Law 53133o

PHILIPPINE ISTRATIVE LAW By Carlo L. Cruz Chapter 1 General Considerations Nature istrative Law – that branch of modern law under which the executive department of the government, acting in a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity, interferes with the conduct of the individual for the purpose of promoting the well-being of the community. istrative law is a recent development , being a consequence of the ever increasing complexities of society and the proliferation of problems of government that cannot readily or effectively be addressed by the public agencies or solved by other disciplines of public law. It was felt that thelegislative and judicial departments no longer had either the time or the needed expertise to attend to these new problems. Thus, the obvious solution was delegation of power. Two major powers of the istrative agency: 1. Quasi-legislative authority– or rule making power 2. Quasi-judicial power – or adjudicatory function

Sources of istrative Law Addministrative law is derived from four sources or is of four (4) kinds: 1. Constitution or statutory enactments – e.g. Social Security Act which established the Social Security Commission. 2. Decisions of courts interpreting the charters of istrative bodies

3. Rules and regulations issued by the istrative bodies – e.g. Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. 4. Determinations and orders of the istrative bodies in the settlement of controversies

istration istration is understood in two senses: 1. institution – istration as the aggregate of individuals in whose hands the reins of government are for the time being. 2. function – istration as the actual running of the government by the executive authorities through the enforcement of laws and implementation of policies. Government (as distinguished from istration) is the agency or instrumentality through which the will of the State is formulated, expressed and realized. istration Distinguished from Law Law is impersonal command provided with sanctions to be applied in case of violation, while istration is preventive rather punitive and is accepted to be more personal than law. Law maintains a watchful eye on those who would violate its order. While istration on the other hand seeks to spare individuals from punishments of the law by persuading him to observe its commands.

Chapter 2 istrative Agencies Definition istrative agency – a body endowed with quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers for the purpose of enabling it to carry out the laws entrusted to it for enforcement or execution.

istrative agency may be regarded as an arm of the legislature insofar as it is authorize to promulgate rules. It may also be loosely considered a court because it performs functions of a particular judicial character, as when it decides factual and sometimes even legal questions as an incident of its general power of regulation. Creation and Abolition The istrative body may be created by the Constitution or by a Statute. If created by the Constitution itself, the istrative body can be altered or abolished only by Constitution. But where the body was created only by statute, the legislature that breathed life into it can amend or even repeal its charter, thereby resulting in its abolition which is justified if made in good faith.

Chapter 3 Powers of istrative Agencies Quasi-Legislative Power – the authority delegated by the law-making body to the istrative body to adopt rules and regulations intended to carry out the provisions of a law and implement legislative policy. Quasi-Judicial Power – the power of the istrative 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.

Chapter 4 The Quasi-Legislative Power It has already been remarked that the rule-making power of the istrative body is intended to enable it to implement the policy of the law and to provide for the more effective enforcement of its provisions. Through the exercise of this power of subordinate legislation, it is possible for the istrative body to transmit the “active power of the

state from its source to the point of application,” that is, apply the law and so fulfill the mandate of the legislature. Kinds of istrative Regulations (a) Legislative – the istrative agency is acting in a legislative capacity, supplementing the statute, filling in the details, or “making the law”, and usually acting pursuant to a specific delegation of legislative power. (b) Interpretative – are those which purport to do no more than interpret the statute being istered, to say what it means. They constitute the 's construction of a statute. The interpretative regulation is issued by the istrative body as an incident to its power to enforce the law and is intended merely to clarify its provisions for proper observance by the people. It is an elementary rule in istrative law that istrative regulations and policies enacted by istrative bodies to interpret which they are entrusted to enforce, have the force of law, are entitled to great respect, and have in their favor a presumpption of legality. By contrast, the legislative regulation is issued by the istrative body pursuant to a valid delegation of legislative power and is intended to have the binding the force and effect of a law enacted by the legislature itself. Classification of Legislative Regulation (a) Supplementary – intended to fill in the details of the law and “to make explicit what is only general.” (b) Contingent – issued upon the happening of a certain contingency which the istrative body is given the discretion to determine or to ascertain some circumstances and on the basis thereof may enforce or suspend the operation of a law. Requisites of istrative Regulation (a) Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature; (b) It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature;

