Diseño e Implementación del Cliente Web

stage of the proceedings. (substantial right – can be given notice and hearing)

Secretary of Justice vs Lantion 322 SCRA 160 (Angel Pascual)

Facts: A request for extradition was filed against Mark Jimenez for alleged violation of many criminal laws in the US. The DOJ formed a panel of lawyers to review and study the request. Pending the review, MJ requested copies of all documents and papers relative to the request that the proceedings be suspended for the meantime. The DOJ denied the request, hence MJ filed a petition for mandamus before the RTC of Manila to compel the DOJ to furnish him the documents. The RTC of Manila issued a TRO to maintain a status quo ante, hence the DOJ filed an appeal to the SC.

Issue: Whether or not MJ is entitled to notice and hearing during the preliminary or the evaluation stage of the extradition treaty against him.

Ruling : From the procedures earlier abstracted, after the filing of the extradition petition and during the judicial determination of the propriety of extradition, the rights of notice and hearing are clearly granted to the prospective extradite. However, prior thereto, the law is silent as to these rights. Reference to the U.S. extradition procedures also manifests this silence.

Ruiz vs Drilon 209 SCRA 695 (Tristan A. Reyes)

Facts : GR No. 103570 refers to a petition for review on the decision of the court of appeals consolidated with GR No. 101666 for certiorari and prohibition to review the decision of the executive secretary.

Petitioner herein was the president of Central Luzon State University who was dismissed by the President of the Philippines from his position after investigation of a committee on several charges against him. Petitioner undertook to ask for a reconsideration on the same which respondent Drilon, as executive secretary denied. Petitioner filed with the CA a petition for prohibition with a prayer for TRO which granted the latter prayer. After eight days, petitioner filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for TRO. The CA dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition was not meritorious and a case of forum shopping. The SC dispensed with the comment of the Solicitor General for the public respondents it being that the pleadings and papers already filed were already adequate for them to act on said petition.

Issue : Whether or not the public respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion or any act without or in excess of jurisdiction in rendering the assailed administrative orders. / Was the petitioner entitled to be informed of the findings of an investigative committee created to inquire into charges against him?

Ruling : Petitioner is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of any investigating committee created to inquire into charges filed against him. He is entitled only to an administrative decision that is based on substantial evidence made of record and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges made against him and the evidence presented against him during the hearings of the investigating committees.

Pefianco vs Moral 322 SCRA 439 (Ma. Lourdes Genio)

Facts: Ma. Luisa Moral instituted an action for mandamus and injunction before the regular courts against Secretary Gloria, who was later replaced by Secretary Pefianco, praying that she be furnished a copy of the DECS Investigation Committee Report and that the DECS Secretary be enjoined from enforcing the order of dismissal until she received a copy of the said report.

Moral was ordered dismissed from the government service. Respondent did not appeal the judgement .

Secretary Gloria moved to dismiss the mandamus case for lack of cause of action but the trial court denied his motion, thus elevated the case to the Court of Appeals on certiorari which sustained the trial court.

Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for Certiorari for failure of petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration of the order denying the motion to dismiss.

Ruling : A respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of any investigating committee created to inquire into charges filed against him. He is entitled only to the administrative decision based on substantial evidence made of record, and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and the evidence presented against her during the hearings of the investigation committee. Respondent no doubt had been accorded these rights.

C. Right to counsel in administrative investigations – a counsel may or may not assist a person under investigation. (Remolona v. CSC) D. Importance of administrative investigations

Evangelista vs Jarencio 68 SCRA 99

(Aileen Angue)

Facts: Petitioner filed a case before the SC seeking to annul the order of the respondent judge in civil case manalastas vs. bagatsing et, al. which order that preliminary injunction restraining respondent from further issuing subpoena in connection with the fact finding investigation against petitioner.

Pursuant to his special powers and duties under Section 64 of the Revised Administrative Code, 1 the President of the Philippines created the Presidential Agency on Reforms and Government Operations (PARGO) under Executive Order No. 4 of January 7, 1966.

For a realistic performance of these functions, the President vested in the Agency all the powers of an investigating committee under Sections 71 and 580 of the Revised Administrative Code, including the power to summon witnesses by subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, administer oaths, take testimony or evidence relevant to the investigation.

Issue: Whether the Agency, acting thru its officials, enjoys the authority to issue subpoenas in its conduct of fact-finding investigations.

Ruling : Since the only purpose of investigation is to discover facts as a basis of future action, any unnecessary extension of the privilege would thus be unwise.

E. Executive power to investigate, source

Section 64c Revised Administrative Code

• Power of the president –to order, when in his opinion the good of the public service so requires, an investigation of any action or the conduct of any person in the Government service, and in connection therewith to designate the official, committee, or person by whom such investigation shall be conducted.

