ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY
§1.01. Scope.
Some law schools combine administrative law, the law on public
officers, and election law as one subject equivalent tG three (3) units.
To accommodate law students taking up the three-unit subject,
instead of buying three separate books on administrative law, law on
public officers, and election Jaw, these laws have been combined in
one book, consisting of three parts: Part I: Administrative Law; Part
II: Law on Public Officers;" and Pait Ill: .Election Law.
§ 1.02. Generally.
In a general sense, "administrative law" embraces all the law
that controls, or is intended to control, the administrative operations
ofgovernment.' This broad meaning of administrative law is reflected
in the i987 Administrative Code of the Philippines,2 for the Code
prescribes the administrative operations of the Philippine Govern
ment in a very broad· manner, containing as it does provisions on
Sovereignty and Governmental Administration (Book I); Distribution
of Powers of Government, namely: the Executive, Legislative and
Judiciary (Book II); Office of the President (Book III); The Executive
Branch, consisting of all the departments, bureaus, offices, and
1
2 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
AND ELECTION LAW
3
1 Am. Jur. 2d 807-809.
•1 Am. Jur. 2d 808.
6
Sec. 27, Book VII, 1987 Administrative Code; Mecano v. COA, 216 SCRA 500
[1992).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW n
·1
Introductory
6Leveriza v. IAC, 157 SCRA 282 [1988); see also Ruben �- Agpalo, Statutory
Construction, 6th 1997-ed,
11n Re: Rodolfo U. Manzano, 166 SCRA 246 U988J.
8 Sec. 2, Administrative Code of 1987; Iron and Steel Authority v. Court of Ap
peals, 65 SCAD 261, 249 SCRA 538 {1995).
4 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, U.W ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
AND ELECTIO� LAW
9Luzon Dev. Bank v. Association of Luzon Dev. Bank Employees, 64 SCAD 918,
249 SCRA 162 (1995).
10
Iron and Steel Authority v. Court of Appeals, 65 SCAD 261, 249 SCRA 538
[1995).
11 Republicv. Court of Appeals, 65 SCAD 261, 200 SCRA 226 [1991].
12Iron and Steel Authority v. Court of Appeals, 65 SCAD 261, 249 SCRA 538
[1995].
13 Malaga v. Pa nachos, Jr., 213 SCRA 516 (1992].
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 5
Introductory
The public officers and employees who perform the duties P •1d
exercise the powers in the administrative set-up of the governm· nt
are compendiously called "administration." The term ''administration"
refers to the aggregate of those persons in whose hand the reins of
government are for the time being. 14
�=- :. =.l .-1.nli-Dollar Salting Task Force v. CA,.171 SCRA 348 (1989].
CHAPTER II
POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
A. IN GENERAL
§2.08. Generally:
The basic corollary principles of the allocation of powers into
legislative,judiciary and executive, are the separation of powers and
the system of checks and balances among them, designed to prevent
concentration ofpowers. As a rule, the doctrine of separation of powers
prohibits the delegation 01 legislative power, the vesting of judicial
officers with non-judicial functions, as well as the investing of non
judicial officers with judicial powers. 1 But while one branch is not to
invade the domain of the other, no one branch can act without anv
participation or check from the other branches, which the Constitution
r�cogmzes and permits.
. The doctrine of separation of powers is not an iron-clad
restriction against delegation of powers. The principle has been made
to adapt itself to the comolexities of modern governments.Accordingly,
with the growing comp1ex11;y or mooern life, the multiplication of the
subjects of governmental regulations, and the increased difficulty of
administering the laws, the rigidity of the theory of separation of
governmental powers has, to a large extent, been relaxed by
permitting the delegation of greater powers by the legislature and
the vesting of a larger amount of discretion in administrative and
executive agencies arid officials, not only in the execution of the laws,
but also in the promulgation of certain rules and r�gulations and the
adjudication of claims and disputes calculated to promote public
interest.2
1
1 Am. Jur. 2d 872.
· 2Cal!'llang v. Willi.ams, 70 Phil. 726 [1940].
9
10 ADMTN[STRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
AND ELECTION LAW
§2.10. Generally.
