COMPILATION OF

BAR EXAMS
QUESTIONS IN
ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW

Administrative Law
2nd Semester SY 2018-2019

QUASI-LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION: Necessity for Notice and Hearing (2000)

1
The Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) issued new rules and regulations governing
pilotage services and fees and the conduct of pilots in Philippine ports. This it did
without notice, hearing nor consultation with harbor pilots or their associations whose
rights and activities are to be substantially affected. The harbor pilots then filed suit to
have the new MARINA rules and regulations declared unconstitutional for having been
issued without due process.

JUDICIAL REVIEW: Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies (2000)

A) Explain the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

B) Give at least three exceptions to its application.

RIGHT TO HEARING AND NOTICE (1999)

A. Give examples of acts of the state which infringe the due process clause:

1. In its substantive aspect; and

2. In its procedural aspect

B. On April 6, 1963. Police Officer Mario Gatdula was charged by the Mayor with Grave
Misconduct and Violation of Law before the Municipal Board. The Board investigated
Gatdula but before the case could be decided, the City charter was approved. The
City Fiscal, citing Section 30 of the city charter, asserted that he was authorized
thereunder to investigate city officers and employees. The case against Gatdula was
then forwarded to him, and are-investigation was conducted. The office of the Fiscal
subsequently recommended dismissal. On January 11, 1966, the City Mayor
returned the records of the case to the City Fiscal for the submission of an
appropriate resolution but no resolution was submitted. On March 3, 1968, the City
Fiscal transmitted the records to the City Mayor recommending that final action
thereon be made by the City Board of Investigators (CBI). Although the CBI did not
conduct an investigation, the records show that both the Municipal Board and the
Fiscal's Office exhaustively heard the case with both parties afforded ample
opportunity to adduce their evidence and argue their cause. The Police Commission
found Gatdula guilty on the basis of the records forwarded by the CBl. Gatdula
challenged the adverse decision of the Police Commission theorizing that he was
deprived of due process. Is the Police Commission bound by the findings of the City
Fiscal? Is Gatdula's protestation of lack or nonobservance of due process well-
grounded? Explain your answers.

C. On November 7, 1990, nine lawyers of the Legal Department of Y Bank who were all
under Fred Torre, sent a complaint to management accusing Torre of abusive
conduct and mismanagement. Furnished with a copy of the complaint, Torre denied
the charges. Two days later, the lawyers and Torre were called to a conference in
the office of the Board Chairman to give their respective sides of the controversy.
However, no agreement was reached thereat. Bank Director Romulo Moret was
tasked to look further into the matter. He met with the lawyers together with Torre
several times but to no avail. Moret then submitted a report sustaining the charges
or the lawyers. The Board Chairman wrote Torre to inform him that the bank had
chosen the compassionate option of "waiting" for Torre's resignation. Torre was
asked, without being dismissed, to turn over the documents of all cases handled by

2
 him to another official of the bank but Torre refused to resign and requested for a
"full hearing", Days later, he reiterated his request for a "full hearing", claiming that
he had been "constructively dismissed", Moret assured Torre that he is "free to
remain in the employ of the bank" even if he has no particular work assignment.
After another request for a "full hearing" was ignored, Torre filed a complaint with the
arbitration branch of NLRC for illegal dismissal. Reacting thereto, the bank
terminated the services of Torre. (a) Was Torre "constructively dismissed" before he
filed his complaint? (b) Given the multiple meetings held among the bank officials,
the lawyers and Torre, is it correct for him to say that he was not given an
opportunity to be heard? Explain your answers.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (1998)

The Department of National Defense entered into contract with Raintree Corporation for
the supply of ponchos to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), stipulating that, in
the event of breach, action may be filed in the proper court in Manila. Suppose the AFP
fails to pay for delivered ponchos where must Raintree Corporation file its claim? Why?

ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS SUBJECT TO FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE COURTS

(1998)

Andres Ang was born of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother in Sorsogon, Sorsogon,
on January 20, 1973. In 1988, his father was naturalized as a Filipino citizen On May
11, 1998. Andres Ang was elected Representative of the First District of Sorsogon. Juan
Bonto who received the second highest number of votes, filed a petition for Quo
Warranto against Ang. The petition was filed with the House of Representative Electoral
Tribunal (HRET). Bonto contends that Ang is not a natural born citizen of the Philippines
and therefore is disqual1fied to be a member of the House. The HRET ruled in favor of
Ang. Bonto filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court. The following issues are
raised:
1. Whether the case is justiciable considering that Article VI. Section 17 of the
Constitution declares the HRET to be the sole Judge- of all contests relating to
the election returns and disqualifications of members of the House of
Representatives.
2. Whether Ang is a natural born citizen of the Philippines. How should this case be
decided?

SELF INCRIMINATION (1998)

Suppose Congress passed a law to implement the Constitutional principle that a public
office is a public trust, by providing as follows:

"No employee of the Civil Service shall be excused from attending and testifying
or from producing books, records, correspondence, documents or other evidence in any
administrative investigation concerning the office in which he is employed on the ground
that his testimony or the evidence required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject
him to a penalty or forfeiture: but his testimony or any evidence produced by him shall
not be used against him in criminal prosecution based on the transaction, matter or
thing concerning which is compelled, after invoking his privilege against self-
incrimination to testify or produce evidence. Provided, however, that such individual so

3
testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in
so testifying nor shall he be exempt from demotion or removal from office. Any
employee who refuses to testify or produce any documents under this Act shall be
dismissed from the service."

Suppose further, that Ong, a member of the Professional Regulatory Board, is required
to answer questions in an investigation regarding a LEAKAGE in a medical
examination.

