ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS,

AND ELECTION LAW

PROF. ANTONIO G. M. LA VIÑA

PROF. MARIA CRISTINA T. MUNDIN
PROF. JOSINE ALEXANDRA GOMEZ

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURSE OUTLINE

NOTE: The three sections will have a shared MCQ exam for the finals and will have joint moot
court exercises.

I. General Considerations

Sources:

•Constitutional or statutory enactments creating administrative bodies

- Article IX, The 1987 Philippine Constitution
- Administrative Code of 1987

II. Doctrine of Separation of Powers

* Book II, Administrative Code of 1987
 Cases
- Planas vs. Gil, 67 phil 62
Extensive authority over the public service is granted to the President
- Government of Philippine Islands vs. Springer, 50 Phil. 276
The appointment of managers of property or a business in which the
government is interested essentially an executive act
- Occena vs. Comelec, 95 SCRA 759
Delegating to administrative agencies the power to make rules and
regulations.

III. Creation, Reorganization and Abolition of Administrative Agencies

 Cases
- Sec. of DOTC vs. Mabalot, 378 SCRA 129
Power of the president to reorganize the government
- Eugenio vs. CSC, 243 SCRA 196
Power of congress to abolish
- Larin vs. Executive Secretary, 280 SCRA 713
Power of the president to dismiss

IV. Powers of Administrative Agencies

 Cases:
- Phil. Ass. of Service Exporters, Inc. vs. Torres, et al 212 SCRA 298
Rule-making power of administrative body
- Mateo v. Court of Appeals 247 SCRA 284
RTC without jurisdiction over civil action involving employee of quasi –public
corporation
- Carino v. Capulong 222 SCRA 593
Authority to grant permit by DECS to applicant educational institution a
discretionary duty
- Carpio v. Executive Secretary, 206 SCRA 290
- Blaquera v. Alcala, 295 SCRA 366, 425
Presidential power of control over executive departments

V. Delegation of Power
 Cases
- Eastern Shipping Lines, inc vs. POEA, 160 SCRA 533
1
 Undue delegation of legislative authority
- Tatad vs. Secretary of Dept. of Energy (G.R. No. 124360, Nov. 5,
1997)
- Pelaez vs. The Auditor General, G.R. No. L-23825, December 24, 1965
Sufficiency of standards

VI. Quasi-legislative power or Rule-Making Power

 Cases
- Abella, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission, 442 SCRA 507
- Smart Communication v. NTC 408 SCRA 678
Quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers distinguished
- Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. CA G.R. No. 116356 June 29, 1998
Nature of quasi-legislative power
- Araneta vs. Gatmaitan, 101 Phil 328
Administrative regulation must be reasonable
- Tayug Rural Bank vs. Central Bank of the Phils. 146 SCRA 120
Administrative rule with penal sanction

VII. Quasi-Judicial Power

 Cases
- Dole Philippines Inc. v. Esteva, 509 SCRA 332, 369-370.
Nature of quasi-judicial power
- Ang Tibay v. CIR, 69 Phil 635
Cardinal primary requirements of procedural due process
- Scenarios, Inc. vs. Vinluan, G.R. No. 173283 September 17, 2008
Technical rules not applicable
- Pison-Arceo Agricultural and Development Corporation vs. NLRC, 344 Phil.
723, 736
Procedural rules governing service of summons are not strictly construed
- Pascual vs Board of Medical Examiners 28SCRA345
Right against self-incrimination
- United Pepsi-Cola supervisory Union vs. Laguesma 288 SCRA 15
- Delfin vs. Inciong 192 SCRA 151
Res Judicata

VIII. Administrative Appeal and Review

 Cases
- Suyat Jr. vs. Torres 441 SCRA 265
Appeal to the president
- Tan vs. Director of Forestry 125 SCRA 302
Appeal to the president
- Calo vs. Fuertes 5 SCRA 399
Withdrawal of appeal

Doctrine of Finality of Administrative Action

 Cases
- Fortich vs. Corona, 289 SCRA 624
Failure to file motion for reconsideration
- Social Security System Employees Association vs. Bathan-Velasco 313
SCRA 250
Finality of factual determination by administrative body

IX. Judicial Review

 Cases
- Macailing, et al vs. Andrada, et al January 30, 1970, G.R. No. L-21607
Mere silence of a statute on availability of judicial review does not necessarily
imply that it is unavailable
- Office of the Court Administrator vs. Lopez (A.M. no. p-10-2788, 18 January
2011
Quantum required is substantial evidence
2
X. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
 Cases
- Gonzales vs. CA, 357 SCRA 599
- NFA vs. CA 311 SCRA 700 (1999)
- Commissioner of Customs v. Navarro 77 SCRA 264, 267

Exceptions
- Vda. De Tan vs. Veterans Backpay Commission 105 Phil 377
- Bordallo vs. Professional Regulations Commission 421 Phil. 281
- Kilusang Bayan sa Paglilingkod ng mga Magtitinda ng Bagong Pamilihang
Bayan ng Muntinlupa,Iinc. vs. Dominguez, 205 SCRA 92, 113.

