POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Scope
II. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
1. Fixes the administrative operation and
structure of the government;

2. Executes or enforces that which is entrusted to

A. GENERAL PRINICIPLES administrative authorities (all those public
officers and organs of the government charged
with the amplification, application and
Administrative Law execution of the law);

It is a branch of public law fixing the organization 3. Governs public officers and creates
and determines the competence of administrative administrative officers;
authorities and indicates the individual remedies
for the violation of the rights. (Nachura, 2014) 4. Provides remedies to those aggrieved by these
agencies;
All the laws and policies that regulate or control the
administrative organization and operations of the 5. Governs Judicial Review;
government through administrative agencies.
(Agra, 2023) 6. Includes rules, regulations, orders and
decisions made by administrative authorities;
GR: The Revised Administrative Code is the and
principal text that governs this branch of law. The
Code, however, does not cover the military as long 7. Includes the body of judicial doctrines on any of
as it deals with purely military affairs. They are the above. (De Leon, 2010)
governed by the Articles of War.
Classifications
XPN: If it deals with their relationship with the
civilians, still governed by the Administrative Code. As to Source
Law that controls Law made by the
Other institutions excluded administrative administrative
authorities authorities
1. Board of Pardons and Parole; General regulations
2. State Universities and Colleges; and and particular
3. Highly Urbanized Cities (HUCs). determinations;
Constitution, statutes,
constitute under
Administration judicial decisions,
delegations of power
Executive Orders,
embodied in statutory
1. As an institution –It refers to the group or Administrative
administrative law
aggregate of persons in whose hands the reins Orders, etc.
and imposing and
of government are for the time being. constantly expanding
body of law.
2. As a function –It pertains to the execution, in As to Purpose
non-judicial matters, of the law or will of the Adjective or
State as expressed by competent authority. Substantive
Procedural
(Nachura, 2014) Administrative Law
Administrative Law
Establishes the Derived from same
procedure which an sources but contents

340
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,
ELECTION LAW, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
agency must or may are different in that private parties either through adjudication or rule
follow in the pursuit of the law establishes making. (Nachura, 2014)
its legal purpose. primary rights and Manner of creation
duties.
As to Applicability 1. Constitutional provision (e.g., CSC,
General Special/ Particular COMELEC, COA, CHR);
Administrative Law Administrative Law 2. Authority of law; or
Part that is of general 3. Legislative enactment (e.g., POEA, ECC).
Part that pertains to (Nachura, 2014)
nature and common to
particular service;
all, or most,
proceeds from the Interpretation of the Powers of the
administrative
particular statute Administrative Agencies
agencies, chiefly but
creating the individual
not exclusively
agency. Administrative agencies have powers and functions
procedural law.
which may be administrative, investigatory,
Kinds regulatory, quasi-legislative, or quasi-judicial or mix
of the five, as may be conferred by the constitution
1. Statutes setting up administrative authorities; or by the statute. They have in fine only such powers
or authority as are granted or delegated, expressly
2. Body of doctrines and decisions dealing with or impliedly, by law. And in determining whether an
the creation, operation, and effect of agency has certain powers, the inquiry should be
determinations and regulations of such from the law itself. But once ascertained as existing,
administrative authorities; the authority given should be liberally construed.
(Soriano v. MTRCB, G.R. No. 165785, 29 Apr. 2009)
3. Rules, regulations, or orders of such
administrative authorities in pursuance of the Criterion
purposes, for which administrative authorities
were created or endowed; and A body or agency is administrative where its
function is primarily regulatory even if it conducts
e.g., Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor hearings and determines controversies to carry out
Code, circulars of Central Monetary Authority. its regulatory duty. On its rule-making authority, it
is administrative when it does not have discretion
4. Determinations, decisions, and orders of such to determine what the law shall be but merely
administrative authorities in the settlement of prescribes details for the enforcement of the law.
controversies arising in their particular field. (Nachura, 2014)

e.g., Awards of NLRC with respect to money Instrumentality

claims of employees. (Nachura, 2014)
B. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
Definition
It is an organ of the government, other than a court
and the legislature, which affects the rights of
It 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. It
includes regulatory agencies, chartered institutions
and GOCCs. (United Residents of Dominican Hills v.

341
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, G.R.
No. 135945, 07 Mar. 2001)
Nature of an Instrumentality of the National
Government
A government instrumentality may be endowed
with corporate powers and at the same time retain
its classification as a government “instrumentality”
for all other purposes. To qualify as a GOCC, one
must be organized either as a stock or non-stock
corporation. Sec. 3 of the Corporation Code defines
a stock corporation as one whose “capital stock is
divided into shares and authorized to distribute to
the holders of such shares dividends.” (BCDA v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 205466
11 Jan. 2021, J. Hernando)
Agency
It refers to any of the various units of the
government, including a department, bureau, office,
instrumentality, or GOCCs, or a local government or
a distinct unit therein. (Sec. 2, E.O. 292)
Department
An executive department created by law. (Sec. 2(7),
E.O. 292)
Bureau
It is any principal subdivision or unit of any
department. (Sec. 2(8), E.O. 292)
Office
It refers to any major functional unit of a
department or bureau including regional offices. It
may also refer to any position held or occupied by
individual persons, whose functions are defined by
law or regulation. (Sec. 2(9), E.O. 292)
Creation and Abolition of Office
The creation and abolition of public offices is
primarily a legislative function (Eugenio v. CSC, G.R.
No. 115863, 31 Mar. 1995). However, the President
342
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
may abolish an office either from a valid delegation
from Congress, or his inherent duty to faithfully
execute the laws (Biraogo v. Philippine Truth
Commission of 2010, G.R. No. 192935, 07 Dec. 2010).
Reasons for the Creation of Administrative
Agencies
1. Help unclog court dockets;
2. Meet the growing complexities of modern
society; and
3. Help in the regulation of ramified activities
of a developing country.
Elements of a Valid Abolition of Office
1. In good faith (good faith is presumed);
2. Not for political or personal reasons; and
3. Not in violation of law. (Roque v. Ericta, G.R.
No. L-30244, 28 Sept. 1973)
Right to Abolish an Office
GR: The Congress has the right to abolish an office
even during the term for which an existing
incumbent may have been elected.
XPN: When restrained by the Constitution.
Reorganization
Reorganization involves the reduction of personnel,
consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by
reason of economy or redundancy of functions. It
alters the existing structure of government offices
or the units therein, including the lines of control,
authority, and responsibility between them to make
the bureaucracy more responsive to the needs of the
public clientele as authorized by law. (Pan v. Peña
G.R. No. 174244, 13 Feb. 2009)
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,
ELECTION LAW, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Circumstances that May be Considered as
Evidence of Bad Faith in a Removal Pursuant to
Reorganization, Thus Warranting
Reinstatement or Reappointment
1. Where there is a significant increase in the
number of positions in the new staffing pattern
of the department or agency concerned;
2. Where an office is abolished and other
performing substantially the same functions is
created;
3. Where incumbents are replaced by those less
qualified in terms of status of appointment,
performance and merit;
4. Where there is reclassification of offices in the
department or agency concerned and the
classified offices perform substantially the
same function as the original offices; and,
5. Where the removal violates the order of
separation provided in Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 6656.
(Cotiangco v. Province of Biliran, G.R. No.
157139, 19 Oct. 2011)
Q: President Aquino signed E.O. No. 1
establishing the Philippine Truth Commission
(PTC) of 2010, an ad hoc body with the primary
task to investigate reports on graft and
corruption. Biraogo asserts that the PTC is a
public office and not merely an adjunct body of
the Office of the President. Thus, in order that
the President may create a public office he must
be empowered by the Constitution, a statute or
an authorization vested in him by law. He claims
that Sec 31 of the Administrative Code of 1987,
granting the President the continuing authority
to reorganize his office, cannot serve as basis for
the creation of a truth commission considering
the aforesaid provision merely uses verbs such
as reorganize, transfer, consolidate, merge, and
abolish. Insofar as it vests in the President the
plenary power to reorganize the Office of the
President to the extent of creating a public
office, Sec. 31 is inconsistent with the principle
343
of separation of powers enshrined in the
Constitution and must be deemed repealed
upon the effectivity thereof.
a. Does the creation of the PTC fall within
the ambit of the power to reorganize as
expressed in Sec. 31 of the Revised
Administrative Code?
A: NO. Reorganization refers to the reduction of
personnel, consolidation of offices, transfer of any
function and/or agency under the Office of the
President to any other Department or Agency or
vice versa, or abolition thereof by reason of
economy or redundancy of functions. This refers to
situations where a body or an office is already
existent but a modification or alteration thereof has
to be effected. The creation of an office is nowhere
mentioned, much less envisioned in said provision.
To say that the PTC is borne out of a restructuring of
the Office of the President under Sec. 31 is a
misplaced supposition, even in the plainest meaning
attributable to the term “restructure” and
“alteration of an existing structure.” Evidently, the
PTC was not part of the structure of the Office of the
President prior to the enactment of E.O. No. 1.
(Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010,
G.R. No. 192935, 07 Dec. 2010)
b. Is the creation of the PTC justified by the
President’s power of control?
A: NO. Control is essentially the power to alter or
modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate
officer had done in the performance of his duties
and to substitute the judgment of the former with
that of the latter. Clearly, the power of control is
entirely different from the power to create public
offices. The former is inherent in the Executive,
while the latter finds basis from either a valid
delegation from Congress, or his inherent duty to
faithfully execute the laws. (Ibid.)
c. What then could be the justification for
the President’s creation of the PTC?
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
A: The creation of the PTC finds justification under 3.
Sec. 17, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution imposing
upon the President the duty to ensure that the laws
are faithfully executed. The President’s power to
conduct investigations to aid him in ensuring the
faithful execution of laws − in this case, fundamental
laws on public accountability and transparency − is 4.
inherent in the President’s powers as the Chief
Executive. The fact that the authority of the
President to conduct investigations and create
bodies to execute this power is not explicitly
mentioned in the Constitution or in statutes does 5.
not mean that he is bereft of such authority.
The Executive is given much leeway in ensuring that
our laws are faithfully executed. The powers of the
President are not limited to those specific powers
under the Constitution. One of the recognized 6.
powers of the President granted pursuant to this
constitutionally mandated duty is the power to
create ad hoc committees. This flows from the
obvious need to ascertain facts and determine if the
laws have been faithfully executed. It should be
stressed that the purpose of allowing ad hoc
investigating bodies to exist is to allow an inquiry 7.
into matters which the President is entitled to know
so that he can be properly advised and guided in the
performance of his duties relative to the execution
and enforcement of the laws of the land. (Ibid.)
Those set up in situations where the
government performs some business service
for the public;
e.g., PNR, MWSS, NFA, NHA.
Those set up to function in situations where the
government seeks to regulate businesses
imbued with public interest;
e.g., Insurance Commission, LTFRB, NTC.
Those set up to function in situations where the
government seeks under the police power to
regulate private businesses and individuals;
e.g., SEC, MTRCB.
Those agencies set up to function in situations
where the government seeks to adjust
individual controversies because of strong
social policy involved; and
e.g., NLRC, ECC, SEC.
Bodies set up to make the government a private
party. (Nachura, 2014)
e.g., GSIS.