(c) It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure; (d) It must be reasonable. First Requisite: Promulgation Must Be Authorized by the Legislature Authority to promulgate the regulation is usually conferred by the Charter itself of the istrative body or by the law it is supposed to enforce. When Congress authorizes promulgation of istrative rules and regulations to implement given legislation, all that is required is that the regulation be not in contravention with it, but to conform to the standards that the law prescribes. Second Requisite: Regulation Must Be Within the Scope of the Authority Given by the Legislature Assuming a valid authorization, it is still necessary that the regulation promulgated must not be ultra vires or beyond the authority conferred. Third Requisite: Regulation Must Be Promulgated in Accordance with the Prescribed Procedure As in the enactment of laws, the promulgation of istrative regulations of general application does not require previous notice and hearing, the only exception being where the legislature itself requires it . In the absence of such a requirement, the istrative body can promulgate the regulation in its exclusive discretion. But where the regulation is in effect a settlement of a controversy between specific parties, it is considered an istrative adjudication and so will require notice and hearing. As for publication, the applicable rule is now found in Executive Order No. 200 which provides that laws “shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided.” Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the istrative agency and not the public, need not be published.

Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the law. The Supreme Court, it would seem, requires publication of the istrative regulation only if it is of general application and penal in nature. Fourth Requisite: Regulation Must Be Reasonable Like statutes, istrative regulations promulgated thereunder must not be unreasonable or arbitrary as to violate due process. Penal Regulations The power to define and punish crime is exclusively legislative and may not be delegated to the istrative authorities. While istrative regulations may have the force and effect of law, their violation cannot give rise to criminal prosecution unless the legislature makes such violation punishable and imposes the corresponding sanctions. Special requisites of a valid istrative regulation with a penal sanction: (a) The law itself must make violation of the istrative regulation punishable; (b) The law itself must impose and specify the penalty for the violation of the regulation; (c) The regulation must be published. Construction and Interpretation Regulation should be read in harmony with the statute and not in violation of the authority conferred on the istrative authorities. The istrative regulation that contravenes the statute is, of course, invalid. Enforcement It is established that the power to promulgate istrative regulations carries with it the implied power to enforce them. This may be effected through judicial action or through sanctions that the statute itself may allow the istrative body to impose.

Amendment or Repeal Like the statute, the istrative regulation promulgated thereunder is subject to amendment or repeal by the authorities that promulgated them in the first place. Of course, it may be changed directly by the legislature.

Chapter 5 The Quasi-Judicial Power Quasi-judicial power – is the power of the istrative agency to determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply, in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself. The proper exercise of the quasi-judicial power requires compliance with two conditions, to wit: (1) Jurisdiction must be properly acquired by the istrative body (2) Due process must be observed in the conduct of the proceedings A. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction – may be simply defined as the competence of an office or body to act on a given matter or decide a certain question. Without jurisdiction, the determination made by the istrative bodies are absolutely null and without any legal effect whatsoever. It is the legislature that has the power to confer jurisdiction upon the istrative body and so limit or expand its authority. It can be said that each istrative body has its own peculiar jurisdiction as conferred upon it by the specific provisions of its charter. The law may allow some istrative bodies to award certain kinds of damages while denying the same power, for no apparent reason, to other istrative bodies.

For example, the SEC and NLRC are allowed to award damages virtually to the same extent as a court of justice. Yet similar authority has not been conferred by its charter to NTC. It is a well-settled principle that unless expressly empowered, istrative agencies are bereft of quasi-judicial power. 1. Rules of Procedure Where an istrative body is expressly granted the power of adjudication, it is deemed also vested with the implied power to precribe the rules to be observed in the conduct of its proceedings. But to be valid, the rules must not violate fundamental rights or encroach upon constitutional prerogatives. 2. The Subpoena Power The power to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum is not inherent in istrative bodies. It is settled that istrative bodies may summon witnesses and require the production of evidence only when duly allowed by law, and always only in connection with the matter they are authorized to investigate. Unless otherwise provided by law, the agency may, in case of disobedience, invoke the aid or Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case falls. The Court may punish customacy or refusal as contempt. The Supreme Court distinguished between the power to “investigate” and the power to “adjudicate:” “The purpose of investigation, of course, is to discover, to finnd out, to learn, obtain information. Nowhere included or intimated is the notion of settling, deciding or resolving a controversy involve in the facts inquired into by application of the law x x. In the legal sense, “adjudicate” means to settle in the exercise of judicial authority x x. “Adjudge” x x implies a judicial determination of a fact, and the entry of judgment.” 3. The Contempt Power