XI. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

 Cases
- Industrial Enterprises, Inc. vs.CA 184 SCRA 426
- Roxas and Company Inc. vs. CA, 321 SCRA 106

Inapplicability of the doctrine:

- Aquilino Q. Pimentel, et al. vs. Senate Committee of the Whole represented
by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, G.R. No. 187714, March 8, 2011

XII. Administrative Procedure

*Book VII, Administrative Code of 1987

*Executive Order No. 26 - Prescribing procedure and sanctions to ensure speedy disposition
of administrative cases

*MOOT COURT – ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

3
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS OUTLINE

I. The concept of public office

Definition

• Laurel v. Desierto, 381 SCRA 48

• Veterans Federation of the Phils. v. Reyes, 483 SCRA 526

Characteristics

• Santos vs Secretary of Labor, 22 SCRA 848

• Abeja v. Tanada 236 SCRA 60
• N a t i o n a l L a n d Ti t l e s a n d D e e d s R e g i s t r a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n v.
CSC, 221 SCRA 145

II. Public accountability

L AW S

• The Ombudsman Act of 1989 (R.A. No. 6770)

• An act further defining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
a m e n d i n g f o r t h e p u r p o s e P. D . N o . 1 6 0 6 , a s a m e n d e d ,
p r o v i d i n g f u n d s . t h e r e f o r, a n d f o r o t h e r p u r p o s e s . ( R . A . N o .
8249)
• Anti-graft & Corrupt Practices act as amended R.A. No. 3019.
• Code of Conduct & Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees (R.A. No. 6713)
• An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder (R.A.No.
7080)
• An Act Declaring Forfeiture in favor of the State any Property
Found to have been Unlawfully Acquired by any Public Officer
or Employee and providing for the proceedings therefor (R.A.
No. 1379)
• Granting Immunity from Prosecution to Givers of Bribes and
other Gifts and to their Accomplices in Bribery and other Graft
Cases against Public Officers
• P. D . N o . 7 4 9
• Making it Punishable for Public Officials and Employees to
Receive, and for Private Persons to Give Gifts on any
O c c a s i o n , i n c l u d i n g C h r i s t m a s ( P. D . N o . 4 6 )
• Crimes Committed by Public Officers under the Revised Penal
Code

Cases
• F r a n c i s c o v. H o u s e o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , G . R . N o . 1 6 0 2 6 1 .
November 10, 2003
• Gutierrez vs. The House of Representatives Committee on
J u s t i c e , G . R . N o . 1 9 3 4 5 9 , M a r c h 8 , 2 0 11

III. Requirements for public office

• B i n a m i r a v. G a r r u c h o , 1 8 8 S C R A 1 5 4
• Ta p i s p i s a n v. C A , 4 5 9 S C R A 6 9 5
• P i m e n t e l v. E r m i t a , 4 7 2 S C R A 5 8 7
• L u e g o v. C S C , 1 4 3 S C R A 3 2 7
4
 • U m o s o v. C S C , 2 3 4 S C R A 6 1 7

Disqualification

• M o n s a n t o v. F a c t o r a n , 1 7 0 S C R A 1 9 0
• G a r c i a v. C O A , 2 2 6 S C R A 3 5 6
• C i v i l L i b e r t i e s U n i o n v. E x e c u t i v e S e c r e t a r y, 1 9 4 S C R A 3 1 7
• C a a s i v. C A , 1 9 1 S C R A 3 1 7

Scope of Qualifications

• C u y e g k e n g v. C r u z , 1 0 8 P h i l . 9 0 3

Duration of Qualifications

• C S C v. d e l a C r u z , 4 3 7 S C R A 4 0 3
• Ye e v. D i r e c t o r o f P u b l i c S h o o l s , 7 S C R A 8 3 2

I V. De facto and De jure officers

Requisites of de facto officership

• CSC v. Joson, 429 SCRA 773

• Tuanda vs Sandiganbayan, 249 SCRA 342
• Lino Luna vs Rodriguez, 37 Phil 136
• US v. Abalos, 1 Phil. 73
• Funa v. Agra, G.R. No. 191644, February 19, 2013, 704 Phil. 205 (2013).

