ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Administrative Law governs the activities, powers, and procedures of administrative agencies, which are created by law to execute, implement, and enforce statutes.
Administrative Law involves the functioning of these agencies, their relationships with other branches of government, and their impact on the rights and duties of individuals.
Administrative Agencies
-
Articles of the Administrative Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 292) provide the general framework for the creation, powers, and functions of administrative agencies.
-
-
Administrative agencies are government bodies responsible for implementing and enforcing laws and regulations. They are created by legislation and have specialized functions to regulate specific areas, such as labor, taxation, immigration, health, and the environment.
-
-
Role in Government:
-
1. Rule-making: Administrative agencies create rules and regulations that have the force of law, helping implement broader legislative policies.
-
​
-
2. Enforcement: They ensure compliance with laws and regulations by monitoring activities, conducting inspections, and enforcing penalties.
-
​
-
3. Quasi-judicial powers: Agencies conduct hearings, resolve disputes, and make decisions on specific issues, often functioning like courts in administrative matters.
-
​
-
4. Advisory: Agencies provide expertise and recommendations to lawmakers, helping guide policy decisions in their areas of expertise.
-
-
These agencies bridge the gap between the legislative intent and practical implementation, ensuring the effective functioning of government operations.
Administrative Due Process
-
Administrative due process ensures fairness in the actions and decisions of administrative agencies. It is crucial because it protects individuals and organizations from arbitrary or unjust treatment by the government. Key aspects include the right to be heard, the right to present evidence, and the requirement that decisions be based on the law and evidence presented.
-
-
Importance:
-
1. Fairness: Ensures that parties affected by administrative decisions are given a fair opportunity to present their case.
-
​
-
2. Transparency: Promotes accountability in decision-making, as agencies must follow established procedures.
-
​
-
3. Protection of Rights: Safeguards individuals’ and entities’ rights by preventing abuse of power or biased rulings.
-
​
-
4. Legal Recourse: Provides a basis for challenging administrative decisions through appeals or judicial review if due process is violated.
-
-
Administrative due process is essential to uphold justice in government actions.
-
-
Ang Tibay v. CIR, G.R. No. L-46496 (1940)
-
​
-
Ang Tibay, a corporation, contested the tax deficiency assessments made by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for the years 1934 and 1935. The CIR imposed additional taxes, which Ang Tibay disputed, arguing that the procedure followed by the BIR was improper and violated the principles of due process in the administrative context. Specifically, Ang Tibay claimed that the administrative process in making the tax assessment did not provide sufficient opportunity for the corporation to defend itself, thus violating its right to administrative due process.
-
-
Issue:
-
Whether the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) followed proper administrative due process in assessing the tax deficiencies against Ang Tibay.
-
-
Ruling:
-
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, affirming the validity of the tax assessments. It held that the administrative due process requirements had been met by the BIR, even though Ang Tibay was not directly afforded an opportunity for a full-blown hearing before the assessment was made.
-
-
Rationale:
-
The Court emphasized that administrative agencies like the Bureau of Internal Revenue are not bound by the same formalities and procedures required in judicial trials. However, it recognized the importance of administrative due process, which includes the right to be informed of the charges, the opportunity to present evidence, and the right to be heard. The Court noted that although the procedure followed in this case did not involve a formal hearing, Ang Tibay had been given ample notice of the tax deficiencies and the opportunity to contest the assessment.
-
-
The Court ruled that while formal hearings are not required in tax assessments, the principles of fairness and substantial evidence must still apply. The Court also reaffirmed the presumption of correctness of tax assessments made by administrative bodies, and the burden rests on the taxpayer to prove the assessment was erroneous.
-
-
Seven Cardinal Rights of Administrative Due Process:
-
In this case, the Court reiterated the following seven cardinal rights of an individual in administrative due process:
-
​
-
1. The right to a hearing – A person must be given the opportunity to be heard, whether orally or in writing, before any decision is made that may adversely affect their rights.
-
​
-
2. The right to notice – A party must be informed of the proceedings and the issues involved to allow them to present their case properly.
-
​
-
3. The right to present evidence – The person must have the chance to present evidence in support of their position, and the evidence must be considered by the administrative body.
-
​
-
4. The right to confront and cross-examine witnesses – In cases where witness testimony is presented, the party should be given the opportunity to cross-examine the witness to challenge the credibility and relevance of the testimony.
