6.
Administrative body or officer has gone beyond its/his
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Basis of Judicial Review
! There is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the
acts of administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial
power on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no
right of review is given by the statute.
! Judicial review keeps the administrative agency within its
jurisdiction and protects substantial rights of parties affected
by its decisions.
! Judicial review is proper in cases of lack of jurisdiction, error
of law, grave abuse of discretion, fraud or collusion, or in case
the administrative decision is corrupt, arbitrary or capricious.
[San Miguel Corp. v Labor Secretary (1975)]
! If what is involved is a question of constitutionality, judicial
review is available.
Intent of Congress
General Rule:
! When the Constitution requires or allows it, judicial review
may be granted or withheld as Congress chooses.
! Thus, the law may provide that a determination made by an
administrative agency shall be final and irreviewable. In such
a case, there is no violation of due process.
! However, Art. 8 Sec. 1 par. 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which
provides that the judicial power includes the power of the
courts of justice to determine WON there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
on the part of any government agency or instrumentality,
clearly means that judicial review of administrative decisions
cannot be denied the courts when there is an allegation of
grave abuse of discretion.
Court Doctrines
! !
The doctrines of forum shopping, litis pendentia and res
judicata also apply to administrative agencies.
Review, when proper?
General Rule
! Courts will refuse to interfere with proceedings undertaken by
administrative bodies or officials in the exercise of
administrative functions.
Exceptions
! Administrative proceedings may be reviewed by the courts
upon a showing that the board or official:
a. Has gone beyond his statutory authority;
b. Exercised unconstitutional powers;
c. Clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to
his duty, or with grave abuse of discretion; or
d. The decision is vitiated by fraud, imposition or
mistake. [Manuel vs Villena (1971)]
Judicial Review Despite Finality of Admin Decision
1. Decision is wrong;
2. Manifestly arbitrary, capricious, unjust decision;
3. Not based upon any reasonable interpretation of law;
4. Vitiated by fraud, imposition or mistake;
5. Violates or fails to comply with some mandatory provision
of law;
statutory authority;
7. Administrative agency exercised unconstitutional powers;
8. Lack of jurisdiction; Grave abuse of discretion.
Judicial Review Availability
1. Whether the enabling statute permits judicial review.
There is no problem when the statute itself expressly
grants or prohibits judicial review. But when it is silent,
generally, judicial review is available
2. Whether the plaintiff has standing.
3. Whether the defendant is the proper defendant. The defendant
could be either a private party, or the very administrative agency
before whom the right is being applied.
4. Whether the forum is the proper forum.
! The forum is usually provided for in the enacting statute.It is
very seldom that the forum is in the RTC, since administrative
agencies are usually given the rank equal to or higher than
the RTC.
5. Whether the time for the filing of the case is proper. The period for
filing the case must also be considered in view of the statute of
limitations, as well as the period required by the statute or rules for
the filing of appeals.
6. Whether the case is ripe for adjudication.
! When a person has not exhausted all the administrative
remedies available to him, his case is said to be not ripe for
judicial review yet. He is said to have invoked the intervention
of the court prematurely. Although this is not a jurisdictional
requirement, failure to abide by the doctrine affects
petitioner’s cause of action.
Four Important Doctrines in Judicial

Review
! 1. Primary Jurisdiction
2. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
! 3. Qualified Political Agency
! 4. Ripeness for Review
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction or

