You are on page 1of 16

Admin Law Reviewer

1. Primary Jurisdiction

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its determination requires the
expertise, specialized training and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies, relief must first be
obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy is supplied by the courts even if the matter
may well be within their proper jurisdiction.

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction


o Where both the court and administrative agency have jurisdiction, the court will yield to the
administrative agency
o Rational: It is designed to define a situation when the court should refer the matter to the agency
for an initial determination as it: may involve issues of fact beyond the conventional experience
and expertise of judges; and may require the exercise of administrative discretion.
o Conditions for ripeness for judicial review of administrative actions:
1. The administrative action has already been fully completed and therefore, it is a final agency
action;
2. All administrative remedies have been exhausted.
o Courts will not determine a controversy involving a question, which is within the jurisdiction of
an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound
administrative discretion requiring special knowledge, experience and service.

Meralco vs. ERB


- Validity of the action instituted by Meralco through the Court without allowing ERB to
complete its fact finding investigation in the action filed by Mr. Ty
- Principles: Doctrine of primary jurisdiction and principle of administrative remedies

Acebedo Case:

What is sought by petitioner from respondent City Mayor is a permit to engage in the business of running
an optical shop. It does not purport to seek a license to engage in the practice of optometry. The objective
of the imposition of subject conditions on petitioner's business permit could be attained by requiring the
optometrists in petitioner's employ to produce a valid certificate of registration as optometrist, from the
Board of Examiners in Optometry. A business permit is issued primarily to regulate the conduct of
business and the City Mayor cannot, through the issuance of such permit, regulate the practice of a
profession.

Such a function is within the exclusive domain of the administrative agency specifically empowered by
law to supervise the profession, in this case the Professional Regulations Commission and the Board of
Examiners in Optometry.

2. Citizenship requirement of Candidate


Admin Law Reviewer

Poe-Llamanzares v COMELEC:

Whether or not Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares is a natural-born Filipino citizen.

Yes. Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares may be considered a natural-born Filipino.

It ruled that a foundling is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines as there is no restrictive language
which would definitely exclude foundlings as they are already impliedly so recognized.

There are also no provisions in the Constitution with intent or language permitting discrimination against
foundlings as the three Constitution’s guarantee the basic right to equal protection of the laws.

Foundlings are citizens under international law as this is supported by some treaties, adhering to the
customary rule to presume foundlings as having born of the country in which the foundling is found.

Foundlings are automatically conferred with the natural-born citizenship as to the country where they
are being found, as covered and supported by the UN Convention Law.

As to the residency issue, Grace Poe satisfied the 10-year residency because she satisfied the
requirements of ANIMUS MANENDI (intent to remain permanently) coupled with ANIMUS NON
REVERTENDI (intent of not returning to US) in acquiring a new domicile in the Philippines.

3. Substitution of candidates

Allowed only on Three Instances;


1. Death or Permanent Incapacity
2. Disqualification
3. Withdrawal

If after the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy, an official candidate of a registered or
accredited political party dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause, only a person belonging to, and
certified by, the same political party may file a certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate who died,
withdrew or was disqualified. The substitute candidate nominated by the political party concerned may
file his certificate of candidacy for the office affected in accordance with the preceding sections not later
than mid-day of the day of the election. If the death, withdrawal or disqualification should occur between
the day before the election and mid-day of election day, said certificate may be filed with any board of
election inspectors in the political subdivision where he is a candidate, or, in the case of candidates to be
voted for by the entire electorate of the country, with the Commission.

Engle Case:

Marcelina Engle and Winston Menzon vied for the position of Vice-Mayor of the Municipality of
Babatngon, Province of Leyte in the 2013 Elections. Petitioner's late husband, James L. Engle, was
Admin Law Reviewer

originally a candidate for said contested position; however, he died of cardiogenic shock on February 2,
2013 to which petitioner filed her certificate of candidacy as a substitute for her deceased spouse on
February 22, 2013.