-
​
-
5. The right to a decision based on the evidence – Administrative decisions must be based on the evidence presented during the proceedings and should not be arbitrary.
-
​
-
6. The right to appeal – If a party is dissatisfied with the decision, they must have the opportunity to appeal the decision to a higher authority or judicial body.
-
​
-
7. The right to be represented – A party has the right to be represented by counsel or any other representative during the proceedings, ensuring that their case is properly presented.
-
-
Key Points on Administrative Due Process:
-
​
-
1. Informal Procedure: Administrative bodies, like the BIR, are not required to follow formal judicial procedures, but they must ensure fairness in their actions.
-
​
-
2. Notice and Opportunity to Be Heard: While formal hearings are not necessary, administrative due process still mandates that the taxpayer be notified of the assessment and given an opportunity to contest it.
-
​
-
3. Substantial Evidence: Decisions made by administrative agencies must be supported by substantial evidence, ensuring that their decisions are not arbitrary.
-
​
-
4. Presumption of Correctness: Tax assessments made by administrative bodies are presumed to be correct, and the taxpayer must present sufficient evidence to challenge the assessment.
Substantial evidence refers to such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In legal contexts, especially in administrative law, it is the minimum quantum of proof required to justify the findings or decisions made by an administrative body.
Unlike the strict standard of proof required in criminal cases (beyond a reasonable doubt), substantial evidence only requires that the evidence presented be sufficient to make a reasonable person believe the conclusion reached is justifiable. It does not need to be overwhelming, but it must be enough to logically support the decision.
Key Features of Substantial Evidence:
​
1. Reasonable Ground: The evidence must be more than just a mere suspicion, it must reasonably lead to the conclusion.
​
2. Adequate: The evidence must be enough to support the decision of the body or official making the ruling.
​
3. Credible: The evidence presented must be trustworthy and capable of convincing a reasonable person.
-
-
Conclusion:
-
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ang Tibay v. CIR sets an important precedent for administrative due process in tax cases. The decision reinforced the requirement for notice and the opportunity to be heard, even without a formal hearing, while also emphasizing the presumption of correctness in administrative decisions.
-
-
This case established that, in administrative proceedings, fairness and substantial evidence must guide the decision-making process, even when formal judicial procedures are not followed. Additionally, the seven cardinal rights of administrative due process ensure that individuals’ rights are protected, particularly in the context of administrative actions like tax assessments.
-
-
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Maxicare Healthcare Corporation
-
G.R. No. 261065, July 10, 2023
-
​
-
On August 28, 2014, the CIR issued Letter of Authority No. 126-2014-00000060, authorizing the examination of Maxicare’s records for internal revenue taxes from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2012.
-
-
Following the audit, the CIR issued a Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) and Final Assessment Notice (FAN) on December 9, 2015, assessing Maxicare with a deficiency tax amounting to P419.7 million. Maxicare filed a protest against the assessment, requesting a 60-day extension to submit additional supporting documents.
-
-
However, before the 60-day period lapsed, the CIR issued a Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) on December 21, 2015, denying Maxicare’s protest and sustaining the deficiency tax assessment. Maxicare filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on January 20, 2016, challenging the FDDA.
-
-
Issue:
-
Whether the CIR’s premature issuance of the FDDA, before the expiration of the 60-day period for Maxicare to submit additional supporting documents, violated Maxicare’s right to due process.
-
-
Ruling:
-
The Supreme Court upheld the CTA En Banc’s decision, ruling that the CIR violated Maxicare’s due process rights by issuing the FDDA before the 60-day period for submitting additional supporting documents had lapsed.
-
-
Rationale:
-
The Court emphasized that strict adherence to procedural rules is essential to ensure fairness in tax assessments. Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) and Revenue Regulations No. 12-99 require the CIR to wait for the taxpayer to submit additional supporting documents within a 60-day period after filing a protest. By issuing the FDDA prematurely, the CIR deprived Maxicare of a fair opportunity to substantiate its protest, rendering the assessment void.
-
-
Doctrine:
-
Due process in taxation requires that taxpayers be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case and submit supporting documents. Premature issuance of a final decision on disputed assessments, before the expiration of the period granted for submission of additional documents, constitutes a violation of due process.