Like the subpoena power, the power to punish for contempt is essentially judicial and cannot be claimed as an inherent right by the istrative body. To be validly exercised, 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 istrative or routinary functions. As a rule, where, say, a subpoena of the istrative body is disregarded, the person summoned may not be directly discipline by that body. The proper remedy id for the istrative body to seek assistance of the courts of justice for the enforcement of its order. The power to hold in contempt must be exercised not on the vindictive, but on the preservative principle. B. Notice and Hearing The right to notice and hearing is essential to due process and its nonobservance will as a rule invalidate the istrative proceedings. Persons are entitled to be notified of any pending case affecting their interests so that, if they are minded, they may claim the right to appear therein and present their side or refute the position of opposing parties. Nevertheless, there are instances when notice and hearing can validly be omitted. Among the justifications for such omissions are the urgency of immediate action (which does not preclude the enjoyment of the right at a later time without prejudice to the person affected) and the fact that the right had previously been offered but not claimed. 1. istrative Due Process While istrative determinations of contested case are by their nature judicial, there is no requirement for strict adherence to technical rules as are observed in truly judicial proceedings. It is a general rule that they are unrestricted by the technical or formal rules of procedure which govern trials before a court. This rule is applied to questions of evidence, pleading and other matters. Nevertheless, it is essential that due process must be observed, for the requirements of fair play are not applicable to judicial proceedings only.

Cardinal rights or principles to be observed in istrative proceedings: a. the first of these rights is the right to a hearing; b. the tribunal must consider the evidence presented; c. the tribunal must have something to its decision; d. evidence must be substantial evidence – relevant evidence that a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to a conclusion e. the decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties; f. the court must act on its or their own independent consideration of the law and facts of controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision; g. the court should render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered It is basic to due process that the tribunal considering the istrative question be impartial, to ensure a fair decision. The law does not require another notice and hearing for a review of the decision of the board. In M.F. Violago Oiler Tank Trucks vs. NLRC, there was no denial of due process where the petitioners received notice of the scheduled investigation the day before said date of the hearing or investigation but failed to present evidence. On the other hand, there was clearly such a denial where it appears that a decision rendered against a person who was not a party to or even notified of the proceedings taken before a labor arbiter. C. istrative Appeals and review Unless otherwise provided by law or executive order, an appeal from a final decision of the istrative agency may be taken to the department head, whose decision may further be brought to the regular courts of justice, in accordance with the procedure specified by law.

D. Enforcement of Decision In the absence of any statute providing for the enforcement of an istrative determination, the same cannot be enforced except possibly by appeal to the force of public opinion. Usually, however, the istrative body is allowed certain sanctions that it may impose directly for the enforcement of its own decisions, i.e. revocation of or refusal to renew licenses, destruction of unlawful articles, summary closure of stores, refusal to grant clearances, issuance of cease and desist orders, detention and deportation of aliens, and imposition of fines. Significantly, many istrative bodies, such as the SEC and the NLRC, have been vested with authority to grant provisional reliefs, such as writs of preliminary attachment or injunction, intended to ensure the enforcement of their adjudications. It is established that istrative agencies who have not been conferred the power to enforce their quasi-judicial decisions may invoke court action for the purpose. E. Res Judicata The general rule is that an istrative decision is not considered res judicata so as to preclude its subsequent reconsideration or revocation. Decisions of the previous incumbents of the istrative body may be modified or reversed by their successors in the exercise of their own powers of adjudication. Where the istrative decision has been affirmed by a court decision, the doctrine of res judicata is applicable. The effect of res judicata attaches to the judgment of the reviewing court rather than to the istrative judgment. This rule has however been modified in this jurisdiction. It is now well-settled in our jurisprudence that the decisions and orders of istrative agencies, rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority, have upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata.

This principle is, however, not applicable to all istrative proceedings, such proceedings that are non-litigious and summary in nature without regard to legal technicalities obtaining in courts of law.

Chapter 6 Judicial Review General Rules An istrative decision may be appealed to the courts of justice only if the Constitution or the law permits it or if the question to be reviewed is a question of law. However, jurisprudence is replete with cases where the Supreme Court has applied the exceptions rather than the rule. In the case of the constitutional commission, i.e., the Commission on Elections, the Commission on Audit, and the Civil Service Commission, it is provided that “any decision order or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof.” On the basis of Sec. 16 of the Interim Rules and Guideline implementing Sec. 9 (3) of BP Blg. 129, the Court of Appeals may “review final decisions, orders, awards or resolutions or regional trial courts and of all quasi-judicial bodies, except the Commission on Elections, the Commission on Audit, the Sandiganbayan, and decisions issued under the Labor Code of the Philippines and by the Central Board of Assessment Appeals.” Other appeals are prescribed by special laws, such as RA No. 1125, providing for appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals of any decision rendered by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs, or any provincial or city board of assessment appeals. Methods of review The methods of judicial review are prescribed by the Constitution, statutes or the Rules of the Court. These methods may be specific or general.

