to its quasi-judicial function.

Application proceedings involve the NTC’s assessment of an

applicant’s requirement with the object of determining whether a
grant of authorization or permission to undertake a regulated
activity is warranted. Here an applicant is being scrutinized of its
fitness to secure a license. Relatively, complaint proceedings
involve the NTC’s assessment and settling of the contending
parties’ respective rights and obligations in a legal dispute.
Hence, pieces of evidence are weighed and legal arguments are
considered before upholding or revoking a party’s authorization
or permission to undertake a regulated activity. (emphasis and
italics in the original)

As borne by the records, the proceedings in this case indisputably pertain to

Newsnet’s application for the issuance of a certificate of authority to operate a
CATV. Hence, it is purely an administrative proceeding contrary to the assertion of
the NTC that it involves its quasi-judicial function.

Moreover, even if the application proceedings were contradicted by

oppositors, as in this case, the same would not automatically convert the
proceedings to a quasi-judicial one as further elucidated in the above-cited case of
National Telecommunications Commission v. Brancomm Cable and Television
Network Co., viz:

As earlier explained, proceeding related to permit applications

are non-adversarial in nature for there are virtually no contending
parties. Although an administrative agency may entertain
oppositors to an application, such undertaking does not
automatically convert the proceeding to a quasi-judicial one
for a couple of reasons: (a) the subject of application proceedings
pertain only to an applicant’s privilege to engage in a regulated
activity – it does not vest or deprive a party to such proceedings
of any right or legally protected interest; and (b) oppositions to
 applications merely aid an administrative agency’s function in
regulating or assessing an applicant’s legal fitness to hold a
franchise. Besides, the State may choose to require procedures
for reasons other than protection against deprivation of
substantive rights, but in making that choice the State does not
create an independent substantive right. Such procedures are
commonly utilized in aid of purely administrative proceedings
such as permit or license applications when an implementing
agency follows a set of guidelines in evaluating an applicant’s
fitness to possess a franchise.

The NTC, although utilizing procedures that are quasi-judicial in

nature, does not adjudicate right as the end-result involves a grant
or denial of the permit or franchise such as CPCN or a certificate
of authority application. As pointed out earlier, “a license is
merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be
unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority granting it
and the person to whom it is granted; neither is it property or a
property right, nor does it create a vested right.” Since no
adjudication of rights are involved, the NTC’s act of
processing the certificate of authority applications is not a
quasi-judicial act but a purely administration act. (emphasis
supplied)

Even assuming arguendo that application proceedings before the NTC

involve its quasi-judicial function, the Ease of Doing Business Act conferred
jurisdictional functions.

Foremost, in a general context, jurisdiction means “[t]he authority of law to

act officially in a particular matter in hand.” And since only the law can vest or
oust itself of jurisdiction by enacting its own rules of procedure. Instead, an
administrative agency’s jurisdiction is fixed by law and determined by the facts
whether the conditions demonstrated satisfy statutory requirements for the
assumption of jurisdiction.16

16
National Telecommunications Commission v. Brancomm Cable and Television Network Co., G.R. No. 204487,
December 5, 2019.
 In the Anti-Red Tape Act, Section 3 thereof provides that the law “shall
apply to all government offices and agencies including local government units and
government-owned or –controlled corporations that provide frontline services as
defined this Act. Those performing judicial, quasi-judicial and legislative functions
are excluded from the coverage of this Act.”

In the Ease of Doing Business Act, however, the exceptions provided in the
previous law have been removed. Section 3 of the new law states that:

SEC. 3. Coverage. – This Act shall apply to all government

offices and agencies including local government units (LGUs),
government-owned or –controlled corporations and other
government instrumentalities, whether located in the Philippines
or abroad, that provide services covering business and
nonbusiness related transactions as defined in this Act.

On the other hand, Section 4 paragraphs © and (h) of the Ease of Doing Business
Act defines business and nonbusiness related transactions as follows:

SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act, the following

terms are defined as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

(c) Business-related transactions – a set of regulatory

requirements that a business entity must comply with to engage,
operate or continue to operate a business, such as, but not limited
to, collection or preparation of number of documents, submission
to national and local government authorities, approval of
application submitted, and receipt of a formal certificate or
certificates, permits, licenses which include primary and
secondary, clearances and such similar authorization or
documents which confer eligibility to operate or continue to
operate as a legitimate business;

Xxx xxx xxx

 (h) Nonbusiness transactions – all other government transactions
not falling under Section 4(c) of this Act;

It is clear from Section 3 of the Ease of Doing Business Act that it applies
“to all government offices and agencies.” In De Lima v. Guerrero (G.R. No.
229781, October 10, 2017), the word “all” is defined as follows:

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “all” in this manner:

All. Means the whole of – used with a singular noun or

pronoun, and referring to amount, quantitiy, extent, duration,
quality, or degree. The whole number or sum of – used
collectively, with a plural noun or pronoun expressing an
aggregate. Every number of individual component of; each
one of – used with a plural noun. In this sense, all is used
generically and distributively. “All” refers rather to the aggregate
under which the individuals are subsumed than to the individuals
themselves.

Clearly the law says “all cases,” the law means the whole
number of cases, every one and each of the cases. There is no
exception, unless the same or subsequent law expressly grants
an exception. (emphasis supplied)

It is a cardinal rule in statutory construction that when the law is clear,

“there is no room for construction or interpretation. There is only room for
application.”17 As Section 3 of the Ease of Doing Business Act is clear, plain, and
free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without
attempted interpretation. Thus, as it stands, the ARTA’s jurisdiction applies to all
government offices and agencies that provide services covering business and
nonbusiness related transactions, which therefore includes the NTC.

17
Genuino v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 230818, June 15, 2021.