1. Can Ong refuse to answer questions on the ground that he would incriminate
himself?
2. Suppose he refuses to answer, and for that reason, is dismissed from the
service; can he plausibly argue that the Civil Commission has inferred his guilt
from his refusal to answer in violation of the Constitution?
3. Suppose on the other hand, he answers the question and on the basis of his
answers, he is found guilty and is dismissed. Can he pausibly assert that his
dismissa1 is based on coerced confession?

JURISDICITON (1998)

Suppose a Commissioner of the COMELEC is charged before the Sandiganbayan for

allegedly tolerating violation of the election laws against proliferation of prohibited
billboards and election propaganda with the end in view of removing him from office.
Will the action prosper?

ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (1997)

Are the government-owned or controlled corporations within the scope and meaning of
the "Government of the Philippines"?

ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FLAG CEREMONY (1997)

Section 28, Title VI, Chapter 9, of the Administrative Code of 1987 requires all
educational institutions to observe a simple and dignified flag ceremony, including the
playing or singing of the Philippine National Anthem, pursuant to rules to be
promulgated by the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports. The refusal of a
teacher, student or pupil to attend or participate in the flag ceremony is a ground for
dismissal after due investigation. The Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports issued
a memorandum implementing said provision of law. As ordered, the flag ceremony
would be held on Mondays at 7:30 a.m. during class days. A group of teachers,
students and pupils requested the Secretary that they be exempted from attending the
flag ceremony on the ground that attendance thereto was against their religious belief.
The Secretary denied the request. The teachers, students and pupils concerned went to
the Court to have the memorandum circular declared null and void. Decide the case.

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (1996)

4
1. Distinguish the doctrine of primary jurisdiction from the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies.
2. Does the failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a case in court oust
said court of jurisdiction to hear the case? Explain.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT VS. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY (1996)

The Municipality of Binangonan, Rizal passed a resolution authorizing the operation of

an open garbage dumpsite in a 9-hectare land in the Reyes Estate within the
Municipality's territorial limits. Some concerned residents of Binangonan filed a
complaint with the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) to stop the operation of
the dumpsite due to its harmful effects on the health of the residents. The LLDA
conducted an on-site investigation, monitoring, testing and water sampling and found
that the dumpsite would contaminate Laguna de Bay and the surrounding areas of the
Municipality. The LLDA also discovered that no environmental clearance was secured
by the Municipality from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
and the LLDA as required by law. The LLDA therefore issued to the Binangonan
Municipal Government a cease and desist order to stop the operation of the dumpsite.
The Municipality of Binangonan filed a case to annul the order issued by the LLDA.

1. Can the Municipality of Binangonan invoke police power to prevent its residents
and the LLDA from interfering with the operation of the dumpsite by the
Municipality? Explain.
2. Can the LLDA justify its order by asserting that the health of the residents will be
adversely affected? Explain.

ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES OR AGENCY (1991)

On July 1991, the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB), in response to public clamor, issued
a resolution approving and adopting a schedule for bringing down the prices of
petroleum products over a period of one (1) year starting 15 August 1991, over the
objection of the oil companies which claim that the period covered is too long to
prejudge and foresee. Is the resolution valid?

EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS (1990)

Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 2, issued by President Corazon C. Aquino created the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and empowered it to sequester
any property shown prima facie to be ill- gotten wealth of the late President Marcos, his
relatives and cronies. Executive Order No. 14 vests on the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction
to try hidden wealth cases. On April 14, 1986, after an investigation, the PCGG
sequestered the assets of X Corporation, Inc.

1. X Corporation, Inc, claimed that President Aquino as President, could not lawfully
issue Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2, 14, which have the force of law, on the ground
that legislation is a function of Congress. Decide.
2. Said corporation also questioned the validity of the three executive orders on the
ground that they are bills of attainder and, therefore, unconstitutional. Decide.

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS (1990)

5
A. After 2 February 1987, the Philippine National bank (PNB) grants a loan to
congressman X. Is the loan violative of the Constitution? Suppose the loan had
instead been granted before 2 February 1987, but was outstanding on that date with
a remaining balance on the principal in the amount of P50,000, can the PNB validly
give Congressman X an extension of time after said date to stele the obligation?
B. For being notoriously undesirable and recidivist, Jose Tapulan, an employee in the
first level of the career service in the Office of the Provincial Governor of Masbate,
was dismissed by the Governor without formal investigation pursuant to Section 40
of the Civil Service Decree (P.D. No. 807) which authorizes summary proceedings in
such cases. As a lawyer of Jose what steps, if any, would you take to protect his
rights?

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS (1989)

An existing law grants government employees the option to retire upon reaching the age
of 57 years and completion of at least 30 years of total, government service. As a fiscal
retrenchment measure, the Office of the President later issued a Memorandum Circular
requiring physical incapacity as an additional condition for optional retirement age of 65
years. A government employee, whose application for optional retirement was denied
because he was below 65 years of age and was not physically incapacitated, filed an
action in court questioning the disapproval of his application claiming that the
Memorandum Circular is void. Is the contention of the employee correct? Explain.

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS (1989)

In 1986, F, then the officer-in-charge of Botolan, Zambales, was accused of having

violated the ANTI-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act before the Sandigan Bayan. Before
he could be arraigned, he was elected Governor of Zambales. After his arraignment, he
put under preventive suspension by the Sandiganbayan " for the duration of the trial".

1. Can F successfully challenge the legality of his preventive suspension on the

ground that the criminal case against him involved acts committed during his
term as officer-in-charge and not during his term as Governor?
2. Can F validly object to the aforestated duration of his suspension?