NOTE: The SC, however, declared the creation of C. POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
PTC as unconstitutional for violating the equal
protection clause.

Powers of Administrative Bodies or Agencies

Kinds of Administrative Bodies or Agencies
According to their Purpose
1. Quasi-legislative (rule-making power);
2. Quasi-judicial (adjudicatory power); and
1. Those created to function in situations where
3. Determinative powers. (Nachura, 2014)
the government offers gratuity, grant, or special
privilege;
Administrative Power or Function

e.g., GSIS, SSS, PAO, Bureau of Lands

Involves the regulation and control over the
conduct and affairs of individuals for their own
2. Those set up to function in situations where the
welfare and the promulgation of rules and
government seeks to carry on certain functions
regulations to better carry out the policy of the
of government;
legislature or such as are devolved upon the
administrative agency by the organic law of its
e.g., BIR, BOC, BOI.

344
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,
ELECTION LAW, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
existence. (In re: Rodolfo U. Manzano, A.M. No. 88-7- Legislative vs. Quasi-Legislative Power
1861-RTC, 05 Oct. 1988)
LEGISLATIVE QUASI-LEGISLATIVE
Discretionary vs. Ministerial Power As to what it determines
It determines what the It determines how the
DISCRETIONARY MINISTERIAL law shall be law shall be enforced.
As to definition As to its delegability
The law imposes a duty Cannot be delegated. Can be delegated.
One which is as clear
upon a public officer,
and specific as to leave
and gives him the right Limitations to the Exercise of Quasi-Legislative
no room for the
to decide how or when Power
exercise of discretion
the duty shall be
in its performance
performed. 1. Within the limits of the powers granted to
administrative agencies;
Difference of Functions and Powers of
Administrative Agencies 2. Cannot make rules or regulations which are
inconsistent with the provision of the
Not all administrative agencies perform the same Constitution or statute;
functions or exercise the types of powers. While
some act merely as investigative or advisory bodies, 3. Cannot defeat the purpose of the statute;
most administrative agencies have investigative,
rule-making, and determinative functions, or at 4. May not amend, alter, modify, supplant,
least two of such functions. enlarge, or limit the terms of the statute;
and
1. QUASI-LEGISLATIVE (RULE-MAKING) POWER
5. A rule or regulation must be uniform in
operation, reasonable and not unfair or
Nature
discriminatory.
The exercise of delegated legislative power,
Administrative Rule
involving no discretion as to what the law shall be,
but merely the authority to fix the details in the
Any agency statement of general applicability,
execution or enforcement of a policy set out in the
which implements or interprets a law fixes and
law itself. (Nachura, 2014)
describes procedures in, or practice requirements
of, an agency, including its regulations. The term
It is the power to make rules and regulations which
includes memoranda or statements concerning the
results in delegated legislation that is within the
internal administration or management of an
confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of
agency not affecting the rights of, or procedure
non-delegability and separation of powers. (Holy
available to the public. (Sec. 2(2), E.O. 292)
Spirit Homeowners Association v. Secretary Defensor,
G.R. No. 163980, 03 Aug. 2006 as cited in Nachura,
Source of the Power to Promulgate
2014)
Administrative Rules and Regulations

Derived from the legislature, by virtue of a valid

delegation, either express or implied.

345
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
Doctrine of Subordinate Legislation
Power of administrative agency to promulgate rules
and regulations on matters within their own
specialization.
With the power of subordinate legislation,
administrative bodies may implement the broad
policies laid down in a statute by “filling in” the
details which the Congress may not have the
opportunity or competence to provide. This is
effected by their promulgation of supplementary
regulations, which have the force and effect of law.
(The Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies, Inc.
v. POEA, G.R. No. 114714, 21 Apr. 1995)
Reason Behind the Delegation
It is well established in this jurisdiction that, while
the making of laws is a non-delegable activity that
corresponds exclusively to Congress, nevertheless
the latter may constitutionally delegate authority to
promulgate rules and regulations to implement a
given legislation and effectuate its policies, for the
reason that the legislature often finds it
impracticable (if not impossible) to anticipate and
provide for the multifarious and complex situations
that may be met in carrying the law into effect. All
that is required is that:
1. The regulation should be germane to the
objects and purposes of the law; and
2. That the regulation is not in contradiction
with it but conforms to the standards that
the law prescribes. (People of the
Philippines v. Exconde, G.R. No. L-9820, 30
Aug. 1957)
Q: Respondent was an operator of a domestic air
carrier primarily that of transporting live fish
from Palawan to fish traders. Petitioner is the
government agency responsible for the
governance, implementation, and policy
direction of the Strategic Environment Plan
(SEP) for Palawan pursuant to which A.O. No. 00-
05 was issued. Said Order provided that only
accredited domestic air carriers shall be
346
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
allowed to operate as “common carriers”
licensed under said rule. Respondent assails the
validity of A.O. No. 00-05 on the ground that it
was issued in excess of petitioner’s authority as
an administrative agency. Was respondent’s
contention valid?
A: NO. Petitioner’s issuance of the assailed order
was well within its statutory authority.
Administrative agencies possess two (2) kinds of
powers, the quasi-legislative or rule-making power,
and the quasi-judicial or administrative
adjudicatory power. The first is the power to make
rules and regulations resulting from a valid
delegated legislation that is within the confines of
the granting statute and in accord with the doctrine
of non-delegability and separability of powers. The
second 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. Petitioner had the
explicit authority to fill in the details as to how to
carry out or effectively implement the objectives of
R.A. No. 7611 in protecting and enhancing
Palawan's natural resources consistent with the
SEP. In fact, the petitioner was expressly given the
authority to impose penalties and sanctions in
relation to the implementation of the SEP and the
other provisions of R.A. No. 7611. (The Palawan
Council for Sustainable Development v. Ejercito Lim,
G.R. No. 183173, 24 Aug. 2016)
Q: Redmont filed on 02 Jan. 2007 three (3)
separate petitions for the denial of Petitioner
Narra Nickel's respective Mineral Production
Sharing Agreements (MPSAs) and/or
Exploration Permits (EPs) applications before
the Panel of Arbitrators (POA) of the DENR-
Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB).
Redmont's primary argument was that
petitioners were all controlled by their common
majority stockholder, MBMI Resources, Inc.
(MBMI) - a 100% Canadian-owned corporation -
and, thus, disqualified from being grantees of
MPSAs and/or EPs.
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,
ELECTION LAW, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Meanwhile, Redmont separately sought the
cancellation and/or revocation of the executed
Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement
(FTAA) through a Petition filed before the Office
of the President (OP). Redmont asserted, among
others, that the FTAA was highly anomalous and
irregular, considering that petitioners and their
mother company, MBMI, have a long history of
violating and circumventing the Constitution
and other laws, due to their questionable
activities in the Philippines and abroad. The OP
finding, inter alia, that petitioners
misrepresented that they were Filipino
corporations qualified to engage in mining
activities, cancelled and/or revoked the said
FTAA, and, in turn, gave due course to
Redmont's EP application. On appeal, the CA
affirmed the decision of OP.
Whether the CA correctly affirmed on appeal the
OP's cancellation and/or revocation of the
FTAA?
A: NO. Quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory
power is the power of the administrative agency to
adjudicate the rights of persons before it. The OP’s
cancellation and/or revocation of the FTAA is an
exercise of a contractual right that is purely
administrative in nature, and thus, cannot be
treated as an adjudication. Being a government or
public contract, the FTAA is subject to fundamental
contract principles, one of which is the principle of
mutuality of contracts which would definitely be
violated if one were to accept the view that the OP,
a contracting party, can adjudicate on the contract’s
own validity. Thus absent the OP’s proper exercise
of a quasi-judicial function, the CA had no appellate
jurisdiction over the case, and its Decision is,
perforce, null and void. (Narra Nickel Mining and
Development Corporation v. Redmont Consolidated
Mines Corporation, G.R. No. 202877, 09 Dec. 2015)
Q: The respondent Santos Ventura Hocorma
Foundation, Inc. (SVHFI) is the registered owner
of a parcel of land with an area of 25.5699
hectares under TCT No. 549661-R. On the other
hand, petitioners allegedly farmer-beneficiaries
347
under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) and recipients of Certificates of
Land Ownership Award (CLOA).
The Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO)
of Mabalacat, Pampanga sent a Notice of
Coverage and Field Investigation to SVHFI
informing it that its above-described property
had been identified by the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) as a suitable lot for the
CARP coverage under the compulsory
acquisition scheme. The respondent sent a
letter-protest stating that the property should
be exempted from CARP coverage.
Subsequently, the then DAR Secretary issued an
Order granting the application for exemption of
SVHFI. Upon a review of the records of the
application and its supporting documents, the
DAR Secretary sided with SVHFI and ruled that
the subject property had been reclassified to
purposes other than agricultural prior to 15
June 1988.
Is the subject property owned by herein
respondent exempted from CARP coverage?
A: YES. DAR A.O. No. 6, s. 1994 vests the DAR
Secretary the authority to grant or deny the
issuance of exemption clearances on the basis of
Sec. 3(c) of RA 6657, as amended, and DOJ Opinion
No. 44, s. of 1990. Meanwhile, DOJ Opinion No. 44, s.
of 1990 states that all lands that have already been
classified as commercial, industrial or residential
before 15 June 1988 no longer need any conversion
clearance from the DAR in order to be exempt from
CARP coverage.
To reiterate, factual findings of fact of quasi-judicial
bodies, such as the DAR, which have acquired
expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to
specific matters, are generally accorded not only
great respect but even finality. They are binding
upon this 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 utter disregard
of the evidence on record. (Garcia v. Santos Ventura
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
Hocorma Foundation, Inc., G.R. No. 224831, 15 Sept. or other administrative
2021, J. Hernando) agencies.
(Agra, 2023)
a) KINDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND
REGULATIONS Administrative Issuances According to their
Nature and Substance
Kinds of Administrative Rules and Regulations
1. Legislative Rule – It is in the matter of
DEFINITION EXAMPLE subordinate legislation, designed to
Supplementary implement a primary legislation by
providing the details thereof; and
Providing incentives to
Supplies the details, all government and
2. Interpretative rule – Provides guidelines
implements and private Health
to the law which the administrative agency
supplements the law, Institutions with
is in charge of enforcing. (BPI Leasing v. CA,
and governs the public Breastfeeding
G.R. No. 127624, 18 Nov. 2003)
Practices