Menzon filed Petition to Deny Due Course and/or Cancel the COC of petitioner arguing in the
main that the latter misrepresented that she is qualified to substitute her husband, who was declared an
independent candidate by the COMELEC. It appears that Lakas-CMD to which James L. Engle's was a
member failed to submit to the COMELEC Law Department the authorization of Romualdez (Leyte
chapter president) to sign the Certificate of Nomination and Acceptance of Lakas-CMD candidates in
Babatngon as prescribed by Section 6 (3) of COMELEC Resolution No. 9518. Thus, the COMELEC Law
Department considered all Lakas-CMD candidates whose CONAs were signed by Romualdez as
independent candidates. For this reason, private respondent charged petitioner with violation of Section
15, COMELEC Resolution No. 9518 which disallows the substitution of an independent candidate.

In the meantime Engle then won the May 13, 2013 elections as vice-mayor. It was only on July 5,
2013 did the COMELEC Second Division promulgate the Resolution which denied due course to and
cancelled petitioner's COC resulting in the annulment of petitioner's previous proclamation as duly-
elected Vice Mayor of Babatngon, Leyte and the declaration of Menzon as winner of the contested
position.

W/N James Engle was an independent candidate that may not be substituted by his wife, Marcelina.

No. Verily, it was publicly known that James L. Engle was a member of Lakas-CMD. As far as the party
and his wife were concerned, James L. Engle, as a member of Lakas CMD, may be substituted as a
candidate upon his death. There was no evidence on record that the party or petitioner had notice or
knowledge of the COMELEC's classification of James L. Engle as an independent candidate prior to
February 22, 2013 when petitioner filed her COC as a substitute for her deceased husband. The only
document in the record indicating that Lakas-CMD had been notified of James L. Engle's designation as
an independent candidate is the Letter dated March 21, 2013 sent by the COMELEC Law Department.

The COMELEC Law Department's letter is not binding and at most, only recommendatory. It is
settled in jurisprudence that the denial of due course or cancellation of one's COC is not within the
administrative powers of the COMELEC, but rather calls for the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions.
We have also previously held that the COMELEC, in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
powers, is mandated by the Constitution to hear and decide such cases first by Division and, upon motion
for reconsideration, by the En Banc. In resolving cases to deny due course to or cancel certificates of
candidacy, the COMELEC cannot merely rely on the recommendations of its Law Department but must
conduct due proceedings through one of its divisions. Returning to the case at bar, the COMELEC Second
Division only formally ruled on the status of James L. Engle as an independent candidate and the
invalidity of petitioner's substitution on July 5, 2013, months after the May 13, 2013 Elections. Under these
premises, the COMELEC did not correctly cancel petitioner's COC on the ground of false material
representation as there was none.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner Marcelina S. Engle is declared the duly-elected Vice-Mayor of


Babatngon, Leyte during the May 13, 2013 Elections.

4. Sources of Checks
i. President
Admin Law Reviewer

a. Position of the Chief Executive


b. Duty to preserve and defend the constitution
c. Appointing power
d. Control over executive departments, bureaus and offices
e. Sovereign guarantees on foreign loans
f. Submission of budget outlining programs and defining policies
ii. Legislature
a. Creation of government agencies pertains to the plenary powers
b. Consent over presidential appointees
c. Examination of books of accounts
d. Power to conduct inquiries
e. Declaration of war
f. Enact budget
iii. Courts
a. Availability of judicial review
b. Modes of judicial review
c. Extent of judicial review

5. Separation of Powers

Basic Tenets of a republican state

The powers of government are distributed into three distinct branches:


1. The executive,
2. The legislative and
3. The judicial

Unless the Constitution permits it, no branch of government can abdicate its functions and escape
responsibility by delegating them.

Exception to the rule on delegation of powers:


Within the limits of the law creating the Executing Department, defining and limiting its powers,
the executive may allocate specific functions to agencies under its control and supervision for
efficient management and better governance.