Preliminary Resort
! Courts will not intervene if the question to be resolved is one
which requires the expertise of administrative agencies and
the legislative intent on the matter is to have uniformity in the
rulings
! It can only occur where there is a concurrence of jurisdiction
between the court and the administrative agency.
! It is a question of the court yielding to the agency because of
the latter’s expertise, and does not amount to ouster of the
court.[Texas & Pacific Railway v Abilene (1907)
! It is the recent jurisprudential trend to apply the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction in many cases that demand the special
competence of administrative agencies.
! It may occur that the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance
of a particular case, which means that the matter involved is
also judicial in character. However, if the determination of the
case requires the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge
of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters
or intricate questions of facts are involved, then relief must
first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a
remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter
is within the proper jurisdiction of a court.[Industrial
Enterprises v CA (1990)]
 ! The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies where a claim is 4. When there is Irreparable injury
originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play 5. When the administrative action is patently illegal
whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of amounting to Lack or excess of jurisdiction
issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed
within the special competence of an administrative body; in 6. When the respondent is a Department Secretary whose
such case, the judicial process is suspended pending referral acts as an Alter ego of the President bears the implied
of such issues to the administrative body for its view. And, in and assumed approval of the latter
such cases, the court cannot arrogate into itself the authority 7.
to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is initially
7. When the subject matter is a Private land case
lodged with an administrative body of special competence.
proceedings
[Sherwill vs Sitio Sto Nino (2005)
! 8. When it would be Unreasonable
Reason: In this era of clogged docket courts, the need for
specialized administrative boards with the special knowledge 9. When no administrative review is provided by Law
and capability to hear and determine promptly disputes on 10. When the rule does not provide a Plain, speedy, and
technical matters has become well nigh indispensable. adequate remedy
Between the power lodged in an administrative body and a
court, the unmistakable trend has been to refer it to the 11. When the issue of non‐exhaustion of administrative
former. (GMA vs ABS CBN (2005)] remedies has been rendered Moot
! Requisites: 12. When there are circumstances indicating the Urgency
of judicial intervention
! 1. Administrative body and the regular court have concurrent
and original jurisdiction 13. When it would amount to a Nullification of a claim; and
! 2. Question to be resolved requires expertise of administrative 14. Where the rule of Qualified political agency applies.
agency (Laguna CATV Network v. Maraan, G.R. No. 139492,
Nov. 19, 2002)
! 3. Legislative intent on the matter is to have uniformity in
rulings
! 4. Administrative agency is performing a quasi-judicial or Effect of Failure to exhaust admin. Remedies:
adjudicatory function (not rule-making or quasi-legislative ! It does not affect jurisdiction of the court. The only effect of
function [Smart vs NTC (2003)] non-compliance is it that will deprive complainant of a cause
of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss.
!
When inapplicable?
! ! But if not invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed
i. If the agency has exclusive jurisdiction
waived.[Republic vs Sandiganbayan (1996)]
! ii. When the issue is not within the competence of the
administrative body to act on.
! iii. When the issue involved is clearly a factual question that DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION
does not require specialized skills and knowledge for JURISDICTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
resolution to justify the exercise of primary jurisdiction. REMEDIES
What is the effect of this doctrine is violated?
! The case is not dismissed, but merely suspended until after
the matters within the competence of the administrative Both deal with the proper relationships between the courts and
agency are threshed out and determined. [Vidad vs RTC administrative agencies
(1993)]

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Applies where a case is within Applies where a claim is
!
the concurrent jurisdiction of cognizable in the first instance
Where the law has delineated the procedure by which
the court and an administrative by an administrative agency
administrative appeal or remedy could be effected, the same
agency but the determination of alone
should be followed before recourse to judicial action can be
the case requires the technical
initiated. [Pascual vs Provincial Board (1959)]
expertise of the administrative
! This doctrine calls for resort first to the appropriate agency
administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy
falling under their jurisdiction and must first be appealed to
the administrative superiors up to the highest level before the
same may be elevated to the courts of justice for review
!
Although the matter is within Judicial interference is withheld
Reason: Legal reason: The law prescribes a procedure.
the jurisdiction of the court, it until the administrative process
! Practical reason: To give the agency a chance to correct its must yield to the jurisdiction of has been completed
own errors and prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the administrative case
the courts ;
! Reasons of comity: Expedience, courtesy, convenience
Exceptions:
1. Violation of Due process DISTINCTION
2. When there is Estoppel on the part of the administrative Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency
agency concerned ! The act of the department head is presumptively the act of the
3. When the issue involved is a purely Legal question President (as his alter ego), unless revoked by the latter.
 ! Example: The President - through his duly constituted political
agent and alter ego, the DOTC Secretary - may legally and
validly decree the reorganization of theDepartment. [Sec of
DOTC v Mabalot (2002)]
! Exception: Where the law expressly provides for exhaustion
via an appeal to the President. [Tan v Director of Forestry
(1983)]
Doctrine of Ripeness for Review
! This doctrine is the similar to that of exhaustion of
administrative remedies except that it applies to the rule
making and to administrative action which is embodied
neither in rules and regulations nor in adjudication or final
order.
When doctrine applies
1. When the Interest of the plaintiff is subjected to or
imminently threatened with substantial injury.
2. If the statute is Self‐executing.
3. When a party is immediately confronted with the
problem of complying or violating a statute and there is
a risk of Criminal penalties.
4. When plaintiff is harmed by the Vagueness of the
statute.
Questions reviewable by the court
! performing his statutory duty for fear that he will perform it
Questions of fact
◦ GR: Courts will not disturb the findings of administrative
agencies acting within the parameters of their own
competence, special knowledge, expertise, and
experience. The courts ordinarily accord respect if not
finality to factual findings of administrative tribunals.
◦ EX: If findings are not supported by substantial
evidence
! Questions of Law – administrative decisions may be appealed
to the courts independently of legislative permission. It may
be appealed even against legislative prohibition because the
judiciary cannot be deprived of its inherent power to review all
decisions on questions of law.
! Mixed ( law and fact) – when there is a mixed question of law
and fact and the court cannot separate the elements to see
clearly what and where the mistake of law is, such question is
treated as question of fact for purposes of review and the
courts will not ordinarily review the decision of the
administrative tribunal.
Doctrine of Finality of Administrative Action
Instances where the doctrine finds no application
 1.
To grant relief to Preserve the status quo pending further action by the
administrative agency
1. When it is Essential to the protection of the rights asserted from
the injuries threatened
2. Where an administrative officer Assumes to act in violation of the
Constitution and other laws
3. Where such order is not Reviewable in any other way and the
complainant will suffer great and obvious damage if the order is
carried out
Brandeis Doctrine of Assimilation of Fact -