Procedural
Outlining the b) REQUISITES FOR VALIDITY
Outlines the
procedure for the
procedures and
disqualification of The following are the requisites for validity:
remedies
nuisance candidates (P-A-Re-N-S)
Contingent
Lowering the National 1. It must be Reasonable;
Determines the 2. Issued under Authority of law;
Tax Allotment of LGUs
existence of a fact 3. Within the Scope and purview of the law;
on the basis of a
which is specified in 4. Publication in the Official Gazette or in a
declaration of an
the law, and newspaper of general circulation, as provided
unmanageable public
operationalizes in Executive Order No. 200; and
sector deficit
Penal
Provides for the Required as a condition precedent to the
conditions and Setting the penalties effectivity of a law to inform the public of the
penalties for the for violation of rules contents of the law or rules and regulations
violation of rules as pursuant to the Fair before their rights and interests are affected
expressly allowed Election Act by the same. (Philippine International Trading
under the law Corporation v. COA, G.R. No. 132593, 25 June
Interpretative 1999)
States the official
position or opinion of Opinions of DOJ and NOTE: If not otherwise required by law, an
the administrative DILG agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or
agency circulate notices of proposed rules and afford
Internal interested parties the opportunity to submit
their views prior to the adoption of any rule.
Governs the
(Sec. 9(1), E.O. 292) (2009, 2000 BAR)
administration and
Circulars of DILG
operations of a
addressed to LGUs XPNs: the following are exempt from the
particular
publication requirement:
administrative agency

348
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,
ELECTION LAW, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
a. Interpretative regulations; Procedural
b. Internal regulations; and Express or Implied Required
c. Letters of instructions. (Tañada v. Tuvera Contingent
G.R. No. L-63915, 29 Dec. 1986) Express Required
Penal
5. Necessity for Notice and hearing. Express Required
Interpretative
GR: An administrative body need not comply Express or Implied Not Required
with the requirements of notice and hearing, in Internal
the performance of its executive or legislative
Express or Implied Not Required
functions, such as issuing rules and
(Agra, 2023)
regulations. (Corona v. United Harbor Pilots
Association of the Philippines, G.R. No. 111963,
Requisites for a Valid Delegation of Quasi-
12 Dec.1997)
Legislative or Rule-Making Power

XPNs: The legislature itself requires it and

1. Completeness Test - The statute is
mandates that the regulation shall be based on
complete in itself, setting forth the policy to
certain facts as determined at an appropriate
be executed by the agency; and
investigation. (Hon. Executive Secretary v.
Southwing Heavy Industries, Inc., G.R. No.
2. Sufficient Standard Test - Statute fixes a
164171, 22 Aug. 2006)
standard, mapping out the boundaries of
the agency’s authority to which it must
An administrative rule in the nature of
conform.
subordinate legislation is designed to
implement a law providing its details, and
A law is complete when it sets forth therein the
before it is adopted there must be a hearing
policy to be executed, carried out or implemented
under the Administrative Code of 1987. Those
by the delegate. It lays down a sufficient standard
which are merely interpretative rules need not
when it provides adequate guidelines or limitations
comply with the hearing requirement. (CIR v.
in the law to map out the boundaries of the
CA, G.R. No. 11976, 26 Aug. 1996)
delegate’s authority and prevent the delegation
from running riot. To be sufficient, the standard
Additional Requisites for Administrative Rules
must specify the limits of the delegate’s authority,
and Regulations with Penal Sanctions
announce the legislative policy, and identify the
conditions under which it is to be implemented.
Requisites to be complied with:
(ABAKADA Guro Party List v. Purisima, G.R. No.
166715, 14 Aug. 2008)
1. Law must declare the act punishable;
2. Law must define or fix the penalty; and
The administrative body may not make rules and
3. Rules must be published in the Official
regulations which are inconsistent with the
Gazette or in a newspaper of general
provisions of the Constitution or a statute,
circulation. (Hon. Secretary Perez v. LPG
particularly the statute it is administering, or which
Refillers Association of the Philippines, G.R.
created it, or which are in derogation of, or defeat,
No. 159149, 26 June 2006)
the purpose of a statute. (Dagan v. Philippine Racing
Commission G.R. No. 175220, 12 Feb. 2009)
GRANT PUBLICATION
Supplementary
Express or Implied Required

349
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
Filing of Copies of Administrative Rules and
Regulations Before the UPLC
Each agency must file with the Office of the National
Administrative Register (ONAR) of the University of
the Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies
of every rule adopted by it. Administrative
issuances which are not published or filed with the
ONAR are ineffective and may not be enforced. (Sec.
3, E.O. 292; GMA v. MTRCB, G.R. No. 148579, 05
Feb.2007)
However, 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. According to the UP Law
Center’s guidelines for receiving and publication of
rules and regulations, “interpretative regulations
and those merely internal in nature, that is,
regulating only the personnel of the administrative
agency and not the public,” need not be filed with
the UP Law Center. (The Board of Trustees of the GSIS
v. Velasco, G.R. No. 170463, 02 Feb. 2011)
Effectivity of Administrative Rules
GR: Administrative rules take effect depending on
the date provided by it.
XPN: If the administrative rule is silent on the
matter of its date of effectivity, it shall take effect
after 15 days following the completion of their
publication.
In the construction of a doubtful and ambiguous
law, the contemporaneous construction of those
who are called upon to act under the law and were
appointed to carry its provisions into effect (i.e., the
practice and interpretive regulations by officers,
administrative agencies, departmental heads, and
other officials charged with the duty of
administering and enforcing a statute), is entitled to
very great respect. (Lim Hoa Ting v. Central Bank of
the Philippines, G.R. No. L-10666, 24 Sept. 1958)
Effect of Administrative Interpretations to
Courts
The construction given to a statute by an
administrative agency charged with the
interpretation and application of that statute should
be accorded great weight by the courts unless such
construction is clearly shown to be in sharp conflict
with the governing statute or the Constitution and
other laws. (Nestle Philippines Inc. v. CA, G.R. No.
86738, 13 Nov. 1991)
Administrative regulations enacted by
administrative agencies to implement and interpret
the law have the force of law and enjoy the
presumption of constitutionality and legality until
they are set aside with finality in an appropriate
case by a competent court. (NASECORE v. MERALCO,
G.R. No. 191150, 10 Oct. 2016)
2. QUASI-JUDICIAL (ADJUDICATORY) POWER

Authority of Administrative Officers
Implement and Interpret the Law
Administrative officers are tasked to implement the
law and authorized to interpret it because they have
the expertise to do so.
Contemporaneous Construction
Definition
to
The power of administrative authorities to make
determinations of facts in the performance of their
official duties and to apply the law as they construe
it to the facts so found. It partakes in the nature of
judicial power but exercised by a person other than
a judge.

The proceedings partake of the character of judicial

The construction placed upon the statute by an
proceedings. Administrative bodies are normally
executive or administrative officer called upon to
granted the authority to promulgate its own rules of
execute or administer such statute. They are usually
procedure, provided they do not increase, diminish,
in the form of circulars, directives, opinions, and
or modify substantive rights, and subject to
rulings.
disapproval by the Supreme Court. (Nachura, 2014)