Rule: When the law vests in an administratve body the power to hear and decide controversies, the
delegatuin is not done by the judiciary but the power to adjudicate granted by law proceeds from the
plenary powers of the legislative branch

Other Consti Prohibition: Right to due process: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the law.

Neri vs. Senate Committee


 Congressional Inquiry is a power extended by the Constitution to look into the executive branch

Bar Q: President Benigno Aquino III issued EO 1 creating the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC). The
legality of the creation of the PTC was assailed before the SC. The petitioners contend that the PTC
Admin Law Reviewer

is a public office and thus the president is without authority to create it. It was further contended
that the creation of a public office lies within the province of the legislature. The OSG countered that
the creation of a fact-finding body like the PTC is covered by the President’s power of reorganization
under the Administrative Code and the President’s power of control. The OSG likewise contends that
Congress has delegated to the President the power to create public offices by virtue of P.D. 1416, as
amended by PD 1772.

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, 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 EO 1. (Biraogo v.
Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, G.R. No. 192935, December 7, 2010)

Q: 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.)

Q: What then could be the justification for the President’s creation of the PTC?
A: The creation of the PTC finds justification under Sec. 17, Art. VII of the 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 inherent in the President’s powers as the Chief Executive. That
the authority of the President to conduct investigations and to create bodies to execute this power is not
explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or in statutes does 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 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 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.)

NOTE: The SC, however, declared the creation of PTC as unconstitutional for violating the equal
protection clause.
Admin Law Reviewer

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 1 WAS ISSUED BY PRESIDENT NOYNOY AQUINO TO INVESTIGATE


REPORTED CASES OF GRAFT AND CORRUPTION OF THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION.

ISSUE: IS THIS LEGAL?

RULING:

NO. IT IS VIOLATIVE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. THE ARROYO ADMINISTRATION IS BUT
JUST A MEMBER OF A CLASS, THAT IS, A CLASS OF PAST ADMINISTRATIONS. IT IS NOT A CLASS OF
ITS OWN. NOT TO INCLUDE PAST ADMINISTRATIONS SIMILARLY SITUATED CONSTITUTES
ARBITRARINESS WHICH THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE CANNOT SANCTION.

6. Qualifications

Voters – Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the PH not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at
least 18 years of age, who shall have resided in the PH for at least 1 year and in the place wherein they
propose to vote for at least 6 months immediately preceding the election. No literacy, property, or other
substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.

Candidates

1. National Elective Officials


a. President
i. Natural-born citizen of the PH
ii. Registered voter
iii. Able to read and write
iv. At least 40 years of age on the day of the election
v. Resident of the PH for at least 10 years immediately preceding such election

Term of Office: The President and VP shall be elected by direct vote of the people
for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the 30th day of June next
following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date six years
thereafter.

The president shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person who has
succeeded as President and has served as such for more than 4 years shall be
qualified for election to the same office at any time.

b. Vice-President
i. Natural-born citizen of the PH
ii. Registered voter
iii. Able to read and write
iv. At least 40 years of age on the day of the election
v. Resident of the PH for at least 10 years immediately preceding such election

Term of Office: The President and VP shall be elected by direct vote of the people
for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the 30th day of June next
Admin Law Reviewer

following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date six years
thereafter.

No VP shall serve for more than 2 successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the
office for any length shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of
the service for the full term for which he was elected.

There shall be a VP who shall have the same qualifications and term of office and
be elected with and in the same manner as the President. He may be removed from
office in the same manner as the President.

c. Senator
i. Natural-Born citizen of the PH
ii. At least 35 years old on the day of election
iii. Able to read and write
iv. Registered voter
v. Resident of the PH for not less than 2 years immediately preceding the day of
election

Term of Office: Shall be six years and shall commence, unless otherwise provided
by law, at noon on the 3oth day of June next following their election.

No Senator shall serve for more than 2 consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation
of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the
continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected.

2. Congressional Representatives
a. Natural-Born Citizen of the PH
b. At least 25 years of age
c. Able to read and write
d. Except that party-list representative, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be
elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately
preceding the day of the election.