Public officials possess powers, not rights. There must be a
grant of authority, whether express or implied, to justify any action
taken by them. In the absence thereof, what they do as public officials
lacks validity and, if challenged, must be set aside. Law is the only
supreme power under constitutional government, and every man
who by accepting office participates in its function is only the more
strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the
limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which
it gives.12
A public official exercises power within the law which grants it.
The government_itself is merely an agency through which the will of
the state is expressed and enforced. Its officials therefore are like
wise agents entrusted with the responsibility of discharging its func
tions. As such there is no presumption that they are empowered to
act. There must be a delegation of such authority; either express or
·implied. In the absence of a valid grant, they are devoid of power.
What they do suffers from fatal infirmity. It must be conceded that
departmental zeal may not be permitted to outrun the authority
conferred by statute. Neither the high dignity of the office nor the
righteousness of the motive is an acceptable substitute. Otherwise
the rule of law becomes a myth. 13
Except for constitutional officials who can trace their co�pe
tence to act to the fundamental law itself, a public official must
locate in the statute relied upon a grant of power before he can
exercise it. It need not be express. It may be implied from the word
ing of the law. 14 It is axiomatic in our constitutional framework that
government branches and administrative agencies exercise only that
power delegated to them as defined in the Constitutipn or in legisla
tion or in both. The quantum of powers possessed by an administra
tive agency forming part of the executive branch will be limited to
that conferred expressly or by necessary or- fair implication in its
enabling act. An administrative officer has only such powers as are
expressly granted to him and those necessarily implied in the exer
cise thereof. 15
power to do all things which are reasonably necessary for the admin
istration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction and for the
enforcement of its judgments and mandates.24 Accordingly, unless the
enabling law provides otherwise, a quasi-judicial body has the power
to issue a writ of execution for the enforcement of its decision. 25
The exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial power requjres that
there be rules of procedure of the administrative agency which parties
invoking its jurisdiction and seeking reliefs therefrom have to follow.
The grant of quasi-judicial power to the agency carries with it the
power to issue and promulgate rules of procedu.re for the proper
exercise of its adjudicatory power, even though the enabling law is
silent on the matter. For it is settled that where a general grarit of
power is conferred or duty enjoined, every particular power necessary
for the exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also
conferred, by necessary implication.26 Hence, where the law does not
prescribe the particular method to be followed by an administrative
agency in the exercise of a power vested in it by law, the agency may
adopt any reasonable method to carry out is functions. 27
In GSIS v. Civil Service Commission,28 the Supreme Court ruled
that the Civil Service Commission, in the exercise of its quasi-judicial
function, has the power to order execution of its d_ecision which has
become final. It said that the grant to the tribunal or agency of
adjudicatory power, or the authority to hear and adjudge cases, should
normally and logically be deemed to include the grant of authority to
enforce or execute the judgments it thus renders, unless the law ·
otherwise provides, for the authority to decide cases is inutile unless
accompanied by the authority to see that what has been decided is
·
carried.
2
'PAL Employees' Assn. v. PAL, 120 Phil. 383 (1964).
26GSIS v. Civil Service Commission, 202 SCRA 799 (1991).
26Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936).
27Provident Tree Farms, Inc . v. Batario, Jr., 49 SCAD 803,231 SCRA463 [l:994).
28202 SCRA 799 (1991].
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Powers ofAdministrative Agencies
C. Ministerial and Discretionary Powers
211Carino v. Capulong, 41 SCAD 775, 222 SCRA 593 (1993); Mateo v. Court of
Appeals, 196 SCRA 280.
30
Asuncion v. De Yriarte, 28 Phil. 67 [1914).
31 S
ymaco v. Aquino, 106 Phil. 1130 [1960); Mateo v. CA, 196 SCRA 280 [1991].
16 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, L-\W ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
AND ELECTION LAW
§2.15. Generally.
- The powers and duties of public officers or administrative
agencies may also be classified as mandatory or permissive. The
question as to whether a duty or power vested in an official or
admin!strative agency is mandatory or permissive depends upon the
kind--0f .the statute whic..h.g_ranted such pqwer.