350
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,
ELECTION LAW, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Unless expressly granted, administrative agencies
are bereft of quasi-judicial powers. The jurisdiction
of administrative agencies is dependent entirely
upon the provisions of the statutes reposing power
in them; they cannot confer it upon themselves.
(Taule v. Santos, G.R. No. 90336, 12 Aug. 1991)
While it is a fundamental rule that an administrative
agency has only such powers that are expressly
granted to it by law, it is likewise a settled rule that
an administrative agency has also such powers as
are necessarily implied in the exercise of its express
powers. (Laguna Lake Development Authority
(LLDA) v. CA, G.R. No. 110120, 16 Mar. 1994)
Q: Petitioners John and Yoko were former
employees of the MTRCB who were found to be
responsible for the falsification of the 2005 CNA
or at least making it appear as a new CNA
covering a different period in order to secure
benefits from the MTRCB and were later
charged for violating civil service rules on
dishonesty, grave misconduct and falsification
of official documents under Sec. 52(A) 1, 3 and 6
of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in
the Civil Service. The Adjudication Committee
ordered the preventive suspension of
petitioners and imposed the penalty of
dismissal from service. Petitioners moved for
reconsideration and questioned the power and
authority of the Adjudication Committee to
impose the penalty of dismissal, but the
committee denied this as it acted and decided
pursuant to the authority of the MTRCB and that
requiring the entire Board to decide the case
lacked statutory basis. Petitioners appealed
first to the Office of the President then to the CSC,
both of which were dismissed. Then on appeal,
the CA affirmed the CSC, hence this petition.
a. Does the Adjudication Committee have
the power or authority to order the
dismissal of the petitioners?
A: NO. The Adjudication Committee had the power
to dismiss petitioners. Sec. 16 of the MTRCB Charter
provides that the MTRCB shall have the power to
351
suspend or dismiss for cause any employee and/or
approve or disapprove the appointment, transfer,
or detail of employees. Further, Sec. 3(j) of P.D. No.
1986 states that the Board can prescribe the
internal and operational procedures for the exercise
of its powers and functions as well as the
performance of its duties and responsibilities,
including the creation and vesting of authority upon
sub-committees of the Board for the work of review
and other related matters. The MTRCB was likewise
authorized to promulgate rules and regulations for
the implementation of P.D. No. 1986 and its
purposes and objectives.
b. Did the petitioners lose their right to
appeal to the CSC when they wrongfully
filed it with the Office of the President?
A: YES. The CSC's jurisdiction over civil service
disputes is settled. Secs. 2(1) and 3 of Art. IX-B of the
1987 Constitution states that the powers of the CSC
as the central personnel agency of the Government,
include having jurisdiction over disputes involving
the removal and separation of all employees of
government branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities, and agencies, including GOCCs
with original charters. It is the sole arbiter of
controversies relating to the civil service. When the
Adjudication Committee rendered a decision
against petitioners, the applicable CSC rule was M.C.
No. 19, as amended by Resolution No. 07-0244.
Following Sec. 43 as amended, petitioners had two
options: (1) appeal to the department head before
appealing to the CSC; or (2) directly file an appeal
with the CSC. It was a mistake for them to appeal the
decision of the Adjudication Committee with the OP
as the MTRCB had its own charter and considered a
department under M.C. No. 19, as amended by
Resolution No. 07-0244, making Laguardia
department head.
In light of the foregoing, the Court agrees with the
CA and the CSC that petitioners could no longer
question the Adjudication Committee's decision as
they have failed to appeal the same in the manner
prescribed by law. The decision has become final
and executory as to them and no court, not even this
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
Court, has the power to revise, review, change or
alter it. (Mina C. Nacilla v. MTRCB, G.R. No. 223449,
10 Nov 2020)
See page 356 for discussion on Administrative
Appeal and Review.
Limited Jurisdiction of Quasi-Judicial Agencies
An administrative body could wield only such
powers as are specifically granted to it by its
enabling statute. Its jurisdiction is interpreted
strictissimi juris.
Conditions for the Proper Exercise of Quasi-
Judicial Power
1. Jurisdiction must be properly acquired by
the administrative body; and
2. Due process must be observed in the
conduct of the proceedings.
Quasi-Judicial Power includes the following
1. Subpoena power
Subpoena is a process directed to a person requiring
him or her to attend and to testify at the hearing or
the trial of an action, or at any investigation
conducted by competent authority, or for the taking
of his deposition. It may also require such person to
bring with him or her any books, documents, or
other things under his or her control, in which case
it is called a subpoena duces tecum. (Sec. 1, Rule 21,
ROC, as amended)
Administrative agencies may enforce subpoenas
issued in the course of investigations, whether or
not adjudication is involved, and whether or not
probable cause is shown and even before the
issuance of a complaint. It is not necessary, as in the
case of a warrant, that a specific charge or complaint
of violation of law be pending or that the order be
made pursuant to one. It is enough that the
investigation be for a lawfully authorized purpose.
The purpose of the subpoena is to discover
evidence, not to prove a pending charge, but upon to
make one if the discovered evidence so justifies.
352
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
(Evangelista v. Jarencio, G.R. No. L-29274, 27 Nov.
1975)
A subpoena meets the requirements for
enforcement if:
a. The inquiry is within the authority of the
agency;
b. The demand is not to indefinite; and
c. The information is reasonably relevant.
(Ibid.)
2. Contempt power
Quasi-judicial agencies that have the power to cite
persons for indirect contempt can only do so by
initiating them in the proper RTC. It is not within
their jurisdiction and competence to decide the
indirect contempt cases. These matters are still
within the province of the RTCs. (Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Listana, G.R. No. 152611, 05 Aug. 2003)
Two (2) ways of Charging a Person with Indirect
Contempt
1. Through a verified petition; or
2. By order or formal charge initiated by the
court motu proprio (Ibid.)
NOTE: In any contested case, the agency
shall have the power to require the
attendance of witnesses or the production
of books, papers, documents and other
pertinent data, upon request of any party
before or during the hearing upon showing
of general relevance. Unless otherwise
provided by law, the agency may, in case of
disobedience, invoke the aid of the RTC
within whose jurisdiction the contested
case being heard falls. The Court may
punish contumacy or refusal as contempt.
(Sec. 13, Chapter 3, Book VII, E.O. No. 292)
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,
ELECTION LAW, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Classifications of Adjudicatory Powers Equitable powers
The power to
DEFINITION EXAMPLES determine the law
Enabling powers upon a particular state
Power to appoint a
Permits the doing of an of facts that has the
receiver, power to
act which the law right to, and must,
issue injunctions
undertakes to regulate, consider and make
and which would be proper application of
Issuance of licenses to
unlawful without the rules of equity
engage in a particular
governmental orders. Examining powers
business
It is characterized by Issuance of subpoena.
This is also called as
the grant or denial of
investigatory power.
permit or NOTE: Power to Issue
Requires production of
authorization Subpoena Not Inherent
books, papers, etc., and
Directing powers in Administrative
the attendance of
Public utility Bodies. (Sec.
witnesses and
commissions, powers Evangelista v. Hon.
compelling the
of assessment under Jarencio, G.R. No. L-
testimony.
the revenue laws, 29274, 27 Nov. 1975)
Orders the doing or
reparations under
performing of
public utility laws, and a) ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS
particular acts to
awards under
ensure the compliance
workmen’s Nature of Administrative Proceedings
with the law and are
compensation laws,
often exercised for
and powers of abstract It is summary in nature.
corrective purposes
determination such as
definition-valuation, Inapplicability of Technical Rules of Procedure
classification and fact and Evidence in Administrative Proceedings
finding
Dispensing powers The technical rules of procedure and of evidence
Authority of zoning prevailing in courts of law and equity are not
boards to vary controlling in administrative proceedings to free
Exempt from or relax a provisions of zoning administrative boards or agencies from the
general prohibition, or ordinances, or the compulsion of technical rules so that the mere
authority to relieve authority of the admission of matter which would be deemed
from an affirmative Acceptance Board of incompetent in judicial proceedings would not
duty the Philippine Army to invalidate an administrative order.
relieve certain persons
from military training Cardinal Requirements of Due Process in
Summary powers Administrative Proceedings (1994 BAR)
Apply compulsion or
force against person or 1. Right to a hearing which includes the right to
Abatement of nuisance, present one’s case and submit evidence in
property to effectuate
summary restraint, support thereof;
a legal purpose
levy of property of
without a judicial
delinquent taxpayers 2. The tribunal must consider the evidence
warrant to authorize
such action presented;

353
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
3. The decision must be supported by evidence; Necessity of Notice and Hearing

4. Such evidence must be substantial;
5. The decision must be rendered on the evidence
presented at the hearing or at least contained in
the record, and disclosed to the parties affected;
6. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must
act on its own independent consideration of the
law and facts of the controversy in arriving at a
decision; and,
7. The board or body should render a decision in
such a manner that parties can know the
various issues involved and the reasons for the
decision rendered. (Ang Tibay v. CIR, G.R. No. L-
46496, 27 Feb. 1940)
A hearing may take place after the deprivation
occurs. What the law prohibits is not the absence of
previous notice but the absolute absence thereof
and the lack of opportunity to be heard.
NOTE: There has been no denial of due process if
any irregularity in the premature issuance of the
assailed decision has been remedied by an order
giving the petitioners the right to participate in the
hearing of the MR. The opportunity granted by,
technically, allowing petitioners to finally be able to
file their comment in the case, resolves the
procedural irregularity previously inflicted upon
petitioners. (Nasecore v. ERC, G.R. No. 190795, 06 July
2011)

NOTE: 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 the parties are given the
opportunity to be heard before judgment is
rendered, the demands of due process are
sufficiently met. What is offensive to due process is
the denial of the opportunity to be heard. (Flores v.
Montemayor, G.R. No. 170146, 06 June 2011)

Trial-type Hearing Not Required

Due process in an administrative context does not

require trial-type proceedings similar to those in
courts of justice. Where opportunity to be heard
either through oral arguments or through pleadings
is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due
process. The requirements are satisfied where the
parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity
to explain their side of the controversy at hand. It is
not violative of due process when an administrative
agency resolves cases based solely on position
papers, affidavits, or documentary evidence
submitted by the parties as affidavits of witnesses
which may take the place of their direct testimony.
(Lastimoso v. Asayo, G.R. No. 154243, 04 Dec. 2007)