Term of Office: Shall be elected for a term of 3 years which shall begin, unless otherwise
provided by law, at noon on the 30th day of June next following their election.

No member of the House of Representatives shall serve for more than 3 consecutive terms.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an
interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected.

Party-List Representatives
i. Natural-born citizen of the PH
ii. Registered voter
iii. Resident of the PH for a period of not less than 1 year immediately preceding the
day of the election
iv. Able to read and write
Admin Law Reviewer

v. Bonafide member of the party or organization which he seek to represent for at


least 90 days preceding the day of election
vi. At least 25 years old on the day of the election

3. Local Elective Officials


a. An elective local official
i. Citizen of the PH
ii. Registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city, province, or in the case of a
member of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sanggunian panglungsod, or
sangguniang bayan, the district where he intends to be elected.
iii. A resident therein for at least 1 year immediately preceding the day of the
election
iv. Able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect
b. Position of governor, vice-governor, or member of the sangguniang panlalawigan,
or mayor, vice-mayor or member of the sangguniang panlungsod of highly urbanized
cities
i. must be at least twenty-one (21) years of age on election day.
c. Position of mayor or vice-mayor of independent component cities, component cities,
or municipalities
i. must be at least twenty-one (21) years of age on election day.
d. Candidates for the position of member of the sangguniang panlungsod or
sangguniang bayan
i. must be at least eighteen (18) years of age on election day.
e. Candidates for the position of punong barangay or member of the sangguniang
barangay
i. must be at least eighteen (18) years of age on election day.
f. Candidates for the sangguniang kabataan
i. must be at least fifteen (15) years of age but not more than twenty-one (21) years
of age on election day.

Grounds for Disqualification

The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position:
(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense
punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence;
(b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;
(c) Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic;
(d) Those with dual citizenship;
(e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or abroad;
(f) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to reside
abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this Code; and
(g) The insane or feeble-minded.

7. Due Process
Admin Law Reviewer

Definition: Due process of law in administrative adjudication is to simply have an opportunity to be heard
in administrative proceedings.

Bill of Rights: the right to due process


“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person
be denied the equal protection of the law.” (Sec. 1, Art. III)

Distinction between substantive and procedural due process:

Elements: Administrative due process includes:


a. The right to notice of the institution of the proceedings
b. Reasonable opportunity to appear and defense his rights and to introduce witnesses and relevant
evidence
c. An impartial tribunal
d. A finding or decision by that tribunal supported by substantial evidence

Due Process is necessary for the twin requirements of notice and hearing –As a general rule, notice
and hearing are not essential to the validity of an administrative action unless it acts in a judicial or quasi-
judicial matter and the person whose rights or property may be affected by the action. Failure to comply
with the requirements may result in a failure to acquire jurisdiction.

Cases:
Cudia vs. PMA Supt. – Procedural and Substantive Due Process
- Right to counsel is not absolute in administrative investigations where the inquiries are
conducted merely to determine whether the facts merit disciplinary measures.
- Validity of the order of dismissal of Cudia as a cadet of the PMA
- Cudia’s claim: Class was dismissed late so he was late for his next subject
- PMA Honor Committee’s Claim: Cudia violated the Honor’s Code of PMA
Issues:
(1) Right to due process in administrative proceedings
(2) Right to counsel in administrative proceedings; and
(3) Whether or not the Chamber’s session violated the Rules of the Honor Committee

Held:
- Right to counsel, while desirable, is not absolute for administrative proceedings. Mandatory
for criminal cases unless it is an administrative proceeding leading to a criminal case.
- PMA must still observe due process in removing cadets who are also entitled to due process.
- PMA cannot be compelled by mandamus to reinstate cadets separated therefrom if due
process was observed
- Was there deprivation of due process when he was removed through the 2nd meeting in the
chambers? No, there was valid due process because chambering is a process indicated in the
rules.