_Statutes may be ..classified either as mandatory or directory.
The classification is important in resolving the question of what
effect should be given to the mandate of a statute. Will an act done
in violation of a statute render it void? Will the nonperformance of
what a statute prescribes make the proceedings to which it relates
invalid? Will the person violating the statute be held liable therefor?
The answers to these and similar questions depend on whether the
statute is considered mandatory or merely directory.
61
/bid.
62Miller v. Lakewood Housing Co., 180 NE 700, 81 ALR 1239 [1932).
63Lyon v. Alley, 32 L.ed. 899 [1889).
6'Querubin v. Court of Appeals, 82 Phil. 226 [1948).
. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 21
Powers of Administrative Agencies
E. Errors in Exercise of Powers
68United States of America v. Reyes, 219 SCRA 192 [1993]; Shauf v. Court of
Appeals, 191 SCRA 713 [1990).
69People v. Castaneda, 165 SCRA 327 [1988).
60Philippine Basketball Assn. v. CA, 131 SCAD 364, 337 SC� 358 [2000].
61Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals, 234 SCRA 348
: ·
[1994].
62lbid.
ss,ratad V. Garcia, 60 SCAD 480, 243 SCRA 436 (1995].
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Powers of Administrative Agencies
E. Errors in Exercise of Powers
§3.22. Generally.
The President and other executive or administrative agencies
or bodies are granted powers and functions by the Cpnstitution or by
statutes to enforce the laws and to carry out the governmental
functions, as well as policies and objectives provided in statutes
creating them. Among such powers are those of control, supervision
and investigation.
24
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 25
Power of Control, Supervision and Investigation
A. Presidimt as Chief Executive and Administrative Officer
the President's alter ego and his action is presumed to be that ofthe
President. 7
7
Noblejas v. Salas, 67 SCRA 47 [1975]; Vda. de Jacob v. Puno,.131 SCRA 144
(1984).
8lbid.
9Juat v. Land Tenure Administration, 1 SCRA 361 (1961]; Carpio v. Executive
Secretary, 206 SCRA 290 (1992].
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 29
Power of Control, Supervision and Investigation
A. President as Chief Executive and Administrative Officer
19
/bid., p. 630.
20
15 SCRA 710 (1965].
21
1bid., p. 713.
22
Cf. Borres v. Canonoy, 108 SCRA 190 [1981).
23Antique Sawmills, Inc. v. Zayco, 17 SCRA 316 (1966); Macailing v. Andr1td2..
31 SCRA 126 (1970].
2491 SCAD 995, 286 SCRA 666 [1998).
32 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OJ:i'FICERS
AND ELECTION LAW
The rule that thE;__ power of control ·of the President no longer
applies to final decisions of quasi-judicial agencies extends to a
decision ofthe Office ofthe President that has become final. In other
words, the Office ofthe President can longer reconsider or modify its
final decision, as it has lost jurisdiction, and its re-opening the case
and modifying the final decision amount to gross disregard of the
rules and basic legal precept that accord finality to administrative
determinations.25
B. POWER OF INVESTIGATION
§3.30. Generally.
Investigatory or "ipq�isit�rial" powers have b�en granted by
the Constitution or the ·legislature to executive or administrative
officials or agencies for a nu.Jl).ber of purposes. ?he investigatory
P?Wers of some agencies arei lim;tdrl to ��!,11Y information gathering,
as. basis to recommend appl'E}f)riate action by other government
agenci�s or to focus public opinion on matters of vital concern, like
the ,Jftiman Rights Commission; other agencies are gr�ilted
investigatory powers for prosecution purposes, such as the offices of
public prosecutor and the .Qfri:budsman; still others exercise
investigatory powers in aid in the exercise of other powers granted
them, like the Securities and Exchange Commission, in the regulation
of private corporations. The enabling act defines the extent of such
investigatory powers.
1
' Cf. Mecano v. COA, 216 SCRA 500 (1992).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Power of Control, Supervision and Investigation
B., Power of Investigation
53Cabarrus, Jr. v. Bernas, 87 SCAD 239, 279 SCRA 388, 396 [199i}.
46 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
AND ELECTION LAW