354
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,
ELECTION LAW, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Effect of Non-Observance of Notice and Hearing
As a rule, it will invalidate the administrative
proceedings. A failure to comply with the
requirements may result in a failure to acquire
jurisdiction.
NOTE: Right to notice may be waived.
XPNs to the Requirement of Notice and Hearing
1. Urgency of immediate action;
2. Tentativeness of administrative action;
3. Grant or revocation of licenses or permits
to operate certain businesses affecting
public order or morals;
4. Summary abatement of nuisance per se
which affects safety of persons or property;
5. Preventive suspension of public officer or
employee facing administrative charges;
6. Cancellation of a passport of a person
sought for criminal prosecution;
7. Summary proceedings of distraint and levy
upon property of a delinquent taxpayer;
8. Replacement of a temporary or acting
appointee; and,
9. Right was previously offered but not
claimed.
Inapplicability of the Right to Counsel in
Administrative Inquiries
The right to counsel which may not be waived,
unless in writing and in the presence of counsel, as
recognized by the Constitution, is a right of a suspect
in a custodial investigation. It is not an absolute
right and may, thus, be invoked or rejected in
criminal proceeding and, with more reason, in an
355
administrative inquiry. (Lumiqued v. Exevea, G.R No.
117565, 18 Nov. 1997)
Quantum of Proof Required in Administrative
Proceedings
Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.
Q: The PMC released funds for “CCIE allowance”
to enlisted personnel in active duty. To cover
these, checks were issued by way of cash
advances, for which various documents were
submitted. Upon investigations, it was revealed
that the PMC enlisted personnel never received
their CCIE allowance, and contrary to the normal
procedure, the proceeds were released to
Jandayan, the Assistant Chief of Staff for
Personnel, instead of the disbursing officer.
FFIB-MOLEO filed an administrative and
criminal affidavit-complaint before the
Ombudsman, charging Jandayan and others for
Malversation through falsification of public
documents, Dishonesty, Violation of COA rules
and regulations, and Violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A.
No. 3019, showing conspiracy in the commission
of irregularities in the release of the CCIE funds,
with Jandayan being held liable for issuing a
roster of troops and disbursement vouchers
certifying that the expenses were necessary,
lawful, and incurred under his direct
supervision.
Will the complaint prosper?
A: YES. While Jandayan's act of signing the roster of
troops and disbursement voucher might seem
innocuous on its own, if taken together with the acts
of his co-respondents, it shows a common criminal
goal to defraud the government. Consequently, a
reasonable mind will accept that Jandayan and his
co-respondents were acting with one aim, with each
one performing one part, and all their parts
completing their aim, which was to make it appear
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
that funds were distributed to PMC personnel when,
in reality, they were not so.
Citing Field Investigation Office of the Office of the
Ombudsman v. Castillo (G.R. No. 221848, 30 Aug.
2016), “a public office is a public trust and public
officers and employees must at all times be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act
with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”
Jandayan signed a roster of troops and
disbursement voucher to support the liquidation of
the cash advance. He received the funds although he
had no authority to do so. Worse, he failed to show
where the money went. His acts, taken together
with that of his co-respondents show an utter
disregard of the trust reposed in him as a public
officer and for which he should be held liable. (FFIB-
MOLEO v. Major Jandayan, G.R. No. 218155, 22 Sept
2020)
b) ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL AND REVIEW
Administrative Appeal
It includes the review by a higher agency of
decisions rendered by an administrative agency,
commenced by petition of an interested party.
NOTE: Under E.O. 292, administrative appeals from
a final decision of an agency are taken to the
Department Head, unless otherwise provided by
law or executive order.
Administrative Review
A superior officer or department head, upon his or
her own volition, may review the decision of an
administrative agency or that of a subordinate’s
decision pursuant to the power of control.
It is, however, subject to the caveat that a final and
executory decision is not included within the power
of control, and hence can no longer be altered by
administrative review.
356
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
Different Kinds of Administrative Appeal and
Review
1. Inheres in the relation of administrative
superior to administrative subordinate;
2. Statutes which provide for determination
to be made by a particular officer or body
subject to appeal, review or
redetermination by another officer or body
in the same agency or in the same
administrative system;
3. 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;
4. The 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
subject to a rehearing by the commission;
5. The statute provides for an appeal to an
officer on an appeal to the head of the
department or agency; and,
6. Statutes which provide for appeal at the
highest level namely, the president. (De
Leon, 2010)
Enforcement of Administrative Decisions
1. As provided for by law; or
2. Through the court’s intervention.
c) ADMINISTRATIVE RES JUDICATA
Doctrine of Res Judicata is Not Applicable to
Purely Administrative Functions
The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial
or quasi-judicial proceedings and not to the exercise
of purely administrative functions. Administrative
proceedings are non-litigious and summary in
nature. Hence, res judicata does not apply. (Nasipit
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,
ELECTION LAW, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Lumber Company, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 54424, 31
Aug. 1989)
In administrative law, a quasi-judicial proceeding
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. The exercise of
quasi-judicial functions 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.
(Ligtas v. People, G.R. No. 200751, 17 Aug. 2015)
Two Concepts of Res Judicata
2. It must have been rendered by a court
having jurisdiction over the subject matter
and the parties;
3. The disposition of the case must be a
judgment on the merits; and
4. There must be identity of parties, subject
matter, and causes of action (Ibid.)
NOTE: Should identity of parties, subject matter,
and causes of action be shown in the two cases, then
res judicata in its aspect as a “bar by prior judgment”
would apply. If as between the two cases, only
identity of parties can be shown, but not identical
causes of action, then res judicata as
“conclusiveness of judgment” applies. (Ibid.)

1. Bar by previous judgment XPNs to the Non-Applicability of Res Judicata in

Administrative Proceedings
There is “bar by previous judgment” when, as
between the first case where the judgment was 1. Naturalization proceedings or those
rendered and the second case that is sought to be involving citizenship and immigration;
barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, 2. Labor relations; and
and causes of action. In this instance, the judgment 3. Decisions affecting family relations,
in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the personal status or condition, and capacity
second action. (Ligtas v. People, G.R. No. 200751, 17 of persons.
Aug. 2015)
NOTE: It is well settled that findings of fact of quasi-
2. Conclusiveness of judgment judicial agencies, such as COA, are generally
accorded respect and even finality by this Court, if
If a particular point or question is in issue in the supported by substantial evidence, in recognition of
second action, and the judgment will depend on the their expertise on the specific matters under their
determination of that particular point or question, a jurisdiction. (Reyna v. COA, G.R. No. 167219, 08 Feb.
former judgment between the same parties will be 2011)
final and conclusive in the second if that same point
or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first Quasi-Legislative vs. Quasi-Judicial power
suit. Identity of cause of action is not required but
merely identity of issue. (Ibid.) QUASI-JUDICIAL QUASI-LEGISLATIVE
As to grant
Elements of Res Judicata Express Express or Implied
As to parties involved
1. The judgment sought to bar the new action Particular All / Sectors
must be final; As to whether adversarial or not
Yes No
As to existence of controversy
Exists None

357
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
As to prior notice and hearing requirement 4. Factual findings not supported by
Not required unless evidence;
Required law required; radical 5. Grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, or
change capriciousness is manifest;
As to applicability of Doctrine of Primary 6. When expressly allowed by statute; and,
Jurisdiction / Exhaustion of Remedies 7. Error in appreciation of the pleadings and
Not applicable; judicial in the interpretation of the documentary
Applicable evidence presented by the parties. (Ngei
review at first instance
As to its operation Multi-Purpose Cooperative Inc. v. Filipinas
Past or Present Future Palm Oil Plantation, Inc., G.R. No. 184950, 11
As to publication requirement Oct. 2012)
Not required Depends on type
As to applicability of res judicata Fact-Finding Quasi-Judicial Body
Applicable Not applicable
A fact-finding quasi-judicial body (e.g., LTFRB)
(Agra, 2023)
whose decisions (on questions regarding certificate
of public convenience) are influenced not only by
3. FACT-FINDING, INVESTIGATIVE, LICENSING, the facts as disclosed by the evidence in the case
AND RATE-FIXING POWERS before it but also by the reports of its field agents
and inspectors that are periodically submitted to it,
FACT-FINDING POWER has the power to take into consideration the result
of its own observation and investigation of the
Fact-Finding Power matter submitted to it for decision, in connection
with other evidence presented at the hearing of the
1. Power to declare the existence of facts case. (Pantranco South Express, Inc. v Board of
which call into operation the provisions of Transportation, G.R. No. L-49664, 22 Nov. 1990)
a statute; and
INVESTIGATIVE POWER
2. Power to ascertain and determine
appropriate facts as a basis for procedure Investigative Power
in the enforcement of particular laws.
Power to inspect, secure, or require the disclosure
NOTE: The mere fact that an officer is required by of information by means of accounts, records,
law to inquire the existence of certain facts and to reports, statements, and testimony of witnesses. It
apply the law thereto in order to determine what his is implied and not inherent in administrative
official conduct shall be and the fact that these acts agencies. (Secretary of Justice v. Hon. Lantion, G.R.
may affect private rights do not constitute an No. 139465, 18 Jan. 2000)
exercise of judicial powers. (Lovina v. Moreno, G.R.
No. L-17821, 21 Nov. 1963) Power to Issue Subpoena Not Inherent in
Administrative Bodies
XPNs to the Rule that Findings of Facts of
Administrative Agencies are Binding on the Administrative bodies may summon witnesses and
Courts require the production of evidence only when duly
allowed by law, and always only in connection with
1. Findings are vitiated by fraud, imposition, the matter they are authorized to investigate.
or collusion; (Secretary Evangelista v. Hon. Jarencio, G.R. No. L-
2. Procedure which led to factual findings is 29274, 27 Nov. 1975)
irregular;
3. Palpable errors are committed;

358
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,
ELECTION LAW, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Power to Cite a Person in Contempt not Inherent
in Administrative Bodies
It must be expressly conferred upon the body, and
additionally, must be used only in connection with
its quasi-judicial as distinguished from its purely
administrative or routinary functions. (In Re
Contempt Proceedings against Armando Ramos v.
Ramos, G.R. No. L-17778, 30 Nov. 1962)
NOTE: If there is no express grant, the agency must
invoke the aid of the RTC under Rule 71 of the ROC.
Q: May administrative agencies issue warrants
of arrest or administrative searches?
A: GR: NO. Under the 1987 Constitution, only a
judge may issue warrants.
XPN: In cases of deportation of illegal and desirable
aliens, an arrest ordered by the President or his duly
authorized representatives, to carry out a final
decision of deportation, is valid. (Salazar v.
Achacoso, G.R. No. 81510, 14 Mar. 1990)
LICENSING POWER
Licensing Power
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. (Sañado v. CA, G.R. No.
108338, 17 Apr. 2007)
License
Includes the whole or any part of any agency’s
permit, certificate, passport, clearance, approval,
registration, charter, membership, statutory
exemption or other form of permission, or
regulation of the exercise of a right or privilege. (Sec.
2(10), Book VII, E.O. 292)
359
Licensing
It includes agency process involving the grant,
renewal, denial, revocation, suspension, annulment,
withdrawal, limitation, amendment, modification,
or conditioning of a license. (Sec. 2(11), Book VII, E.O.
292)
NOTE: Except in cases of willful violation of
pertinent laws, rules and regulations or when public
security, health, or safety requires otherwise, no
license may be withdrawn, suspended, revoked or
annulled without notice and hearing. (Sec. 17(2),
Book VII, E.O. No. 292)
Nature of an Administrative Agency’s Act if it is
Empowered by a Statute to Revoke a License for
Non-Compliance or Violation of Agency
Regulations
Where a statute empowers an agency to revoke a
license for non-compliance with or violation of
agency regulations, the administrative act is of a
judicial nature, since it depends upon the
ascertainment of the existence of certain past or
present facts upon which a decision is to be made
and rights and liabilities determined. (Sañado v. CA,
supra.)
RATE-FIXING POWERS
Rate-fixing power
It is the power usually delegated by the legislature
to administrative agencies for the latter to fix the
rates which public utility companies may charge the
public. (Philippine Communications Satelliter
Corporation v. Alcuaz, G.R. No. 84818, 18 Dec. 1989)
NOTE: The power to fix rates is essentially
legislative but may be delegated. (Philippine Inter-
Island v. CA, G.R. No. 100481, 22 Jan. 1997)
The legislature may directly provide for these rates,
wages, or prices. But while the legislature may deal
directly with these subjects, it has been found more
advantageous to place the performance of these
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
functions in some administrative agency. The need
for dispatch, for flexibility and technical know-how
is better met by entrusting the rate-fixing to an
agency other than the legislature itself. (Cortes,
1963)
Rate
It means any charge to the public for a service open
to all and upon the same terms, including individual
or joint rates, tolls, classification, or schedules
thereof, as well as communication, mileage,
kilometrage and other special rates which shall be
imposed by law or regulation to be observed and
followed by a person. (Sec. 2(3), Book VII, E.O. No.
292)
Rate-Fixing Procedure
Standard Required on Delegated Power to Fix
Rates
It is required that the rate be reasonable and just.
(American Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents, G.R. No.
L-26803, 14 Oct. 1975)
In any case, the rates must both be non-confiscatory
and must have been established in the manner
prescribed by the legislature. Even in the absence of
an express requirement as to reasonableness, this
standard may be implied. A rate-fixing order,
though temporary or provisional it may be, is not
exempt from the procedural requirements of notice
and hearing when prescribed by statute, as well as
the requirement of reasonableness. (Philippine
Communications Satellite Corporation v. NTC, G.R.
No. 84818, 18 Dec. 1989)