-
-
Key Points on Administrative Due Process:
-
​
-
1. Notice and Opportunity to Be Heard: Taxpayers must be informed of assessments and given a reasonable period to respond and present evidence.
-
​
-
2. Adherence to Procedural Rules: Administrative agencies must follow established procedures to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrary actions.
-
​
-
3. Right to Present Evidence: Taxpayers have the right to submit supporting documents and evidence to contest assessments.
-
​
-
4. Final Decision: A final decision on disputed assessments should only be issued after the taxpayer has been given adequate time to respond and present evidence.
-
-
This case underscores the importance of procedural fairness in administrative actions, particularly in tax assessments, to protect taxpayers’ rights and ensure just outcomes.
Administrative Rulemaking and Quasi-Legislative Powers
Administrative Rulemaking and Quasi-Legislative Powers
Section 4, Chapter 1, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987.
Description: Administrative agencies possess quasi-legislative powers, which allow them to issue regulations and rules to enforce the laws they are tasked with implementing. These rules have the force of law once properly promulgated.
Tayug Rural Bank v. Central Bank, G.R. No. L-33317 (1977)
​
Tayug Rural Bank, a financial institution, was ordered by the Central Bank to suspend its banking operations due to non-compliance with banking regulations, specifically those relating to reserve requirements and account maintenance. The bank contended that the suspension order violated its due process rights because it was not given adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard prior to the suspension. The bank argued that the order was arbitrary and lacked legal foundation.
Issue:
Whether the Central Bank had the authority to suspend Tayug Rural Bank’s operations and if its right to due process was violated.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Central Bank, emphasizing its rule-making authority and broad discretion in regulating financial institutions. The Court acknowledged that the Central Bank, as the regulator of the Philippine banking sector, has the power to enforce compliance with legal requirements, especially those aimed at ensuring the stability of the financial system.
The Court noted that the Central Bank’s rule-making authority is derived from its regulatory functions and mandate under Philippine banking laws. The bank has the power to establish rules, issue regulations, and take corrective actions such as suspending the operations of non-compliant financial institutions. In this case, the Court ruled that the suspension order was consistent with the Central Bank’s powers under its regulatory mandate.
Regarding due process, the Court held that although the suspension of the bank’s operations was immediate, the principle of administrative due process was still satisfied because the bank had the opportunity to challenge the order through an appeal or subsequent proceedings.
The Court emphasized that in regulatory matters involving financial institutions, prompt action is necessary to protect the integrity of the banking system, and agencies like the Central Bank are authorized to take such actions without necessarily adhering to lengthy procedures.
Doctrine:
1. Rule-making Authority of Administrative Agencies: Administrative agencies, particularly regulatory bodies such as the Central Bank, possess significant rule-making authority. They are empowered to create rules, regulations, and enforce actions necessary to ensure compliance with laws and safeguard the interests of the public and the financial system. The Central Bank’s suspension order was within its discretion to ensure proper functioning of the banking system.
​
2. Due Process in Administrative Actions: While administrative actions like the suspension of operations do not always require a pre-decisional hearing, the affected parties must still have access to remedial mechanisms, such as an appeal process. This ensures that the due process rights of individuals or entities are protected, even in regulatory contexts.
Key Takeaways:
• The Central Bank’s rule-making authority includes the power to issue regulations and orders that affect the operations of financial institutions in the interest of public policy and financial stability.
​
• The Court affirmed that administrative agencies have broad discretion to take actions, such as suspending operations, without violating the principle of due process, provided that affected parties can later challenge such actions through appropriate remedies.
​
• This case highlights the extensive regulatory powers of administrative agencies and their ability to enforce compliance with laws in a way that ensures public safety and order.
Quasi-Judicial Powers and Administrative Adjudication
Quasi-Judicial Powers and Administrative Adjudication
Relevant Provisions: Sections 9-19, Chapter 3, Book VII of the Administrative Code.
Description: Administrative agencies also have quasi-judicial powers, enabling them to adjudicate disputes, enforce compliance, and issue binding decisions. These powers are exercised through hearings and investigations conducted by administrative bodies.
Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 79690 (1988)
​
Zaldivar, a public official, was charged with a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act by the Ombudsman (then the Tanodbayan). The case was filed before the Sandiganbayan, a special court with jurisdiction over cases involving public officials and employees charged with corruption. Zaldivar filed a petition for the dismissal of the case, claiming that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction over the charges since the case involved a quasi-judicial function. He argued that the Ombudsman had exceeded its authority in filing the case.
