ADMINISTRATIVE L IVE L AW AW
191. Describe the Administrative Code of 1987
Held:
Held: The Code is a general law and
“incorporates in a unified document the major structural, functional and procedural principles of governance (Third Whereas Clause, Administrative Code of 1987) and
“embodies changes in administrative structures and procedures designed to serve the people.” (Fourth Whereas Clause, Administrative Code of 1987) The Code is
divided into seven (7) books. These books contain provisions on the organization, powers and general administration of departments, bureaus and offices under the executive branch, the organization and functions of the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional bodies, the rules on the national government budget, as well as guidelines for the exercise by administrative agencies of legislative and judicial powers. The Code covers both the
internal administration, i.e., internal
Political Law Reviewer by SANDOVAL 103 organization, personnel and recruitment,
supervision and discipline, and the effects of the functions performed by administrative officials on private individuals or parties outside government. (Ople v. To rres, G.R.
No. 127685, Jul y 23, 19 98 [Pun o])
192. What is administrative power?
Held:
Held: Administrative power is concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental organs. It enables the President to fix a uniform standard of administrative efficiency and check the official conduct of his agents. To this end, he can issue administrative orders, rules and regulations. (Ople v. Torres, G.R. No.
12768 5, July 23, 1 998 [Puno] )
193. What is an administrative order?
Held:
Held: An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of government. It must be in harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy.
(Ople v. To rres, G.R. No. 12768 5, Jul y 23, 1998 [Pun o])
194. What is the Government of the Republic of the Philippines?
Answer:
Answer: The Government of the Republic of the Philippines refers to the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of the government are exercised throughout the Philippines, including, save as the contrary appears from the context, the various arms through which political authority is made effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous regions, the provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions or other forms of local government. (Sec. 2[1], Introductory Provisio ns, Executive Order No. 292 )
195. What is a government instrumentality?
What are included in the term government instrumentality?
Answer:
Answer: A government instrumentality refers to any agency of the national government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, enjoying
operational autonomy, usually through a charter. The term includes regulatory agencies, chartered institutions and government-owned or controlled corporations. (Sec. 2[10], Introductory Provisio ns, Executive Ord er No. 292 )
196. What is a regulatory agency?
Answer:
Answer: A regulatory agency refers to any agency expressly vested with jurisdiction to regulate, administer or adjudicate matters affecting substantial rights and interest of private persons, the principal powers of which are exercised by a collective body, such as a commission, board or council.
(Sec. 2[11], Introductory Provisions, Execu tive Ord er No. 2 92)
197. What is a chartered institution?
Answer:
Answer: A chartered institution refers to any agency organized or operating under a special charter, and vested by law with functions relating to specific constitutional policies or objectives. This term includes state universities and colleges and the monetary authority of the State. (Section 2[12 ], I ntrod ucto ry Provisio ns, Executive Ord er No. 292)
198. When is a government-owned or controlled corporation deemed to be performing proprietary function? When is it
deemed to be performing governmental function?
Held:
Held: Government-owned or controlled corporations may perform governmental or proprietary functions or both, depending on the purpose for which they have been created. If the purpose is to obtain special corporate benefits or earn pecuniary profit, the function is proprietary. If it is in the interest of health, safety and for the advancement of public good and welfare, affecting the public in general, the function is governmental. Powers classified as
“proprietary” are those intended for private advantage and benefit.(Blaquera v. A lcala, 295 SCRA 366, 425, Sept. 11, 1998, En Banc [Purisima])
199. Does the petition for annulment of proclamation of a candidate merely involve
the exercise by the COMELEC of its administrative power to review, revise and reverse the actions of the board of canvassers and, therefore, justifies non-observance of procedural due process, or
Political Law Reviewer by SANDOVAL 104 does it involve the exercise of the
COMELEC's quasi-judicial function?
Held:
Held: Taking cognizance of private respondent's petitions for annulment of petitioner's proclamation, COMELEC was not merely performing an administrative function.
The administrative powers of the COMELEC include the power to determine the number and location of polling places, appoint election officials and inspectors, conduct registration of voters, deputize law enforcement agencies and governmental instrumentalities to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections, register political parties, organizations or coalition, accredit citizen's arms of the Commission, prosecute election offenses, and recommend to the President the removal of or imposition of any other disciplinary action upon any officer or employee it has deputized for violation or disregard of its directive, order or decision. In addition, the Commission also has direct control and supervision over all personnel involved in the conduct of election. However, the resolution of the adverse claims of private respondent and petitioner as regards the existence of a manifest error in the questioned certificate of canvass requires the COMELEC to act as an arbiter. It behooves the Commission to hear both parties to determine the veracity of their allegations and to decide whether the alleged error is a manifest error. Hence, the resolution of this issue calls for the exercise by the COMELEC of its quasi-judicial power.
It has been said that where a power rests in judgment or discretion, so that it is of judicial
nature or character, but does not involve the exercise of functions of a judge, or is conferred upon an officer other than a judicial officer, it is deemed quasi-judicial.
The COMELEC therefore, acting as judicial tribunal, cannot ignore the
requirements of procedural due process in resolving the petitions filed by private respondent. (Federico S. Sandoval v.
COMEL EC, G.R. N o . 133842, Jan . 26, 2000 [Puno])
200. Discuss the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction (or Prior Resort).
Held:
Held: Courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.
In recent years, it has been the jurisprudential trend to apply this doctrine to
cases involving matters that demand the special competence of administrative agencies even if the question involved is also judicial in character. It applies “where a
claim is srcinally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such case, the judicial process is suspended pending
referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view.”
In cases where the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is clearly applicable, the court
cannot arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is lodged with an administrative body of special competence.(Villaflor v. CA, 280 SCRA 287)
201. Discuss the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies. Enumerate
exceptions thereto.
Held:
Held: 1. Before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction then such remedy should be exhausted first before the court‟s judicial power can be sought. The premature invocation of court‟s jurisdiction is fatal to one‟s cause of action.
Accordingly, absent any finding of waiver or estoppel the case is susceptible of dismissal for lack of cause of action. This doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies was not without its practical and legal reasons, for one thing, availment of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies. It is no less true to state that the courts of justice for reasons of comity and
convenience will shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed and complied with so as to give the administrative agency concerned every opportunity to correct its error and to dispose of the case.
This doctrine is disregarded:
1) when there is a violation of due process;
2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question;
Political Law Reviewer by SANDOVAL 105 3) when the administrative action is
patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;
4) when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned;
5) when there is irreparable injury;
6) when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bears the implied and assumed approval of the latter;
7) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable;
8) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim;
9) when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceeding;
10) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, and
11) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention.
(Paat v. CA, 266 SCRA 167 [1997]) 2. Non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is not jurisdictional. It only renders the action premature, i.e., claimed cause of action is not ripe for judicial determination and for that reason a party has no cause of action to ventilate in court. (Carale v.
Ab arintos, 269 SCRA 132)