Instances where the doctrine finds no application
 EXN:
1. To an Interlocutory order affecting the merits of a controversy
2. To an order made in excess of power, contrary to specific
prohibition in the statute governing the agency and thus operating as
a Deprivation of a right assured by the statute
3. When review is Allowed by statutory provisions.
Grounds for reversal of administrative findings
1. Finding is grounded on speculations or conjectures
2. Inferences made are manifestly mistaken or impossible
3. Grave abuse of discretion
4. Misapprehension of facts, or the agency overlooked
certain facts of substance or value which if considered
would affect the result of the case.
5. Agency went beyond the issues of the case and the
same are contrary to the admissions of the parties or
the presented
6. Irregular procedures or the violation of the due process
7. Rights of a party were prejudiced because the findings
were in violation of the constitution, or in excess of
statutory authority, vitiated by fraud, mistake
8. Findings not supported by substantial evidence
Judicial Relief from Threatened Administrative Action
! Courts will not render a decree in advance of administrative
action. Such action would be rendered nugatory.
! It is not for the court to stop an administrative officer from
wrongly
Judicial Review of Administrative Action
! Judicial review is the re‐examination or determination by the
courts in the exercise of their judicial power in an appropriate
case instituted by a party aggrieved thereby as to whether the
questioned act, rule, or decision has been validly or invalidly
issued or whether the same should be nullified, affirmed or
modified.
! Note: The mere silence of the law does not necessarily imply
that judicial review is unavailable.
Requisites of judicial review
1. Administrative action must have been completed (“the
principle of finality of administrative action;”) and
2. Administrative remedies must have been exhausted
known as (“the principle of exhaustion of administrative
remedies.”)
limitations on judicial review
Final and executory decisions cannot be made the
subject of judicial review.
2. Administrative acts involving a political question are
beyond judicial review, except when there is an
allegation that there has been grave abuse of
discretion.
3. Courts are generally bound by the findings of fact of an
administrative agency.
GR:
! Findings of facts by administrative agencies are binding on
the courts
1. Findings are vitiated by Fraud, imposition, or collusion
2. Procedure which led to factual findings is Irregular
3. Palpable errors are committed
4. Factual findings not supported by Evidence
 5. Grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, or
capriciousness is manifest
6. When expressly allowed by Statute; and
7. Error in appreciation of the pleadings and in the
interpretation of the documentary evidence presented
by the parties
Grounds For Reversal of administrative finding
! Misapprehension of facts, or the agency overlooked certain
facts of substance or value which if considered would affect
the result of the case
! Interferences made are manifestly mistaken, absurd, or
impossible
! Grave abuse of discretion
! Finding is grounded on Speculations, surmises, or
conjectures
! Rights of the parties were prejudiced because the findings
were in Violation of the constitution, or in excess of statutory
authority, vitiated by fraud, or mistake
! Irregular procedures or violations of due process
! Agency went Beyond the issues of the case and the same are
contrary to the admissions of the parties or the evidence
presented
! Findings not supported by substantial Evidence.
ELECTION LAW
Theory of Popular Sovereignty
• Art. II, Sec. 1 1987 Constitution. The Philippines is a
democratic and republican state. Sovereignty resides in the
people and all government authority emanates from them.
• A democratic and republican government derives all its
powers, directly or indirectly, from the people at large. Its
essence is indirect rule. Actual sovereignty is exercised by the
people by means of suffrage.
Suffrage in General
• the right and obligation of qualified citizens to vote in (a) the
election of certain national and local officials, and (b) the
decision of public questions submitted to the people.
• a political right which enables every citizen to participate in the
process of government to assure that it derives it powers from
the consent of the governed
• a privilege which may be given or withheld by the lawmaking
power, subject to constitutional limitations
• not necessarily an accompaniment of citizenship; granted only
upon the fulfillment of certain minimum conditions.
Scope of Suffrage
• Elections
• original residence. (Asistio v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 191124, April
Initiative and Referendum
• Plebiscite
• Recall
Requirements for Exercise
• (1) Citizenship
• (2) Age
• (3) Residency
• (4) Absence of disqualifications
• No literacy, property or other substantive requirement shall be
imposed (Sec. 1, Art. V, Constitution). A property or taxpaying
requirement is not only inconsistent with the concept of a
republican government, but with the social justice principle of
equal opportunity as well.
Is the right of suffrage absolute?
• No. Needless to say, the exercise of the right of suffrage, as in
the enjoyment of all other rights, is subject to existing
substantive and procedural requirements embodied in our
Constitution, statute books and other repositories of law.  
• Congress, to a limited extent, can regulate exercise of the
right of suffrage by:
– defining the qualifications of voters
– regulating elections and the manner of their conduct
– prescribing the form of official ballot
– providing for the manner of choosing candidates and
the names to be printed on the ballot
– suppressing evils incident to the election of public
officers, , pursuant to its duty to secure the secrecy
and sanctity of the ballots (Sec. 2, Art. V,
Constitution)
Actual, not stated, residence.
• It is the fact of residence, not a statement in the certificate of
candidacy, which ought to be decisive in determining whether
or not an individual has satisfied the Constitution’s residency
qualification requirement (Romualdez v COMELEC)
Domicile
• A place to which, whenever absent for business or for
pleasure, one intends to return, and depends on facts and
circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent.
(Romualdez‐ Marcos vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119976, Sept.