It is provided in RA No. 5434 that an appeal from a final award, order or decisions of the Patent Office shall be taken by filing with said body and with the Court of Appeals a notice of appeal within 15 days from notice of such award, order or ruling, copies being served on all interested parties. The istrative Code generally provides that an appeal from an agency decision shall be perfected by filing with the agency within 15 days from receipt of a copy thereof a notice of appeal, and with the reviewing court a petition for review of the order. Copies of the petition shall be served upon the agency and all parties of record. The petition shall contain a concise statement of the issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review, and shall be accompanied with a true copy of the order appealed from, together with copies of such material portions of the records as are referred to therein and other ing papers. The Supreme Court instructed certain universally accepted axioms governing judicial review through the extraordinary actions of certiorari or prohibition of determinations of istrative officers or agencies: First, before said actions may be entertained, it must be shown that all the istrative remedies prescribed by law or ordinance have been exhausted; and, Second, that the istrative decision may properly be annulled or set aside only upon a clear showing that the istrative official or tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with a grave abuse of discretion. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction or Prior Resort There are two doctrines that must be considered in connection with the judicial review of istrative decisions:(1) doctrine of primary jurisdiction or prior resort; and (2) the doctrine of exhaustion of istrative remedies. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction simply calls for the determination of istrative questions, which ordinarily questions of fact, by istrative agencies rather courts of justice. If the case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of the proper istrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of facts are involved,

then relief must first be obtained in an istrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of the court Doctrine of Exhaustion of istrative Remedies Under the doctrine of exhaustion of istrative remedies, an istrative decision must first be appealed to the istrative superior up to the highest level before it may be elevated to a court of justice for review. A. Reasons (1) The istrative superiors, if given the opportunity, can correct the errors committed by their subordinates; (2) Courts should as much as possible refrain from disturbing the findings of istrative bodies in deference to the doctrine of separation of powers; (3) On practical grounds, it is best that the courts should not be saddled with the review of istrative cases; (4) Judicial review of istrative cases is usually effected through the special civil actions of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition, which are available only if there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. B. Exceptions (1) When the question raised is purely legal (question of law is involved); (2) When the istrative body is estoppel; (3) When the act complained of is patently illegal; (4) When there is urgent need for judicial intervention; (5) When the claim involved is small; (6) When irreparable damage will be suffered; (7) When there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;

(8) When strong public interest is involved; (9) When the subject of the controversy is private land; (10)In quo warranto proceedings C. Appeal to the President Of special interest is the question of whether or not a decision of the cabinet member has to be appealed first to the President before it may be brought to a court of justice. Jurisprudence on this matter is rather indecisive. In the early case of demaisip vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that appeal to the President was not necessary because the Cabinet member was after all his alter ego and, under the doctrine of qualified political agency, the acts of the secretary were the acts of the President. This view was abandoned in Calo vs. Fuertes, where it was held that appeal to the President was the final step in the istrative process and therefore a condition precedent to appeal to the courts. In Bartulata vs. Peralta, however, the court reinstated the Demaisip doctrine, again on the basis of alter ego justification. Tan vs. Director of Forestry, thereafter revived Calo andagain required appeal to the President as a prerequisite to an appeal of a Cabinet member's decision to the courts of Justice. D. Effect of Non-compliance The failure to exhaust istrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of the court and merely results in the lack of a cause of action which may be invoked in a motion to dismiss. If this ground to dismiss the court action is not properly or reasonably invoked, the court may proceed to hear the case. As previously noted, the court has the discretion to require the observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of istrative remedies and may, if it sees fit, dispense with it and proceed with the disposition of the case. Questions Reviewable

Two kinds of questions are reviewable by the courts of justice, to wit: the question of fact and the question of law. On the question of fact, review of the istrative decision lies in the discretion of the legislature, which may or may not permit it as it sees fit. But when it comes to the question of law, the istrative decision may be appealed to the courts of justice independently of legislative permission or even against legislative prohibition. The reason is that the judiciary cannot be deprived of its inherent power to review all decisions on questions of law, whether made initially by lower courts and more so by an istrative body. A. Questions of fact Even if allowed to review istrative decisions on questions of fact, courts of justice generally defer to such decisions and will decline to disturb them except only where there is a clear showing of arbitrariness or grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court ruled in Osias Academy vs. DOLE that “findings of istrative agencies which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but finality.” B. Questions of Law istrative bodies may be allowed to resolve questions of law in the exercise of their quasi-judicial function as an incident of their primary power of regulation. However as a rule, it is only the judicial tribunal that can interpret and decide the question of law with finality.