The administrative agencies perform this function Redelegating Power to Fix Rates is Prohibited
either by issuing rules and regulations in the
exercise of their quasi-legislative power or by The power delegated to an administrative agency to
issuing orders affecting a specified person in the fix rates cannot, in the absence of a law authorizing
exercise of its quasi-judicial power. it, be delegated to another. This is expressed in the
maxim, potestas delagata non delegari potest.
NOTE: In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order (Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center v. Garcia, Jr., G.R.
shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall have No. 115381, 23 Dec. 1994)
been published in a newspaper of general
circulation at least two (2) weeks before the first POWER TO FIX POWER TO FIX RATE
hearing thereon. (Sec. 9(2), Book VII, E.O. No. 292) RATES EXERCISED EXERCISED AS A
(2009, 2000 BAR) AS A LEGISLATIVE QUASI-JUDICIAL
FUNCTION FUNCTION
Requirements for the Delegation of the Power to As to the applicability of Rules and Rates
Ascertain Facts to be Valid Rules and/or rates laid Rules and the rate
down are meant to imposed apply
The law delegating the power to determine some apply to all exclusively to a
facts or state of things upon which the law may take enterprises. particular party.
effect, or its operation suspended must provide the As to the notice and hearing requirement
standard, fix the limits within which the discretion Prior notice and
may be exercised, and define the conditions GR: Prior notice and hearing are essential to
therefor. Absent these requirements, the law and hearing to the affected the validity of such
the rules issued thereunder are void, the former parties is not a rates. But an
being an undue delegation of legislative power and requirement. administrative agency
the latter being the exercise of rulemaking without may be empowered by
legal basis. (U.S. v. Ang Tang Ho, G.R. No. L-17122, 27 XPN: where the law to approve
Feb. 1992) legislature itself provisionally, when
requires it. demanded by urgent
public need, rates of

360
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,
ELECTION LAW, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
public utilities without if determination of the issue is left to the
a hearing. administrative body.

Instances Where the Doctrine Finds No

D. JUDICIAL RECOURSE AND REVIEW Application

1. By the court's determination, the

legislature did not intend that the issues be
1. DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY ADMINISTRATIVE left solely to the initial determination of the
JURISDICTION administrative body;
2. The issues involve purely questions of law;
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction or Doctrine of and
Prior Resort
3. Courts and administrative bodies have
Under the principle of primary jurisdiction, courts concurrent jurisdiction.
cannot or will not determine a controversy
involving question within the jurisdiction of an XPNs to the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction:
administrative body prior to the decision of that (M-I-L-D D-I-E-S Quo P-O)
question by the administrative tribunal where the:
1. Where there is unreasonable Delay or
1. Question demands administrative official inaction that will irretrievably
determination requiring special prejudice the complainant;
knowledge, experience, and services of the
administrative tribunal; 2. Where the challenged administrative act is
patently Illegal, amounting to lack of
2. Question requires determination of jurisdiction;
technical and intricate issues of a fact; or
3. Where there is Estoppel on the part of the
3. Uniformity of ruling is essential to comply party invoking the doctrine;
with purposes of the regulatory statute
administered. 4. Where the amount involved is relatively
Small so as to make the rule impractical and
NOTE: In such instances, relief must first be oppressive;
obtained in administrative proceeding before a
remedy will be supplied by the courts even though 5. Where the question involved is purely
the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a Legal and will ultimately have to be decided
court. The judicial process is accordingly suspended by the courts of justice;
pending referral of the claim to the administrative
agency for its view. 6. Where judicial Intervention is urgent;

Rationale 7. When its application may cause great and

irreparable Damage;
1. To take full advantage of administrative
expertness; and 8. When the issue of non-exhaustion of
2. To attain uniformity of application of administrative remedies has been
regulatory laws which can be secured only rendered Moot;

361
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
9. When there is no Other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy;
10. When strong Public Interest is involved;
11. Where the controverted acts violate Due
process;
12. In Quo warranto proceedings. (The
Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction
and Development Corp., G.R. Nos. 197592 &
202623, 27 Nov. 2013)
Raising the Issue of Primary Jurisdiction
The court may motu proprio raise the issue of
primary jurisdiction and its invocation cannot be
waived by the failure of the parties to argue it, as the
doctrine exists for the proper distribution of power
between judicial and administrative bodies and not
for the convenience of the parties. In such case the
court may:
1. Suspend the judicial process pending
referral of such issues to the administrative
body for its review; or
2. If the parties would not be unfairly
disadvantaged, dismiss the case without
prejudice. (Euro-Med Laboratories Phil. v.
Province of Batangas, G.R No. 148106, 17
July 2006)
Applicability of the Doctrine of Primary
Jurisdiction
In recent years, it has been the jurisprudential trend
to apply this doctrine to cases involving matters that
demand the special competence of administrative
agencies even if the question involved is also judicial
in character. 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.
362
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
(Villaflor v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95694, 9 Oct.
1997)
Q: A civil case for the collection of sum of money
was filed by X Company against the province of
Batangas before the RTC. After the petitioner’s
presentation of evidence, the province of
Batangas moved for the dismissal of the case on
the ground that it is the Commission on Audit
which has primary jurisdiction over the matter
for it involves transactions with the province
which was governed by the Local Government
Code provisions and COA rules and regulations
on supply and property management in local
governments. Is the contention of the province
of Batangas correct?
A: YES. It is the COA and not the RTC which has
primary jurisdiction to pass upon petitioner’s
money claim against respondent local government
unit. Such jurisdiction may not be waived by the
parties’ failure to argue the issue nor active
participation in the proceedings. The doctrine of
primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that
its determination requires the expertise, specialized
training and knowledge of an administrative body,
relief must first be obtained in an administrative
proceeding before resort to the courts is had even if
the matter may well be within their proper
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 agency. In such a
case, the court in which the claim is sought to be
enforced may suspend the judicial process pending
referral of such issues to the administrative body for
its view or, if the parties would not be unfairly
disadvantaged, dismiss the case without prejudice.
(Euro-Med Laboratories Phil. Inc. v. Province of
Batangas, G.R. No. 148106, 17 July 2006)
Q: Petitioner university contracted the services
of Stern Builders Corporation for the
construction and renovation of its buildings in
UP Los Banos. In an action filed by Stern Builder
against petitioner, the RTC rendered a favorable
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,
ELECTION LAW, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
judgment and granted the motion for execution authorize the claimant to elevate the matter to the
filed therewith by Stern Builders. Consequently, Supreme Court on certiorari and in effect, sue the
the sheriff served notices of garnishment on the State thereby. (University of the Philippines v. Dizon,
petitioner’s depository banks. Petitioner filed G.R. No. 171182, 23 Aug. 2012)
an urgent motion to quash the notices of
garnishment; and a motion to quash the writ of 2. DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF
execution on the ground that government funds ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
and properties could not be seized by virtue of
writs of execution or garnishment except in
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative
pursuance of an appropriation law or other
Remedies
specific statutory authority. However, RTC,
through respondent Judge, authorized the
It calls for resorting first to the appropriate
release of the garnished funds of petitioner. CA
administrative authorities in the resolution of a
upheld RTC’s judgment and the issuance of the
controversy falling under their jurisdiction. Such an
writ of garnishment of petitioner’s funds. Was
administrative decision must first be appealed to
the appellate court correct in sustaining RTC’s
the administrative superiors up to the highest level
jurisdiction to issue the writ of garnishment
before the same may be elevated to the courts of
against petitioner?
justice for review.