18, 1995)
Residence For Election Purposes
• It implies the factual relationship of an individual to a certain
place. It is the physical presence of a person in a given area,
community or country.  
• For election purposes the concepts of residence and domicile
are dictated by the peculiar criteria of political laws. As these
concepts have evolved in our election law, what has clearly
and unequivocally emerged is the fact that residence for
election purposes is used synonymously with domicile.
Effect Of Transfer Of Residence
• Any person, who transfers residence solely by reason of his
occupation, profession or employment in private or public
service, education, etc., shall not be deemed to have lost his
27, 2010
Change of domicile
• (1) an actual removal or an actual change of domicile;
• (2) a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of
residence and establishing a new one; and
• (3) acts corresponding to such purpose (Romualdez v
COMELEC)
Disqualified to Vote
• 1. Persons sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment
for not less than one year, unless pardoned or granted
amnesty; but right is reacquired before expiration of 5 years
after service of sentence
• 2. Conviction by final judgment of any of the following crimes:
– a. Crime involving disloyalty to the government
– b. Any crime against national security
– c. Firearms laws But right is reacquired before
expiration of 5 years after service of sentence.
• 3. Insanity or incompetence declared by competent authority
(Sec. 118, B.P. 881 Omnibus Election Code)
Procedural Qualifications
• As to the procedural limitation, the right of a citizen to vote is
necessarily conditioned upon certain procedural requirements
he must undergo: among others, the process of registration. 
 Specifically, a citizen in order to be qualified to exercise his
right to vote, in addition to the minimum requirements set by
the fundamental charter, is obliged by law to register, at
present, under the provisions of Republic Act No. 8189,
otherwise known as the “Voter’sRegistration Act of
1996.” (Akbayan‐Youth v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147066, Mar.
26, 2001)
Note: Registration Does Not Confer The Right To Vote. It is but a
condition precedent to the exercise of the right to vote. Registration is
a regulation, not a qualification. (Yra v. Abano, G.R. No. L‐30187,
November 15, 1928)
Double‐registration
• Any person who, being a registered voter, registers anew
without filing an application for cancellation of his previous
registration.
• double registrants are still qualified to vote provided that
COMELEC has to make a determination on which registration
is valid and which is void.  COMELEC could not consider both
registrations valid because it would then give rise to the
anomalous situation where a voter could vote in two precincts
at the same time. COMELEC laid down the rule in Minute
Resolution No. 00‐ 1513 that while the first registration of any
voter subsists, any subsequent registration thereto is void ab
initio.
System Of Continuing Registration
• GR: It is a system where the application of registration of
voters shall be conducted daily in the office hours of the
election officer during regular office hours.
• XPN: No registration shall be conducted during the period
starting 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before
a special election (Sec. 8, R.A. 8189)
Absentee Voting
• It is a process by which qualified citizens of the Philippines
abroad exercise their right to vote pursuant to the
constitutional mandate that Congress shall provide a system
for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad (Sec. 2, Art.
V, 1987 Constitution). Absentee voting is an exception to the
six month/one year residency requirement
Who are qualified?
• All citizens of the Philippines abroad, who are not otherwise
disqualified by law, at least eighteen (18) years of age on the
day of the elections, may vote for president, vice‐president,
senators and party‐list representatives. (Sec. 4, R.A. 9189)
Disqualified Voters Under The Absentee Voting Law
• 1. Those who have lost their Filipino citizenship in accordance
with Philippine laws;
• 2. Those who have expressly renounced their Philippine
citizenship and who have pledged allegiance to a foreign
country
• 3.Those who have committed and are convicted in a final
judgment by a court or tribunal of an offense punishable by
imprisonment of not less than one (1) year, including those
who have committed and been found guilty of Disloyalty as
defined under Art. 137 of the Revised Penal Code, such
disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or
amnesty;
• Note: However, any person disqualified to vote under this
subsection shall automatically acquire the right to vote upon
expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence; Provided
further, that the Commission may take cognizance of final
judgments issued by foreign courts or tribunals only on the
basis of reciprocity and subject to the formalities and
processes prescribed by the Rules of Court on execution of
judgments;
• 4. An immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as
such in the host country
• 5. Any citizen of the Philippines abroad previously declared
insane or incompetent by competent authority in the
Philippines or abroad, as verified by the Philippine embassies,
consulates or foreign service establishments concerned
• Note: Registration as an overseas absentee voter shall be
done in person (Sec. 6, R.A. 9189, Absentee Voting Law)
Voting as Absentee voter
• 1. The overseas absentee voter shall personally accomplish
his/her ballot at the embassy, consulate or other foreign
service establishment that has jurisdiction over the country
where he/she temporarily resides or at any polling place
designated and accredited by the Commission. (Sec. 16, R.A.
9189 Absentee Voting Law
• 2. The overseas absentee voter may also vote by mail. (R.A.
9189 Absentee Voting Law)
• Voting by mail may be allowed in countries that satisfy the
following conditions:
– 1. Where the mailing system is fairly well‐ developed
and secure to prevent the occasion of fraud
– 2. Where there exists a technically established
identification system that would preclude multiply or
proxy voting; and
– 3. Where the system of reception and custody of
mailed ballots in the embassies, consulates and other
foreign service establishments concerned are
adequate and well‐secured.
Counting And Canvassing Of The Votes