Section 20 Book III, 1987 Administrative Code

• Residual Powers – unless congress provides otherwise, the President shall exercise such other powers and functions vested in the President which are provided for under the laws and which are not specifically enumerated above, or which are not delegated by the President in accordance with law.

Larin vs Executive Secretary 280 SCRA 713 (Tristan A. Reyes)

Facts: Petitioner herein was an assistant commissioner of the excise tax service of the BIR being appointed by then President Aquino. Sometime in 1992, a decision was rendered by the Sandiganbayan convicting petitioner of grave misconduct. Acting on a report by then acting Finance Secretary Leong, the President, through its executive secretary, issued a memorandum creating an executive committee to investigate the administrative charge against petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner submitted a position paper as required by the committee. Consequently, the president issued a memorandum which streamlined the operations of the BIR abolishing some of the offices which included the office of excise tax and another memorandum dismissing herein petitioner from office as a result of the investigation. Petitioner contends that he is a Career Executive Service officer and he cannot be removed. On the other hand, respondents contended that since petitioner is a presidential appointee, he falls under the disciplining authority of the president.

Issue: Who has the power to discipline the petitioner or does the president have the power to order an investigation against herein petitioner?

Ruling : The position of Assistant Commissioner of the BIR is part of the Career Executive Service under the law which is appointed by the president. As a presidential appointee who belongs to career service of the Civil Service, he comes under the direct disciplining authority of the president in line with the principle that the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint conferred by the Constitution. The memorandum issued by the president which created a committee to investigate the administrative charge against petitioner was pursuant to the power of removal by the president. However, the power of removal is not absolute since the petitioner herein is a career service officer who has in his favor the security of tenure who may only be removed through a cause enumerated by law.

Evangelista vs Jarencio 68 SCRA 99 (Ma. Lourdes Genio)

Facts: Petitioner filed a case before the SC seeking to annul the order of the respondent judge in civil case manalastas vs. bagatsing et, al. which order that preliminary injunction restraining respondent from further issuing subpoena in connection with the fact finding investigation against petitioner.

Pursuant to his special powers and duties under Section 64 of the Revised Administrative Code, 1 the President of the Philippines created the Presidential

Agency on Reforms and Government Operations (PARGO) under Executive Order No. 4 of January 7, 1966.

For a realistic performance of these functions, the President vested in the Agency all the powers of an investigating committee under Sections 71 and 580 of the Revised Administrative Code, including the power to summon witnesses by subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, administer oaths, take testimony or evidence relevant to the investigation.

Issue : Whether or not PARGO has the power to issue subpoenas

Ruling : The subpoena issued by petitioner Quirico Evangelista to respondent Fernando Manalastas is well within the legal competence of the Agency to issue.

Administrative agencies may enforce subpoenas issued in the course of investigations, whether or not adjudication is involved, and whether or not probable cause is shown and even before the issuance of a complaint.

Requirements in issuing a subpoena:

1. Within the authority of the agency 2. Information is reasonably relevant 3. Demand is not indefinite

V. Quasi-legislative /Rule-Making Powers Remolona vs CSC 362 SCRA 304

(Aileen Angue)

Facts: Esrelito Romolona was the post master at the postal office service in Infanta, Quezon, District Supervisor of the DECS inquired from the Civil Service Commission as to the status of the Civil Service eligibility of Mrs.

Remolona who got a rating of 81.25% of as per report of rating issued by the National Board for Teachers. After an investigation, Remolona’s name is not in the list of passing and failing examinees. Remolona admitted that he was responsible in acquiring the alleged fake eligibility, that his wife has no knowledge and that he did it because he wanted them to be together.

A formal charge was filed against petitioner Remolona, Nery C. Remolona and Atty. Hadji Sdupadin for possession of fake eligibility, falsification and dishonesty. CSS found Estelito Remolona and Nery remolona guilty but Nery Remolona was absolved from legibility. On appeal, CA dismissed the petition and therefore a review by the SC.

Issue : Whether or not the CSC can dismiss the petitioner despite of the fact that the offense committed was not done in the performance of his official duty.

Ruling : If the government officer or employee is dishonest or is guilty of oppression or grave misconduct, even if said defects of character are not connected with his office, they affect his right to continue in office.

Rule making power - the power to issue rules and regulations.

A. Nature of power, definition – Administrative agencies are endowed with powers legislative in nature or quasi-legislative, and in practical effect, with the power to make law. However, the essential legislative functions may not be delegated to administrative agencies and in this sense, it is said that administrative agencies have no legislative power and are precluded from legislating in the strict sense.

People vs Maceren 79 SCRA 450 (Tristan A. Reyes)

Facts: The case at bar involves the validity of a 1967 regulation, penalizing electro fishing in fresh water.

Issue: Whether or not the Fishery Administrative Order No. 84 penalizing electro fishing.