8. Party-List Participants

Political Party: An organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or platform, principles and
policies for the general conduct of government and which, as the most immediate means of securing
Admin Law Reviewer

their adoption, regularly nominates certain of its leaders and members as candidates for public office.
[Sec. 60, BP 881 and Sec. 3(c) of RA 7941]

Types of Political Parties in the Philippines


(1) National Party - constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority of the
regions.
(2) Regional Party - constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority of the
cities and provinces comprising the region.
(3) Sectoral party – organized group of citizens belonging to any of the following sectors: labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth,
veterans, overseas workers and professionals whose principal advocacy pertains to the special interests
and concerns of their sector.

Seat Allocation: The combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed 20% of the total
membership of the House of Representatives, including those elected under the party-list. Only those
parties garnering a minimum of 2% of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to
one guaranteed seat each. Each party, regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled
to a maximum of three (3) seats.

Nominations: Each registered party, organization or coalition shall submit to COMELEC not later than
45 days before the election a list of names, not less than 5, from which party-list representatives shall be
chosen in case it obtains the required number of votes. A member of a party list may be nominated:
o one party list only
o must give their consent in writing
o must not be a candidate for any elective office;
o or have not lost his bid for an elective office in the immediately preceding election

Names of party-list nominees shall not be shown on the certified list [Sec. 7, RA 7941]. No change of
names or alteration shall be allowed after the same shall have been submitted to the COMELEC except
when:

1. The nominee dies;


2. The nominee withdraws his nomination; or
3. The nominee becomes incapacitated
Disqualification of Religious Sects

Entities which cannot be registered as Political Parties


(1) Religious denominations and sects
(2) Groups which seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means
(3) Entities which refuse to uphold and adhere to the Constitution
(4) Associations supported by foreign governments [Art. IX-C, Sec. 2 (5), Constitution]
Admin Law Reviewer

Grounds for Refusal/Cancellation of Registration


The COMELEC may, motu propio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, refuse or cancel,
after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or
coalition on any of the following grounds:
(1) Religious sect or denomination, organization or association, organized for religious purposes
(2) Those advocating violence or unlawful means to seek its goal
(3) Foreign party or organization
(4) Those receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation,
organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third
parties for partisan election purposes
(5) Those which violate or fail to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections
(6) Those which declare untruthful statements in its petition
(7) Those which ceased to exist for at least one (1) year
(8) Those which fail to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or
(9) Those which fails to obtain at least 2% of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2)
preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered [Sec. 6, R.A. 7941]

Abang Lingkod vs. COMELEC

COMELEC pointed out that ABANG LINGKOD failed to establish its track record in uplifting the cause of
the marginalized and underrepresented; that it merely offered photographs of some alleged activities it
conducted after the May 2010 elections.

R.A. No. 7941 did not require groups intending to register under the party-list system to submit proof of
their track record as a group. The track record requirement was only imposed in Ang Bagong Bayani
where the Court held that national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations seeking registration
under the party-list system must prove through their, inter alia, track record that they truly represent the
marginalized and underrepresented.

In Atong Paglaum, the Court has modified to a great extent the jurisprudential doctrines on who may
register under the party-list system and the representation of the marginalized and underrepresented.
For purposes of registration under the party-list system, national or regional parties or organizations
need not represent any marginalized and underrepresented sector; that representation of the
marginalized and underrepresented is only required of sectoral organizations that represent the sectors
stated under Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941 that are, by their nature, economically marginalized and
underrepresented.

Contrary to the COMELEC's claim, sectoral parties or organizations, such as ABANG LINGKOD, are no
longer required to adduce evidence showing their track record, i.e. proof of activities that they have
undertaken to further the cause of the sector they represent. Indeed, it is enough that their principal
advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector. Otherwise stated, it is sufficient
that the ideals represented by the sectoral organizations are geared towards the cause of the sector/s,
which they represent.

Ang Ladlad vs. COMELEC


Admin Law Reviewer

Comelec refused to recognize Ang Ladlad LGBT Party, an organization composed of men and women
who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or trans-gendered individuals (LGBTs),as a party list
based on moral grounds. In the elevation of the case to the Supreme Court, Comelec alleged that
petitioner made misrepresentation in their application.