A: NO. The CA erred in ruling that petitioner’s funds

Premature invocation of court intervention is fatal
could be the proper subject of a writ of execution or
to one’s cause of action. Exhaustion of
garnishment. The settlement of the monetary claim
administrative remedies is a prerequisite for
was still subject to the primary jurisdiction of the
judicial review; it is a condition precedent which
COA despite the final decision of the RTC having
must be complied with.
already validated the claim. The funds of petitioner
are government funds that are public in character,
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
including any interest accruing from the deposit of
remedies is based on practical and legal reasons.
such funds in any banking institution, which
The availment of administrative remedy entails
constitute a "special trust fund," the disbursement
lesser expenses and provides for a speedier
of which should always be subject to auditing by the
disposition of controversies. Furthermore, the
COA. As such, the private claimants had no
courts of justice, for reasons of comity and
alternative except to first seek the approval of the
convenience, will shy away from a dispute until the
COA of their monetary claim. Trial judges should not
system of administrative redress has been
immediately issue writs of execution or
completed and complied with, so as to give the
garnishment against the Government or any of its
administrative agency concerned every opportunity
subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities to
to correct its error and dispose of the case.
enforce money judgments. It is settled
jurisprudence that upon determination of State
Rationale
liability, the prosecution, enforcement or
satisfaction thereof must still be pursued in
1. To enable the administrative superiors to
accordance with the rules and procedures laid down
correct the errors committed by their
in P.D. No. 1445, otherwise known as the
subordinates;
Government Auditing Code of the Philippines which
pertains to COA’s primary jurisdiction to examine,
2. Courts should refrain from disturbing the
audit and settle all claims of any sort due from the
findings of administrative bodies in deference
Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies and
to the doctrine of separation of powers;
instrumentalities. Rejection of the claim will

363
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
3. Courts should not be saddled with the review of
administrative cases;
4. Judicial review of administrative cases is
usually effected through special civil actions
which are available only if there is no other
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy; and,
5. To avail of administrative remedy entails lesser
expenses and provides for a speedier
disposition of controversies. (Maglalang v.
PAGCOR, G.R. No. 190566, 11 Dec. 2013)
XPNs to the Application of the Doctrine (1991,
2000, 2004 BAR): (D-I-E-P-A-I-L-R-U-N-M-U-N-
Q)
1. Violation of Due process;
2. When there is irreparable Injury;
3. When there is Estoppel on the part of the
administrative agency concerned;
4. When the subject matter is a Private land case
proceedings;
5. When the respondent is a Department
Secretary who acts as an Alter ego of the
President bears the implied and assumed
approval of the latter;
6. When the administrative action is patently
Illegal amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction;
7. When the issue involved is a purely Legal
question;
8. When the rule does not provide a plain, speedy,
and adequate Remedy;
9. When it would be Unreasonable;
10. When No administrative review is provided by
law;
364
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
11. When the issue of non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies has been rendered
Moot;
12. When there are circumstances indicating the
Urgency of judicial intervention;
13. When it would amount to a Nullification of a
claim; and
14. Where the rule on Qualified political agency
applies. (Laguna CATV Network v. Maraan, G.R.
No. 139492, 19 Nov 2002)
Effect of Non-Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies
Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies does not affect the
jurisdiction of the Court. The only effect of non-
compliance with this rule is that it will deprive the
complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground
for a motion to dismiss. If not invoked at the proper
time, this ground is deemed waived, and the court
can take cognizance of the case and try it. (Republic
v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 112708-09, 29 Mar.
1996)
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies,
Fraudulent Qualifying Eligibility as a Public
School Teacher
The general rule is that before a party may seek the
intervention of the court, he should first avail of all
the means afforded him by administrative
processes. The issues which administrative
agencies are authorized to decide should not be
summarily taken from them and submitted to a
court without first giving such administrative
agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after
due deliberation. While under Sec. 26 of RA 7836,
incumbent teachers without examination were
originally only allowed to apply for registration
within two years from the organization of the Board,
BPT Resolution 600-1997 extended the period of
registration for those teachers to 19 Sept. 2000.
Failure to register by 19 Sept. 2000, shall forfeit
their privilege to practice the teaching profession
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,
ELECTION LAW, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
for abandonment of responsibility. Clearly,
respondents, in the case at bar, had until 19 Sept.
2000 to comply with the mandatory requirement to
register as professional teachers. As respondents
are categorized as those not qualified to register
without examination, the law requires them to
register by taking and passing the licensure
examination. (Professional Regulation Commission v.
Alo, G.R. No. 214435, 14 Feb. 2022, J. Hernando)
Q: Alicia Water District (ALWAD), a GOCC that
operates water utility services conducted a
public hearing for the purpose of increasing the
water rate. Subsequently, they received a letter
from the Local Water Utilities Administration
(LWUA) confirming the proposed water rates.
ALWAD issued a resolution implementing a
water rate increase of ₱90 for the first ten cubic
meters of water consumption. Because of this,
consumers filed a Petition for Injunction against
the petitioner before the RTC alleging that
ALWAD violated LOI 700 by implementing a rate
increase greater than 60% of current rate and
failing to conduct public hearing for the imposed
rate of ₱90. ALWAD filed a Motion to Dismiss on
the ground of failure to exhaust administrative
remedies under PD 198 as amended. One of the
respondents then questioned the legality of the
water rate increase before the National Water
Resources Board (NWRB). RTC denied ALWAD’s
Motion to Dismiss. On appeal, CA affirmed the
RTC. Does RTC have jurisdiction over the
matter?
A: YES. The failure to exhaust administrative
remedy does not affect RTC’s jurisdiction. Non-
exhaustion of administrative remedies only renders
the action premature, that the cause of action is not
ripe for judicial determination. It is incumbent upon
the party who has an administrative remedy to
pursue the same to its appropriate conclusion
before seeking judicial intervention. Although the
doctrine of exhaustion does not preclude in all cases
a party from seeking judicial relief, cases where its
observance has been disregarded require a strong
showing of the inadequacy of the prescribed
365
procedure and of impending harm. (Merida Water
District v. Bacarro, G.R. No. 165993, 30 Sept. 2008)
Q: Deputy Ombudsman Katerina Sanchez was
dismissed by the Office of the President (OP) on
the ground of betrayal of public trust and a
disciplinary proceeding against Special
Prosecutor Miranda Ramos is pending before
the OP. For this reason, Sanchez and Ramos
challenged the constitutionality of Sec. 8(2) of
R.A. No. 6770 or The Ombudsman Act of 1989
regarding the President’s disciplinary
jurisdiction over a deputy ombudsman and a
special prosecutor. The Supreme Court
rendered its decision upholding the
constitutionality of the said law and ordered the
reinstatement of Sanchez. As regards Ramos, the
Court ruled that the disciplinary proceeding
against her should be continued because Sec.
8(2) of R.A. No. 6770 is not unconstitutional.
Only the OP, through the OSG moved for the
reconsideration of the Court’s ruling. What then
is the effect of the absence of motion for
reconsideration on the part of Sanchez and
Ramos?
A: NONE. The omission of the filing of a motion for
reconsideration poses no obstacle for the Court’s
review of its ruling on the whole case since a serious
constitutional question has been raised and is one of
the underlying bases for the validity or invalidity of
the presidential action. If the President does not
have any constitutional authority to discipline a
Deputy Ombudsman and/or a Special Prosecutor in
the first place, then any ruling on the legal
correctness of the OP’s decision on the merits will
be an empty one. In other words, since the validity
of the OP’s decision on the merits of the dismissal is
inextricably anchored on the final and correct ruling
on the constitutional issue, the whole case –
including the constitutional issue – remains alive for
the Court’s consideration on motion for
reconsideration. (Emilio A. Gonzales III v. Office of
the President/Wendell Bareras-Sulit v. Atty. Paquito
N. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 196231 and 196232, 28 Jan.
2014)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
Q: M was appointed as City Government
Department Head II of the CPDO, as issued by
then Mayor G and approved by the Civil Service
Commission. Eventually, M was appointed by
Mayor G as City Government Department Head
II of the CBO. It was a lateral transfer.
Mayor P was subsequently elected and
appointed B to M's former position as
Department Head II of the CPDO. The CSC
disapproved of M's appointment in the CBO due
to a discrepancy in the appointment dates.
Hence, M was informed that her services would
be terminated. Will mandamus lie to compel
reinstatement of M as Department Head of the
CPDO?
A: NO. Sec. 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court sets forth
the circumstances which warrant the issuance of a
writ of mandamus:
SEC. 3. Petition for mandamus. - When any
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust, or station, or
unlawfully excludes another from the use and
enjoyment of a right or office to which such
other is entitled, xxx
The writ of mandamus shall only issue to compel the
performance of a ministerial act, or "one in which an
officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts,
in a prescribed manner, in obedience to a mandate
of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise
of his own judgment upon the propriety or
impropriety of an act done." Mandamus will not lie
to compel the performance of a discretionary act.
As Sec. 13, Rule VI of the Omnibus Rules does not
apply given that M’s transfer is a lateral transfer, M's
reinstatement thereto constitutes a discretionary
act which cannot be compelled through a writ of
mandamus. (Marey Marzan v. City Government of
Olongapo, G.R. No. 232769, 3 Nov 2020)
366
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
Q: Can hospitals be reimbursed at all times by
the PHIC despite filing or processing of claims
beyond the period permitted by law.
A: NO. The denial of a hospital’s claims was justified
since the hospital actively employed means or
methods to recruit cataract patients under
conditions which are prohibited in Circular No. 19,
series of 2007. As per the case above, even if the
surgeries or treatments were strictly not performed
during a medical mission, it appeared that the
cataract patients were actively recruited by USHH.
PHIC clearly demonstrated that USHH indeed
violated Circular Nos. 17 and 19, series of 2007
which would justify the denial of its reimbursement
claims. USHH and its personnel/affiliates actively
recruited cataract patients in violation of the said
circulars. The hospital failed to disprove that it
employed "seekers" in order to gather patients for
the free cataract screening who in turn sought
treatments in USHH by using their PhilHealth
benefits, whether as members or beneficiaries
(Philippine Health Insurance Corporation V.
Urdaneta Sacred Heart Hospital, G.R. No. 214485, 11
Jan. 2021, J. Hernando).
Q: The Intramuros Administration (IA) is a
government agency created under P.D. 1616 on
April 10, 1979. Under its charter, it is mandated
to undertake the orderly restoration and
development of Intramuros as a monument to
the Hispanic Period of the Philippine
history. Under the administration of Henson, IA
held a public bidding for the construction of
three (3) houses in Plaza San Luis Cultural
Commercial Complex. Three bidders
participated in the bidding. All their bids,
however, exceeded the Agency Approved
Estimate (AAE) of the project. But because of
time constraints and to avoid the possible
reversion of the funds intended for the project,
the Bidding and Awards Committee (BAC) of IA
opted not to conduct a second bidding, and
instead, negotiated with the lowest bidder,
Argus Development Corporation to reduce its
bid to P13,187,162.90. Argus agreed on the
condition that IA would supply construction
materials in the amount of not less than
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,
ELECTION LAW, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
P3,391,000.00 and that the architectural details Neither can Henson claim that there was no
would be downgraded. Argus completed the negligence or bad faith on her part considering that
project and was paid a total of P18,001,977.77. there were blatant violations of the rules on public
A COA audit team was created to conduct a post- bidding, which as Administrator she should have
inspection of the project and a re-examination of been aware of. (Henson v. COA, G.R. No. 230185, 07
related documents in view of the inherent and July 2020, J. Hernando)
hidden defects in the construction of the project.
A Notice of Disallowance was issued disallowing Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction vs. Doctrine of
the amount of P2,328,186.00. Held liable were Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Henson for approving the payment and
Alcantara, Chief of Urban Planning and DOCTRINE OF
DOCTRINE OF
Community Development Office, for certifying EXHAUSTION OF
PRIMARY
the legality of the expenses which were incurred ADMINISTRATIVE
JURISDICTION
under his supervision. Henson invoked her right REMEDIES
to due process, for failure of COA-CP to promptly Relationship Between the Court and Admin
resolve her case within the prescribed period Agencies
under the Constitution as it took COA-CP Both deal with the proper relationships between
thirteen (13) years before finally deciding the the courts and administrative agencies.
case. She insists that she should not be held Jurisdiction
liable for the disallowed amounts considering Case is within the
that she merely relied on the findings of those concurrent jurisdiction
under her and the expertise of those in-charge. of the court and an
She also averred that she should not be held Claim is cognizable in
administrative agency,
liable in the absence of negligence or bad faith the first instance by an
but the determination
on her part. The Director of the NGAO held that administrative agency
of the case requires the
Henson’s arguments are without merit and alone.
technical expertise of
concluded that she is liable under the Notice of the administrative
Disallowance. Was the decision correct? agency.
Judicial Inference
A: YES. The essence of due process is simply the Although the matter is
opportunity to be heard, or to explain one's side, or within the jurisdiction Judicial interference is
to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling of the court, it must withheld until the
complained of. Thus, as long as the party was yield to the jurisdiction administrative process
afforded the opportunity to defend himself/herself, of the administrative has been completed.
there is due process. Here, Henson was not denied agency.
due process as she was able to exhaust all legal
remedies available to her and that she was informed NOTE: The general rule is that before a party may
of the basis of the disallowance. As to the length of seek the intervention of the court, he should first
time that the case was pending before COA-CP, this avail of all the means afforded him by
does not in any way affect the validity of the Notice administrative processes. The issues which
of Disallowance. administrative agencies are authorized to decide
should not be summarily taken from them and
Unlike in Arias v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 81563 submitted to a court without first giving such
and 82512, 19 Dec. 1989), Henson was the administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of
Administrator when the public bidding was the same after due deliberation. (Republic v. Lacap,
conducted up to the time when the payment was G.R. No. 158253, 02 Mar. 2007)
issued to Argus. Hence, she cannot evade liability.