• 1. It shall be conducted in the country where the votes were

actually cast. The opening of the specially‐marked envelopes
containing the ballots and the counting and canvassing of
votes shall be conducted within the premises of the
embassies, consulates and other foreign service
establishments or in such other places as may be designated
by the COMELEC pursuant to the Implementing Rules and
Regulations. The COMELEC shall ensure that the start of
counting in all polling places abroad shall be synchronized
with the start of counting in the Philippines.

• 2. The COMELEC shall constitute as many Special Boards of

Election Inspectors as may be necessary to conduct and
supervise the counting of votes.  

• 3. Immediately upon completion of the counting, the Special

Boards of Election Inspectors shall transmit via facsimile and/
or electronic mail the results to the Commission in Manila and
the accredited major political parties. (Sec. 18, R.A. 9189
Absentee Voting Law)

Registration System In The Philippines

• 1.Continuing

• 2. Computerized; and  

• 3. Permanent

INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION PROCEEDINGS

Who May File

• Inclusion

– a. Any private person whose application was

disapproved by the Election Registration Board or
whose name was stricken out from the list of voters

– b. COMELEC
Who May File

• Exclusion

– a. Any registered voter in the city or municipality

– b. Representative of political party

– c. Election officer

– d. COMELEC (BP 881 Omnibus Election Code)

Period For Filing

• 1. Inclusion  ‐  any day except 105 days before regular

election or 75 days before a special election. (COMELEC
Reso. No. 8820)

• 2. Exclusion  ‐  anytime except 100 days before a regular

election or 65 days before a special election. (COMELEC
Reso. No. 9021)