Issue:
Whether or not Ang Ladlad LGBT Party qualifies for registration as party-list.

Ruling:
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party’s application for registration should be granted.

Comelec’s citation of the Bible and the Koran in denying petitioner’s application was a violation of the
non-establishment clause laid down in Article 3 section 5 of the Constitution. The proscription by law
relative to acts against morality must be for a secular purpose (that is, the conduct prohibited or sought
to be repressed is “detrimental or dangerous to those conditions upon which depend the existence and
progress of human society"), rather than out of religious conformity. The Comelec failed to substantiate
their allegation that allowing registration to Ladlad would be detrimental to society.

The LGBT community is not exempted from the exercise of its constitutionally vested rights on the basis
of their sexual orientation. Laws of general application should apply with equal force to LGBTs, and they
deserve to participate in the party-list system on the same basis as other marginalized and under-
represented sectors. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is not tolerated ---not by our own laws
nor by any international laws to which we adhere.

9. Principle on Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

General Rule: Administrative remedies must first be exhausted before filing action before the courts.

Rationale: Allow administrative agencies to exercise primary jurisdiction

Exceptions:
1. Question involved is purely legal
2. Administrative body is in estoppel
3. Act complained of is patently illegal
4. There is an urgent need for judicial intervention
5. Claim involved is small
6. Grave and irreparable injury will be suffered
7. No other plain, speedy and adequate remedy
8. Strong public interest is involved
9. Subject of the controversy is private law
10. Case involves a quo warranto proceeding
Admin Law Reviewer

11. Party was denied due process


12. Decision is that of a Department of Secretary
13. Resort tot administrative remedies would be futile
14. There is unreasonable delay
15. The action involves recovery of physical possession of public land
16. Party is poor
17. Law provides for immediate resort to the court

10. Publication

General Rule: Publication is mandatory before any administrative issuance particularly rules and
regulations especially so when they impose some form of burden on the public.

Rationale: Due process in the exercise of an administrative agency’s quasi-legislative power requires
publication of the promulgated rules and regulations

Classes of Rules and Regulations in Exercise of Legislative Function


1. Internal, affecting only the internal operations/procedures of an agency
2. Personnel regulations, refer only to personnel action of an agency relative to office orders on
transfer, reassignment, designation, etc
3. Interpretative rules, Clarificatory Rules (DOJ, BIR Circulars)
4. Fixing of Rates, Prices, and Toll Charges: This power is vested by law in administrative agencies
and carries with it an implied standard is part of the law.

Tañada v Tuvera

Article 2 of the Civil Code: Laws shall take effect after fifteen 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.

Art. 2 of the Civil Code does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if
the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity. The clear object of this provision is to give the general
public adequate notice of the various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens.
Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim ignoratia
legis nominem excusat. It would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the
transgression of a law which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.

The very first clause of Section 1 of CA 638 reads: there shall be published in the Official Gazette…. The
word “shall” therein imposes upon respondent officials an imperative duty. That duty must be enforced
if the constitutional right of the people to be informed on matter of public concern is to be given
substance and validity.
Admin Law Reviewer

The publication of presidential issuances of public nature or of general applicability is a requirement of


due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and
specifically informed of its contents. The Court declared that presidential issuances of general
application which have not been published have no force and effect.

The publication must be made forthwith, or at least as soon as possible. The clause “unless it is otherwise
provided” refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself, which cannot
in any event be omitted. This clause does not mean that the legislature may make the law effective
immediately upon approval, or in any other date, without its previous publication.

“Laws” should refer to all laws and not only to those of general application, for strictly speaking, all laws
relate to the people in general albeit there are some that do not apply to them directly. A law without
any bearing on the public would be invalid as an intrusion of privacy or as class legislation or as an ultra
vires act of the legislature. To be valid, the law must invariably affect the public interest even if it might
be directly applicable only to one individual, or some of the people only, and not to the public as a whole.

All statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for
their effectivity, which shall begin 15 days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by
the legislature.

Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all, since its purpose is to inform the public of the
content of the law.

11. Valid Delegation of Power (Edu v Ericta & Abakada v Sec. Purisima)

ABAKADA Case:
R.A. 9335 was enacted to optimize the revenue-generation capability and collection of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC). The law intends to encourage BIR and BOC
officials and employees to exceed their revenue targets by providing a system of rewards and sanctions
through the creation of a Rewards and Incentives Fund (Fund) and a Revenue Performance Evaluation
Board (Board). It covers all officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC with at least six months of
service, regardless of employment status.

Petitioners assert that the law unduly delegates the power to fix revenue targets to the President as it
lacks a sufficient standard on that matter. While Section 7(b) and (c) of RA 9335 provides that BIR and
BOC officials may be dismissed from the service if their revenue collections fall short of the target by at
least 7.5%, the law does not, however, fix the revenue targets to be achieved. Instead, the fixing of
revenue targets has been delegated to the President without sufficient standards. It will therefore be
easy for the President to fix an unrealistic and unattainable target in order to dismiss BIR or BOC
personnel.

Permissible Delegation:
To determine the validity of delegation of legislative power, it needs the following:
Admin Law Reviewer

(1) The completeness test


- A law is complete when it sets forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented
by the delegate. It lays down a sufficient standard when it provides adequate guidelines or limitations in the
law to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.

(2) The sufficient standard test.


- To be sufficient, the standard must specify the limits of the delegate’s authority, announce the
legislative policy and identify the conditions under which it is to be implemented.

Edu v Ericta Case:


Whether Reflector Law and Administrative Order is constitutional and valid. (Early warning device sa
kotse mandatory before car registration renewal)

RULING:
Yes. Reflector Law is enacted under the police power in order to promote public safety and order.

The same lack of success marks the effort of respondent Galo to impugn the validity of Administrative
Order No. 2 issued by petitioner in his official capacity, duly approved by the Secretary of Public Works
and Communications, for being contrary to the principle of non-delegation of legislative power. Such
administrative order, which took effect on April 17, 1970, has a provision on reflectors in effect
reproducing what was set forth in the Act.

It is a fundamental principle flowing from the doctrine of separation of powers that Congress may not
delegate its legislative power to the two other branches of the government, subject to the exception that
local governments may over local affairs participate in its exercise.

What cannot be delegated is the authority under the Constitution to make laws and to alter and
repeal them; the test is the completeness of the statute in all its term and provisions when it
leaves the hands of the legislature. To determine whether or not there is an undue delegation of
legislative power the inquiry must be directed to the scope and definiteness of the measure
enacted. The legislature does not abdicate its functions when it describes what job must be done,
who is to do it, and what is the scope of his authority.

It bears repeating that the Reflector Law construed together with the Land Transportation Code.
Republic Act No. 4136, of which it is an amendment, leaves no doubt as to the stress and emphasis on
public safety which is the prime consideration in statutes of this character. There is likewise a categorical
affirmation of the power of petitioner as Land Transportation Commissioner to promulgate rules and
regulations to give life to and translate into actuality such fundamental purpose. His power is clear. There
has been no abuse. His Administrative Order No. 2 can easily survive the attack, far-from-formidable,
launched against it by respondent Galo.

Requisites for valid delegation of the power from the legislative branch to the executive branch:
~it must have been promulgated in accordance with prescribed procedure;
~it must have reasonable standards;
~the power is issued under authority of law;
~administrative regulations (IRR) must be published in order to be effective; and
~ it must be within the scope and purview of the law.
Admin Law Reviewer

People vs Maceren – Delegation of power; definition and scope of the law and penalties to be imposed
 All rules and regulations must be defined by legislation. It cannot be left to the agency to decide
 Rules had no standard thus constituted an ultra-vires act

CONSUMER ITEM – File before the Department of trade and industry