Ruling: The fishery laws did not expressly prohibit electro fishing. The lawmaking body cannot delegate to administrative official the power to declare what act constitute a criminal offense. Electro fishing is now punishable by virtue of PD 704. Thus, an administrative regulation must be in harmony with law; it must not amend an act of the legislature. In a prosecution for violation of an administrative order it must clearly appear that the order falls within the scope of the authority conferred by law.

1. Ordinance power of the President/Delegation to the President

- The president has the power to issue rules and regulations (executive orders, proclamations, etc.)

Sections 23.2, 28.2, Article VI, Constitution

Section 23. 2. - In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.

Section 28. 2 - The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government.

Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Book III, Title I, Chapter 2, 1987 Admin. Code

Chapter 2 ORDINANCE POWER

Sec. 2. Executive Orders. - Acts of the President providing for rules of a general or permanent character in implementation or execution of constitutional or statutory powers shall be promulgated in executive orders.

Sec. 3. Administrative Orders. - Acts of the President which relate to particular aspect of governmental operations in pursuance of his duties as administrative head shall be promulgated in administrative orders.

Sec. 4. Proclamations. - Acts of the President fixing a date or declaring a status or condition of public moment or interest, upon the existence of which the operation of a specific law or regulation is made to depend, shall be promulgated in proclamations which shall have the force of an executive order.

Sec. 5. Memorandum Orders. - Acts of the President on matters of administrative detail or of subordinate or temporary interest which only concern a particular officer or office of the Government shall be embodied in memorandum orders.

Sec. 6. Memorandum Circulars. - Acts of the President on matters relating to internal administration, which the President desires to bring to the attention of all or some of the departments, agencies, bureaus or offices of the Government, for information or compliance, shall be embodied in memorandum circulars.

Sec. 7. General or Special Orders.- Acts and commands of the President in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be issued as general or special orders.

Araneta v. Gatmaitan 101 Phil 328 (Aileen Angue)

Facts: The President of the Philippines issued Executive Orders restricting and banning trawl fishing from San Miguel Bay. However, a group of other trawl operators questioned the said executive orders alleging that the same is null and void.

Issue : Whether or not the issuance of the executive order was valid.

Ruling : Before the issuance of the eo, a resolution by the municipality allowed thrall fishing. Such law is not deemed complete unless it lays down a standard or pattern sufficiently fixed or determinate, or, at least, determinable without requiring another legislation, to guide the administrative body concerned in the performance of its duty to implement or enforce said policy.

EO issued by the secretary was valid since that it was part of the agencies functions.

Olsen & Co. vs Aldanese, 43 Phil. 259 (Ma. Lourdes Genio)

Facts: Walter Olsen, a duly licensed domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture and export of cigars made of tobacco grown in the Philippines assailed the constitutionality of Act 2613, allegedly depriving them of their right of exporting cigars to the United States due to the refusal of the Collector of Internal Revenue to issue certificate of origin and that the cigars were not manufactured of long filler tobacco produced exclusively in the province of Cagayan, Isabela or Nueva Viscaya.

Issue: Whether or not the Collector of Internal Revenue is authorized to make rules and regulations which are not within the scope of Act 2613.

Ruling: The only power conferred to the Collector of Internal Revenue was that a proper standard of the quality of tobacco should be fixed and defined and that all of these who produce tobacco of the same standard would have equal

rights and opportunities. Such delegated power the rules and regulations promulgated should be confined to and limited by the power conferred by the legislative act.

The authority of the Collector of Internal Revenue to makes rules and regulations is specified and defined to the making of rules and regulations for the classification, marking and packing of leaf or manufactured tobacco of good quality and the handling of it under sanitary conditions.

2. Delegation to the Supreme Court

Section 5.5, Article VIII, Constitution

Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

First Lepanto Ceramics vs CA 231 SCRA 30 (Aileen Angue)

Facts: BOI granted First Lepanto to amend certificate of recognition by changing scope of its reg product from glazed floor tiles to ceramic stiles.

Mariwasa oppose filed motion for reconsideration. Mariwasa filed petition for review with respondent CA. it is temporarily restrained BOI from implementing decision, 20 days lapsed without respondent court issuing preliminary injunction. Lepanto filed motion to dismiss, court appellate. Jurisdiction over BOI vested with SC.

Issue: Whether or not CA has jurisdiction.

Held: Yes, E.O 226 grants the right of appeal from decisions of BOI. It simply deals with procedural aspects with court has the power to regulate by virtue of its cons rule-making power. Circular 1-91 repealed or suspended EO 226 in so far as the manner of appeal. Appeals from decisions of BOI, which statutes allowed to be filed with SC, are brought to CA.

3. Delegation to LGUs

Sections 5 and 9, Article X, Constitution

Section 5. Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own