The core issue revolved around whether the Ombudsman (or the Sandiganbayan) had the power to exercise quasi-judicial functions, particularly in determining the sufficiency of evidence in initiating charges for corruption, which is an essential aspect of their role.
Issue:
Whether the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan can exercise quasi-judicial functions in deciding the sufficiency of evidence to support charges under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Sandiganbayan, emphasizing the quasi-judicial powers of administrative agencies such as the Ombudsman and its role in investigating and prosecuting cases of graft and corruption.
The Court held that the Ombudsman indeed has quasi-judicial powers as part of its constitutional mandate. These powers include the authority to investigate, file, and prosecute cases involving graft and corruption. In doing so, the Ombudsman performs an important quasi-judicial function in evaluating the evidence presented and determining whether a case should proceed to trial.
The Court also affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction and role in exercising quasi-judicial functions in cases of this nature. The Sandiganbayan, as a specialized court, has the jurisdiction to hear cases involving public officials charged with corruption, and it is empowered to adjudicate matters of guilt or innocence, although it derives its authority from the findings of the Ombudsman.
The Court explained that administrative agencies like the Ombudsman can be vested with quasi-judicial powers to ensure that certain specialized matters, such as cases involving corruption and misconduct by public officials, are handled expeditiously and by bodies with expertise in these matters.
Doctrine:
​
1. Quasi-Judicial Powers of Administrative Agencies: The Court recognized that the Ombudsman, while primarily an investigative body, exercises quasi-judicial functions, including evaluating evidence and determining whether there is sufficient basis to file a formal charge before a court such as the Sandiganbayan. The Ombudsman’s quasi-judicial functions are part of its constitutional mandate to investigate and prosecute violations of public trust and corruption.
​
2. Jurisdiction and Powers of the Sandiganbayan: The Sandiganbayan, as a specialized court, has the jurisdiction to try cases of corruption involving public officials, and it can act on the findings of the Ombudsman. Its quasi-judicial powers enable it to rule on the sufficiency of the evidence in corruption cases, provided that the Ombudsman has already filed charges supported by proper investigation.
Key Takeaways:
​
• The Ombudsman has the power to perform quasi-judicial functions, which include investigating and filing cases of corruption, and determining the sufficiency of evidence to bring charges before the Sandiganbayan.
​
• The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over cases involving graft and corruption, and it exercises quasi-judicial functions, including ruling on the sufficiency of evidence presented in corruption cases.
​
• This case highlights the distinction between administrative (investigative) functions and quasi-judicial functions, with a focus on how both the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan exercise these functions in cases of public official misconduct.
Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration v. Wenle
G.R. No. 242957, February 28, 2023
​
The Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration (BI) issued a decision placing the respondent, Wenle, under a deportation order based on his overstaying status in the Philippines. The BI found that Wenle had violated immigration laws and determined that his continued stay in the country was illegal.
Wenle challenged the order before the Court of Appeals, arguing that the decision of the BI was invalid, contending the lack of due process and the arbitrary nature of the order. The Board, however, insisted that it was exercising its quasi-judicial powers in accordance with the law.
Issue:
Whether the Bureau of Immigration, acting through its Board of Commissioners, properly exercised its quasi-judicial powers in issuing the deportation order and whether Wenle’s due process rights were violated.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court upheld the BI’s decision, affirming the exercise of its quasi-judicial powers. It ruled that the Bureau of Immigration, in this case, acted within its scope of authority under the Immigration Act and its regulations. The Court emphasized that administrative agencies, such as the BI, are empowered to make determinations regarding the deportation of foreign nationals, provided these agencies follow proper procedures and respect the constitutional right to due process.
The Court noted that the BI’s action was in line with its quasi-judicial function, which includes the authority to adjudicate cases, issue orders, and make determinations in matters within its specialized field. The decision also clarified that quasi-judicial powers allow agencies to make factual findings, issue decisions, and enforce them, which is vital for the efficient operation of the administrative system.
The Court further ruled that Wenle was given an opportunity to be heard, and his arguments were considered, thus upholding his right to due process. The Court emphasized that the quasi-judicial power of administrative agencies like the BI is a necessary tool in managing and enforcing laws within their jurisdiction.
Significance:
​
This case highlights the role of administrative agencies, specifically the Bureau of Immigration, in exercising quasi-judicial powers such as issuing deportation orders. It underscores the importance of administrative due process, including the right to be heard, in administrative proceedings.
Furthermore, it reinforces the authority of agencies to resolve disputes and enforce laws within their expertise, ensuring that the rule of law is upheld within the scope of their function.
Judicial Review of Administrative Actions
Section 25, Chapter 4, Book VII of the Administrative Code.
Judicial review allows courts to review the legality of administrative actions, ensuring that agencies do not exceed their authority or violate constitutional rights.
Paat v. CA, G.R. No. 111107, March 11, 1994
Petitioner Paat, a public employee, was dismissed from service by the Office of the Ombudsman for grave misconduct after being found guilty of committing acts unbecoming of a public officer. Paat challenged his dismissal before the Court of Appeals, arguing that the decision of the Ombudsman was made without due process and that the Court had no jurisdiction over the case. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Ombudsman’s decision, stating that the judicial review over decisions made by the Ombudsman, especially regarding administrative matters, is limited.
Issue:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the dismissal of the petitioner and limiting judicial review over decisions made by the Ombudsman.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals, emphasizing that the Ombudsman, as an independent constitutional body, is given discretionary authority over the investigation and prosecution of public officers. Judicial review of the Ombudsman’s decisions is allowed but is limited to ensuring that these decisions do not constitute grave abuse of discretion.
The Court recognized that the Ombudsman has the authority to impose penalties and that the decisions of the Ombudsman are not subject to judicial review unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. In this case, the Court found that the dismissal of Paat was made in accordance with the law and that there was no abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman’s decision-making process.
The Court clarified that while judicial review is a constitutional right, it should not extend to interfering with the discretionary powers of the Ombudsman, as long as the actions taken are within the bounds of law and do not infringe upon the rights of the individuals involved.
Significance:
​
This case highlights the limited scope of judicial review in administrative cases involving the Ombudsman. The Court emphasized that while judicial review is a fundamental principle in the Philippine legal system, the Ombudsman’s power to make determinations in administrative cases is largely discretionary and is subject to review only when there is grave abuse of discretion.
It reinforces the notion of judicial deference to the specialized role of administrative bodies, ensuring that their decisions are respected as long as they adhere to due process and are within the framework of legal authority.
​
Colmenares, et al. v. Energy Regulatory Commission, et al.
G.R. No. 210245, August 3, 2021
The petitioners, led by Rep. Neri Colmenares, filed a petition questioning the legality of the Energy Regulatory Commission’s (ERC) orders that allowed a staggered increase in the generation rates imposed by the Manila Electric Company (Meralco) following an unusual spike in the prices at the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM). The price increase resulted from the shutdown of several power plants, which constrained the supply of electricity and led to the activation of the Automatic Generation Rate Adjustment (AGRA) mechanism.
Petitioners argued that the ERC gravely abused its discretion in approving the staggered increase without conducting a public hearing as required by law. They contended that the ERC violated the rights of consumers to due process and transparency.
Issues:
1. Whether the ERC’s actions are subject to judicial review.
2. Whether the ERC committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the rate increase without a public hearing.
Ruling:
1. Judicial Review of Administrative Actions
The Supreme Court held that the ERC’s actions are subject to judicial review. Administrative agencies, while possessing specialized expertise, are still subject to the rule of law and constitutional limits. The courts have the power to scrutinize their decisions when there is an alleged grave abuse of discretion.
The Court emphasized that even in cases involving the exercise of discretion by administrative bodies, their decisions must be in accordance with the law and grounded in substantial evidence. Judicial review ensures that no administrative agency acts arbitrarily or beyond its jurisdiction.
2. Grave Abuse of Discretion
The Supreme Court ruled that the ERC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court underscored that public hearings are crucial in the determination of rate increases, especially since electricity rates directly affect the public. The ERC should have conducted public hearings to ensure transparency and protect consumers’ rights to due process.
The Court found that the ERC failed to follow the procedural due process requirements under the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) and its own rules, which require public hearings before approving adjustments in rates. By bypassing these mandatory procedures, the ERC exceeded its discretion and violated the rights of consumers.
Disposition:
The Supreme Court nullified the ERC’s orders authorizing the staggered increase in Meralco’s generation rates. It remanded the case to the ERC for the proper conduct of public hearings and the observance of the due process requirements in determining electricity rate adjustments.
Key Doctrines:
​
• Administrative agencies are subject to judicial review, especially when there is an alleged grave abuse of discretion.
​
• Public hearings are mandatory in the determination of rate increases to ensure transparency and protect consumer rights.
​
• Administrative discretion must be exercised in accordance with law and due process, and failure to follow these principles constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
Principles in Administrative Law
Administrative law governs the actions of administrative agencies of government, including their decision-making processes, rule-making, and enforcement of regulations. It ensures that these agencies act within the law and respect individual rights. The following are key principles of administrative law:
​
1. Rule of Law
Administrative actions and decisions must be based on the law. Agencies must adhere to the principles of legality, ensuring that their decisions are made according to existing statutes, regulations, and procedures.
​
2. Public Accountability
Administrative agencies are accountable to the public and must exercise their powers in a manner that promotes transparency and fairness. This includes being open to public scrutiny, providing reasoned explanations for their decisions, and ensuring that their actions are aligned with public interest.
3. Fairness and Impartiality
Decisions made by administrative agencies must be fair and impartial. This means that agencies must avoid conflicts of interest, bias, or any influence that could compromise the fairness of their proceedings.
​
4. Reasonableness
Decisions made by administrative agencies must be reasonable. The principle of reasonableness ensures that decisions are not arbitrary or capricious and that they are based on facts, relevant laws, and the agency’s purpose.
5. Transparency
Agencies must operate in a transparent manner, providing public access to their decisions, processes, and reasoning. This ensures accountability and fosters trust in government processes.
​
Colmenares, et al. v. Energy Regulatory Commission, et al.
G.R. No. 210245, August 3, 2021
​
​
​
6. Participation and Consultation
Administrative agencies should involve relevant stakeholders, including the public, in decision-making processes, especially in rule-making. This principle fosters democratic governance and ensures that administrative actions reflect the interests and needs of those affected.
These principles ensure that administrative law serves as a safeguard to protect individuals’ rights while promoting efficient and effective governance.
Doctrines in Administrative Law
Administrative law is guided by several key doctrines that shape how administrative agencies exercise their powers and interact with individuals, other government entities, and the judiciary. These doctrines ensure that agencies remain within their legal boundaries, protect citizens’ rights, and maintain fairness in their decision-making processes. Below are some of the most important doctrines in administrative law:
​
1. Doctrine of Separation of Powers
Administrative agencies must operate within the limits of their delegated powers, ensuring that they do not encroach on the functions of the legislative or judicial branches. While they may have quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers, they cannot overstep into areas reserved for other branches of government.
​
Genuino v. Commission on Audit (COA), et al.
G.R. No. 230818, June 15, 2021
​
Efraim Genuino, former chairman of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), challenged the Commission on Audit (COA) for disallowing expenses incurred by PAGCOR for alleged misuse of funds. The COA had issued notices of disallowance, claiming that certain expenses made under Genuino’s leadership were illegal and unauthorized. Genuino argued that COA had overstepped its powers and violated the principle of separation of powers by intruding into PAGCOR’s management, which he claimed was within the executive branch’s prerogative.
Issue:
Whether COA’s actions violated the principle of separation of powers by intruding into executive management, specifically PAGCOR’s discretion in handling its funds.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court upheld the authority of the COA and ruled that there was no violation of the separation of powers. COA is a constitutional body tasked with examining and auditing government agencies and ensuring that public funds are used legally and properly. It has the authority to audit all branches of government, including executive agencies such as PAGCOR. The Court clarified that COA’s audit powers are independent and do not infringe on the executive branch’s authority.
Separation of Powers and Administrative Agencies:
The doctrine of separation of powers ensures that the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judiciary) operate within their respective spheres. However, the Constitution grants certain agencies like COA oversight powers over financial matters, even over executive bodies, to ensure accountability. In this case, COA’s power to audit did not interfere with PAGCOR’s executive functions but was part of its constitutional mandate to ensure the lawful expenditure of public funds.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that COA did not violate the principle of separation of powers. COA’s audit of PAGCOR’s expenditures and the disallowance of improper spending were legitimate exercises of its constitutional mandate to safeguard public funds.
​
Key Takeaway:
​
This case reaffirms that administrative agencies with constitutional mandates, like COA, have oversight powers that must be respected by all branches of government, including executive agencies. The separation of powers does not bar COA from performing its auditing functions even over executive decisions on the use of public funds.
​
Octaviano v. Board of Architecture of the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), et al., G.R. No. 239350, August 22, 2023
Atty. Cecilia Octaviano filed a petition questioning the authority of the Board of Architecture, under the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), to impose regulations on the practice of architecture. Octaviano claimed that the Board’s regulations were legislative in nature and exceeded its administrative mandate. She argued that the Board’s issuance of certain regulations infringed on the legislative power of Congress, thereby violating the separation of powers doctrine.
The PRC and the Board of Architecture defended their actions, asserting that they were authorized under the Republic Act No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004) to regulate the profession of architecture, which included issuing rules and regulations to ensure professional standards were met.
Issue:
Whether the Board of Architecture’s issuance of regulations violated the separation of powers doctrine by encroaching on legislative authority.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court upheld the authority of the Board of Architecture, affirming that the Board’s rule-making power was a valid exercise of its quasi-legislative authority granted by Congress through the Architecture Act of 2004. The Court ruled that Congress, through its legislative powers, can delegate certain rule-making functions to administrative agencies, like the PRC and its boards, to implement laws more effectively.
The delegation of such powers does not violate the separation of powers as long as the delegation is clear and specific, and the rules are within the scope of the enabling law. The Board of Architecture’s regulations were in line with the authority granted by law, and the rules were necessary to ensure the proper regulation of the architectural profession.
Separation of Powers and Administrative Agencies:
The Court emphasized that separation of powers does not prevent Congress from delegating the power to fill in the details of a law to administrative agencies, particularly when specialized knowledge or expertise is required. The administrative agencies’ quasi-legislative powers allow them to issue regulations to carry out the objectives of the law, without infringing on Congress’ exclusive legislative powers.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that the Board of Architecture did not violate the separation of powers doctrine. The issuance of regulations governing the practice of architecture was a valid exercise of its quasi-legislative powers, properly delegated by Congress under Republic Act No. 9266.
2. Doctrine of Delegated Legislation
​
This doctrine allows legislative bodies to delegate certain legislative powers to administrative agencies. Such delegation is necessary to enable agencies to create rules and regulations needed to implement laws effectively. However, the delegation must be clear and the agency must operate within the scope of the authority granted.
Example: A legislative body may grant a health department the power to set health safety regulations, such as food safety standards, in accordance with the broader health laws passed by the legislature.
3. Doctrine of Quasi-Judicial Powers
Some administrative agencies have quasi-judicial powers, which means they can perform functions similar to those of a court, such as adjudicating disputes, issuing decisions, and imposing penalties. This doctrine allows agencies to resolve matters within their specific jurisdiction, thereby relieving the courts of minor cases and enhancing administrative efficiency.
Example: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has quasi-judicial powers in regulating corporate disputes and securities violations.
4. Doctrine of Non-Delegation of Judicial Power
This doctrine restricts the delegation of judicial powers to non-judicial bodies. Courts have exclusive authority over judicial functions such as adjudicating criminal cases or determining the constitutionality of laws. Administrative agencies may have quasi-judicial powers, but their decisions are subject to judicial review.
Example: A regulatory agency cannot issue a final judgment on a constitutional matter, as this power is reserved for the judiciary.
​
5. Doctrine of Judicial Review
Judicial review is the power of the courts to review the actions and decisions of administrative agencies to ensure that they do not exceed their authority, violate constitutional rights, or engage in arbitrary or capricious decision-making. Courts can strike down or modify administrative decisions that are unlawful or unreasonable.
Example: The Supreme Court can review administrative decisions such as the revocation of a business license by an agency to ensure it is based on the law and due process.
​
6. Doctrine of Substantial Compliance
This doctrine allows for flexibility in the application of procedural rules. While administrative procedures must generally be followed, minor deviations or technical errors that do not undermine the fairness or purpose of the process may be excused.
Example: If an agency delays sending a notice but still ensures the individual received it, the failure to send it on time may not invalidate the action taken.
7. Doctrine of Stare Decisis in Administrative Law
The doctrine of stare decisis in administrative law dictates that decisions made by higher administrative bodies or courts should be followed by lower bodies to ensure consistency and stability in the law. Administrative agencies are expected to follow precedents set by higher courts or their own previous rulings, ensuring predictable and uniform application of rules.
Example: If the Court of Appeals has previously ruled on the interpretation of a specific regulatory law, lower administrative agencies must follow that interpretation unless a higher court overturns it.
8. Doctrine of Implied Powers
This doctrine holds that administrative agencies have implied powers to take actions that are necessary to fulfill their duties, even if those actions are not explicitly authorized by law. These powers must, however, be consistent with the agency’s purpose and mandate.
Example: An environmental agency may regulate activities that indirectly impact public health, even though such activities are not explicitly mentioned in the agency’s enabling statute, as long as it aligns with the agency’s general mandate to protect the environment.
​
9. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction: This doctrine holds that courts should defer to the expertise of administrative agencies in matters within their specialized jurisdiction.
Republic v. Lacap, G.R. No. 158253 (2006)
​
The Republic of the Philippines, through the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), filed a case for reversion of land titled in the names of the Lacaps. The Republic alleged that the titles were obtained through fraud and deceit, as the land in question was part of a forest reserve and thus inalienable. The Lacaps, in their defense, questioned the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that the DENR, as the government agency tasked with determining land classification and other related matters, had primary jurisdiction over the issue.
Issue:
Does the doctrine of primary jurisdiction apply to this case, thereby requiring the DENR to resolve the matter first before resorting to the courts?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction did not apply in this case. While the DENR has jurisdiction over land classification and other administrative matters related to public lands, the courts have jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation or reversion of titles obtained through fraudulent means. The case for reversion of land titles falls under the jurisdiction of regular courts since it involves judicial review of alleged fraud, a matter that the DENR cannot conclusively resolve.
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction:
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies when a case requires the specialized knowledge or expertise of an administrative agency. Courts must defer to the administrative agency first if the issue falls within the agency’s special competence. However, if the case involves legal questions outside the agency’s domain, such as fraud, courts can directly exercise jurisdiction.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republic, stating that the courts have jurisdiction over the reversion of land titles obtained by fraud. The DENR’s role is limited to determining land classification, but the court must decide the issue of fraud. Thus, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction did not preclude the filing of the case before the courts.
10. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Before seeking judicial relief, parties must first exhaust all available administrative remedies. In Vda. de Tan v. Veterans Backpay Commission, G.R. No. L-24266 (1968), the Court emphasized that failure to exhaust these remedies could result in the dismissal of the case.
Legaspi, et al. v. Commission on Elections
G.R. No. 264661, July 30, 2024
The petitioners, Legaspi and several others, filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) regarding the disqualification of certain candidates in the 2024 national elections. The petitioners sought to bypass the internal remedies within COMELEC and directly questioned its ruling before the Supreme Court. They argued that COMELEC’s decision was immediately appealable to the Court due to its alleged grave abuse of discretion.
Issue:
Whether the petitioners violated the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies by directly filing the petition before the Supreme Court without first appealing within COMELEC.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for failure to comply with the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Court emphasized that, as a general rule, before a party can seek judicial intervention, they must first avail of the remedies provided by the administrative agency involved. COMELEC has an established procedure for appealing decisions within the agency itself before elevating the matter to the judiciary.
Doctrine Applied:
The Court reiterated the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, which mandates that parties must first seek relief from the administrative agency involved before filing a case in court. This doctrine ensures that the agency is given the opportunity to correct its own errors and prevents premature interference by the courts. Judicial review may only be sought after the administrative remedies are exhausted, unless there are exceptional circumstances such as:
​
• The agency acted with grave abuse of discretion.
• The remedy provided by the agency is inadequate.
• There is an urgent need for judicial intervention.
In this case, the petitioners failed to exhaust the remedies available within COMELEC, as they did not appeal the ruling to the COMELEC en banc before going to the Supreme Court. The Court held that none of the exceptions to the doctrine applied, and thus the petitioners’ case was premature.
Significance:
This case underscores the importance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies in ensuring that administrative agencies, such as COMELEC, are allowed to perform their functions and correct their own errors before the courts step in. It also clarifies that the doctrine is crucial for maintaining an orderly and efficient legal process, preventing unnecessary judicial intervention in administrative matters.
​