Effects of Acts of de facto officer

• Monroy v. CA, 20 SCRA 620

• Cantillo v. Arrieta, 61 SCRA 55

V. The Civil Service

• 1987 Constitution Art. IX B
• M e r a m v. E d r a l i n , 1 5 4 S C R A 2 3 8

Eligibility
• PD 807, sec. 6

Appointments
• 1987 Constitution, Art. IX B, Sec. 2 (2)
• PD 807, secs. 25 (a) and24 (a)
• A b r o t v. C A , 11 6 S C R A 4 6 8
• M a t u r a n v. M a g l a n a , 11 3 S C R A 2 6 8
• A c h a c o s o v. M a c a r a i g , 1 9 5 S C R A 2 3 5

Promotion
• Español v. C S C , 2 0 6 S C R A 7 1 5
• S i s o n v. Pangramuyen, 84 SCRA 364
• Eugenio v. To r r i j o s , 8 5 S C R A 5 1 2
• P T & T v. CA, 412 CRA 263

Other personnel actions

• PD 807, sec. 24
• M a n g l a p u s v. M a t i a s , 1 9 2 S C R A 4 9 6
• F l o r e z a v. O n g p i n , 1 8 2 S C R A 6 9 2
5
 Discipline
• PD 807, section 36
• R T C M a k a t i M o v e m e n t a g a i n s t G r a f t a n d C o r r u p t i o n v. D u m l a o ,
247 SCRA 108
• A q u i n o v. F e r n a n d e z , 4 1 3 S C R A 5 9 7

Procedure
• C S C v. C A , 4 2 5 S C R A 3 9 4

Preventive suspension
• D e G u z m a n v. A p o l o n i o , 4 7 2 S C R A 4 8 9
• Q u i m b o v. G e r v a c i o , 4 6 6 S C R A 2 7 7

Decision
• C a n i e t e v. S e c r e t a r y o f E d u c a t i o n , 3 3 3 S C R A 8 4 9
• A p u y a n v. S t a . I s a b e l , 4 3 0 S C R A 1
• M a l a n y a o n v. L i s i n g , 1 0 6 S C R A 2 3 7

Appeal
• P a r e d e s v. C S C , 1 9 2 S C R A 8 4
• H u e r t a s v. G o n z a l e z , 4 5 1 S C R A 2 5 6

Right to Self-Organization
• S S S E m p l o y e e s A s s o c i a t i o n v. C A , 1 7 5 S C R A 6 8 6
• Tr a d e U n i o n s o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s v. N H C , 1 7 3 S C X R A 3 3

VI. Authority of the Public Officer

• L e g a z p i v. M i n i s t e r o f F i n a n c e , 11 5 S C R A 4 1 8

VII. Salary and Perquisites

• S e v i l l a v. G o c o n , 4 2 3 S C R A 9 8

VIII. Liability of public officers

Kinds of duties
• M e n d i o l a v. P e o p l e , 2 0 7 S C R A 8 5
• Ta b u e n a v. S a n d i g a n b a y a n , 2 6 8 S C R A 3 3 2

President
• E s t r a d a v. D e s i e r t o , 3 5 3 S C R A 4 5 2

Legislators
• S a n t i a g o v. S a n d i g a n b a y a n , 3 5 6 S C R A 6 3 6

Judges
• D a n t e s v. C a g u i o a , 4 6 1 S C R A 2 3 6
• In Re: Raul M. Gonzalez, 160 SCRA 771

Quasi-judicial officers
• P h i l i p p i n e R a c i n g C l u b v. B o n i f a c i o , 1 0 9 S C R A 2 3 3

Liability for acts of subordinates

• C h a n v. S a n d i g a n b a y a n , 4 6 6 S C R A 1 9 0

Personal liability
• Ta b u e n a v. C A , 3 S C R A 4 1 3

6
 Remedies
• R o d r i g o v. S a n d i g a n b a y a n 3 0 3 S C R A 3 0 9

IX. Te r m i n a t i o n o f o f f i c i a l r e l a t i o n s

Expiration of term
• P a r e d e s v. A b a d 5 6 S C R A 5 2 2

Resignation
• C a n o n i z a d o v. A g u i r r e 3 5 1 S C R A 6 5 9

Abandonment
• F l o r e s c a v. Q u e t o l i o 8 2 P h i l . 1 2 8
• L a m e y r a v. P a n g i l i n a n 3 2 2 S C R A 11 7

Acceptance of incompatible office

• Z a n d u e t a v. d e l a C o s t a 6 6 P h i l . 6 1 5
• S a n g g u n i a n g b a y a n o f S a n A n d r e s v. C A 2 8 4 S C R A 2 7 6

Removal
• S a l a z a r v. M a t h a y 7 3 S C R A 2 7 5
• D a r i o v. M i s o n 1 7 6 S C R A 8 4

Impeachable officials
• 1 9 8 7 C o n s t i t u t i o n a r t s . V I I I s e c . 11 a n d a r t . X I s e c . 3

Forfeiture
• 1987 Constitution Art. X, sec. 3
• R.A. No. 7160, secs. 69-75
• P e r e z v. P r o v i n c i a l B o a r d 11 3 S C R A 1 8 7

Abolition of office
• D e l a L l a n a v. A l b a 11 2 S C R A 2 9 4
• L a r i n v. E x e c u t i v e S e c r e t a r y 2 8 0 S C R A 7 1 3

Death
• M a l a n y a o n v. L i s i n g 1 0 6 S C R A 2 3 7
• L o y a o v. C a u b e 4 0 2 S C R A 3 3

*MOOT COURT ON IMPEACHMENT

ELECTION LAW OUTLINE

7
I. Primary Powers of COMELEC

 Article IX (C) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

 Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines (B.P. 881 as amended)
 Election Automation Law (R.A. No. 8436 as amended by R.A. No. 9369)
 Cayetano v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 166388, January 23, 2006
 Manzala v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176211, May 8, 2007
 Dibaratun v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 170365, February 2, 2010
 Panlilio v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 181478, July 15, 2009
 Bautista v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 154796, October 23, 2003
 Cagas v. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 194139, January 24, 2012
 De Guzman v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 129118, July 19, 2000
 Suliguin v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 166046, March 23, 2006
 Bedol v. COMELEC, G.R. No. G.R. No. 179830, December 3, 2009
 Capalla v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 201121/201127/201413, June 13, 2012

II. Suffrage

 People v. Corral, G.R. No. L-42300, January 31, 1936

I. Qualification and disqualification of voters

 The Overseas Absentee Voting Act (R.A. No. 9189)

 Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 162759, August 4,
2006
 Macalintal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 157013, July 10, 2003

I. Registration of voters

II. Inclusion and exclusion proceedings

 Velasco v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 180051, December 24,

2008

III. Political parties

a. Jurisdiction of the COMELEC over political parties

b. Registration

 Alliance for Barangay Concerns Party List v. COMELEC, G.R. No.

193256, March 22, 2011.
 Atienza v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 188920, February 16, 2010
 Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010

IV. Candidacy

a. Qualifications of candidates

 Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995

 Papandayan, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147909, April 16, 2002
 Villafuerte v. Villafuerte, G.R. No. 206698, February 25, 2014
 Tecson v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004
 Poe-Llamanzares, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016

b. Filing of certificates

1. Effect of filing
2. Substitution of candidates
3. Ministerial duty of COMELEC to receive
certificate
4. Nuisance candidates
8
 5. Petition to deny or cancel certificates of
candidacy
6. Effect of disqualification
7. Withdrawal of candidates

 Fariñas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 147387, December 10, 2003

 Fermin v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179695, December 18, 2008
 Lanot v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 164858, November 16, 2006
 Planas v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 167594, March 10, 2006

V. Campaign

1. Premature campaigning (no longer an election offense)

2. Prohibited contributions
3. Lawful and prohibited election propaganda
4. Limitations on expenses
5. Statement of contributions and expenses

 Penera v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 181613. September 11, 2009|and Penera

v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 181613 (Resolution), November 25, 2009
 Pangkat Laguna v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 148075, February 4, 2002
 Ejercito v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 212398, November 25, 2014

VI. Board of Election Inspectors and Board of Canvassers

1. Composition
2. Powers

VII. Remedies and jurisdiction in election law

1. Petition no to give due course to or cancel a certificate of

candidacy
2. Petition for disqualification
3. Petition to declare failure of elections
4. Pre-proclamation controversy
5. Election protest
6. Quo warranto

 Benito v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 106053, August 17,

1994
 Carlos v. Angeles, G.R. No. 142907, November 19,
2000
 Borja v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120140, August 21,
1996
 Chavez v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 105323, July 3,
1992
 Villegas v. COMELEC, G.R. L-52463, September 4,
1980
 Aggabao v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 163756, January
26, 2005

VIII. Prosecution of election offenses

 People v. Basilla, G.R. Nos. 83938-40, November 6, 1989

*MOOT COURT ON ELECTION DISPUTES