367
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
Q: Danilo A. Lihaylihay identified himself as an
informant under R.A. No. 2338. He sent two (2)
letters to the former head of the BIR-PCGG Task
Force concerning information on former
President Marcos' ill-gotten wealth. Further,
Lihaylihay wrote to then Department of Finance
Secretary Margarito B. Teves and Treasurer of
the Philippines Roberto C. Tan demanding his
entitlement to 25% informer's reward. Without
waiting for Secretary Teves' and Treasurer
Tan's official actions on his letters, Lihaylihay
filed a Petition for Mandamus and Damages, in
which he insisted on his entitlement to
informer's rewards. Is the filing of the petition
proper?
A: NO. The availability of a more basic recourse
ahead of a Petition for Mandamus before this Court
similarly demonstrates that petitioner failed to
exhaust administrative remedies. Under the
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies,
recourse through court action cannot prosper until
after all such administrative remedies have first
been exhausted. Non-observance of the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies results in
lack of cause of action. (Lihaylihay v. Tan, G.R. No,
192223, 23 July 2018)
In cases involving specialized disputes, the practice
has been to refer the same to an administrative
agency of special competence in observance of the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The Court has
ratiocinated that it 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, and a uniformity of ruling
is essential to comply with the premises of the
regulatory statute administered. The objective of
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide a
court in determining whether it should refrain from
exercising its jurisdiction until after an
administrative agency has determined some
368
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
question. (Danilo A. Lihaylihay v. Treasurer of the
Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 192223, 23 July 2018)
Instances Where the Doctrine Finds No
Application
1. Grant of relief to preserve the status quo
pending further action by the
administrative agency;
2. Essential to the protection of the rights
asserted from the injuries threatened;
3. Administrative officer assumes to act in
violation of the Constitution and other
laws;
4. Order is not reviewable in any other way
and the complainant will suffer great and
obvious damage if the order is carried out;
5. Interlocutory order affects the merits of a
controversy;
6. Order made in excess of power, contrary to
specific prohibition in the statute
governing the agency and thus operating as
a deprivation of a right assured by the
statute; and
7. When review is allowed by statutory
provisions.
Judicial Review
It involves the re-examination or determination by
the courts in the exercise of their judicial power in
an appropriate case instituted by a party aggrieved
thereby as to whether the questioned act, rule, or
decision has been validly or invalidly issued or
whether the same should be nullified, affirmed, or
modified. (Alliance for the Family Foundation
Philippines, Inc. v. Hon. Garin, G.R. No. 217872, 26
Apr. 2017)
NOTE: The mere silence of the law does not
necessarily imply that judicial review is unavailable.
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,
ELECTION LAW, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Requisites of Judicial Review of Administrative
Action
1. Principle of finality of administrative
action - Administrative action must have
been completed; (Cosmos Bottling Corp. v.
Nagrama, G.R. No. 164403, 04 Mar. 2008)
and
2. Principle of exhaustion of administrative
remedies - Administrative remedies must
have been exhausted. (Maglalang v.
Philippine Amusement and Gaming
Corporation, G.R. No. 190566, 11 Dec. 2013)
Limitations on Judicial Review
1. Final and executory decisions cannot be
made the subject of judicial review;
2. Administrative acts involving a political
question are beyond judicial review, except
when there is an allegation that there has
been grave abuse of discretion; and
3. Courts are generally bound by the findings
of fact of an administrative agency.
(Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Hon. Aquino III, G.R.
No. 210500, 2 Apr. 2019)
NOTE: Courts will not render a decree in advance of
administrative action. Such action would be
rendered nugatory. (Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Hon.
Aquino III, G.R. No. 210500, 2 Apr. 2019)
It is not for the court to stop an administrative
officer from performing his statutory duty for fear
that he will perform it wrongly.
Q: Orais filed with the Office of the Ombudsman
a Complaint for corruption and grave
misconduct against his superior, Dr. Almirante,
for the anomalies committed using her position
as Veterinary Quarantine Officer-Seaport. The
Office of the Ombudsman ruled in favor of
Almirante, and it ordered that the case be
dismissed for lack of substantial basis. The CA
369
held that decisions of the Ombudsman in cases
absolving the respondent of the charge are
deemed final and unappealable, pursuant to the
Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
Ombudsman. Is the CA correct?
A: YES. Where the respondent is absolved of the
charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty
imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension
of not more than one (1) month, or a fine equivalent
to one (1)-month salary, the Ombudsman’s decision
shall be final, executory, and unappealable.
However, these decisions of administrative
agencies by law are still “subject to judicial review if
they fail the test of arbitrariness, or upon proof of
grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law, or
when such administrative or quasi-judicial bodies
grossly misappreciate evidence of such nature as to
compel a contrary conclusion, the Court will not
hesitate to reverse the factual findings.” However,
the exception does not apply in this case (Orais v.
Almirante, G.R. No. 181195, 10 June 2013).
Doctrine of Ripeness for Review (2001 BAR)
It is similar to that of exhaustion of administrative
remedies except that it applies to the rule-making
power and to administrative action which is
embodied neither in rules and regulations nor in
adjudication or final order. (Kilusang Mayo Uno v.
Aquino III, G.R. No. 210500, 02 April 2019)
Purposes of the Doctrine of Ripeness of Review
1. To prevent the courts, through avoidance of
premature adjudication, from entangling
themselves in abstract disagreements over
administrative policies; and
2. To protect the agencies from judicial
interference until an administrative
decision has been formalized and its effects
felt in a concrete way by the challenging
parties. (Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner,
387 U.S. 136, 1967)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
Application of the Doctrine of Ripeness of power to review all decisions on questions of
Review law. (Ibid.)

1. When the interest of the plaintiff is
subjected to or imminently threatened with
substantial injury;
2. If the statute is self-executing;
3. When a party is immediately confronted
with the problem of complying or violating
a statute and there is a risk of criminal
penalties; or
1. Mixed (law and fact) – When there is a mixed
question of law and fact and the court cannot
separate the elements to see clearly what and
where the mistake of law is, such question is
treated as question of fact for purposes of
review and the courts will not ordinarily review
the decision of the administrative tribunal.
(Metro Rail Transit Development Corporation v.
Gammon Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 200401, 17
Jan. 2018)

4. When plaintiff is harmed by the vagueness 3. DOCTRINE OF FINALITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE

of the statute. ACTION

Tests to Determine Whether a Controversy is

The Doctrine of finality of conclusive action or the
Ripe for Adjudication
doctrine of conclusive finality is the comity that
courts extend to the executive branch and the
1. Fitness of the issue for judicial decision;
recognition of the expertise of administrative
and
agencies in dealing with particular questions of fact.
2. Hardship to the parties of withholding
Simply put, the appellate court may defer to the
court consideration. (Abbott Laboratories v.
factual findings of the administrative agency due to
Gardner, supra.)
comity. (Tañada and Carreon, 1962)

Questions Reviewable by the Courts

GR: Decision of an administrative agency must be
final before Judicial Review. (Agra, 2023)
1. Questions of fact
XPNs:
GR: Courts will not disturb the findings of
1. Interlocutory orders;
administrative agencies acting within the
2. Protect rights;
parameters of their own competence, special
3. Violate Constitution; and
knowledge, expertise, and experience. The
4. Excessive use of power. (Ibid.)
courts ordinarily accord respect if not finality to
factual findings of administrative tribunals.
(Tongonan Holdings and Development
Corporation v. Atty. Escana, Jr., G.R. No. 190994,
07 Sept. 2011)

XPN: If findings are not supported by

substantial evidence.

2. Questions of Law – Administrative decisions

may be appealed to the courts independently of
legislative permission. It may be appealed even
against legislative prohibition because the
judiciary cannot be deprived of its inherent

370
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES