Anda di halaman 1dari 49

PART I

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

'l Am. Jur. 2d 806.


2
Executive Order No. 292 issued on July 25, 1987.

1
2 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
AND ELECTION LAW

agencies attached thereto (Book IV); Constitutional Commissions,


namely: the Commission on Elections, the Civil Service Commission
and the Commission on Audit, and other constitutiqnal bodies (Book
V); National Government Budgeting (Book V1); and Administrative
Procedure (Book V1I).
The broad scope of administrative law as enshrined in the 1987
Administrative Code covers those of internal as well as those of
external administration. The former considers the legal aspects of
public administration as a going concern. The latter refers to the
legal relations between administrative authorities and private inter­
ests. This is the chief concern of administrative law, which is the
protection of private rights, the subject of which is the nature and
the mode of exercise of administrative power and the system of re­
liefs against administrative action. 3

§1.03. Kinds of administrative law.


Administrative law is of four kinds: (a) statutes setting up
administrative authorities; (b) the body of doctrines and decisions
dealing with the creation, operation, and effect of determinations
and regulations of such administrative authorities; (c) rules, regula­
tions, or orders of such administrative authorities in pursuance of
the purposes for which administrative authorities were created or
endowed; and (d) determinations, decisions, and orders of such ad­
ministrative authorities in the settlement of controversies arising in
their particular fields.4
Administrative law consists of pertinent provisions of the Con­
stitution, special legislations creating specialized agencies, the 1987
Administrative Code and provisions of the Revised Administrative
Code which are not inconsistent with those of the 1987 Code. '!'he
1987 Administrative Code did not entirely repeal or. modify the Re­
vised Administrative Code and special legislations because what the
1987 Code repeale� or modified are only those "laws, decrees, orders,
rules and regulations, or portions thereof (which are) inconsistent
with this Code."6 The two administrative codes are general laws,
and as between the codes and special legislations on specific subject
matters, the latter prevail as an exception to the former. It is basic

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

statutory principle that general legislation must give way to spechl


legislation on the same subject, and generally so interpreted a$ ·::o
embrace only cases in which the special provisions are not app'.i­
cable.6
Administrative functions are those which involve the �egu l 't­
tion and control over the conduct and affair of individuals for their
own weltare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better
carry out the policy of the legislature or such as are devolved upon
the administrativ� agency by the organic law of its existence. 7

§1.04. Administrative framework.


At the apex of the administrative framework of the Republic of
the Philippines, as provided in the 1987 Administrative Code, is the
Government of the Republic. The Government of the Republic of the
Philippines refers to the corporate governmental entity through which
the functions of government are exercised throughout the Philip­
pines, including, save as the contrary appears from the context, th,e
various arms through which political authority is made ·eflective in
the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous regions, the
provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions or other forms of
local government. Included in the Government are agencies and
instrumentalities thereof. An agency of the Government refers to
any of the various units of Government, including a department,
bureau, office, instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled
corporation, or a local government or a distinct unit therein. Instru­
mentality refers to any agency of the National Government, not in­
tegrated within the department framework, vested with special func­
tions or jurisdiction by ll;l.w, endowed with some if not all corporate
powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational au­
tonomy, usually through a charter. This term includes regulatory
agencies, institutes and govern ment-owned or controlled
corporations.8
An instrumentality is anything used as a means or agency. The
terms governmental-"agency" are "instrumentality" are synonymous
in the sense that either of them is a means by which the government

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

acts, or by which a certain governmental act or function is performed.


The word "instrumentality," with respect to a state, contemplates an
authority to which the state delegates governmental power for the
performance of a state function.�
Agencies or instrumentalities of the Government are either
incorporated or non-incorporated. Incorporated agencies or
instrumentalities, sometime with and at other times without capital
stock, are vested by law with a juridical personality distinct from the
personality of the Republic. Examples of these incorporated agencies
or instrumentalities are the National Power Corporation, Philippine
Ports Authority, National Housing Authority, Philippine National
Oil Company, etc. Non-incorporated agencies or instrumentalities
are those not vested with a juridical personality distinct from the
Republic, endowed by law with some if not all corporate powers. 10
The Sugar Regulatory Administration is an .example of a non­
incorporated agency, as it is neither a government-owned or controlled
corporation, but is an agency under the Office of the President. 1 1
Incorporated and non-incorporated agencies or instrumentalities
are all agents or delegates of the Republic of the Philippines which
is, by itself, a body corporate and juridical person vested with the full
panoply ofpowers and attributes which are compendiously described
as "legal personality." The expiration of the term of an incorporated·
agency or instrumentality has consequences which must be looked
for in the charter of the agency and, as supplement, in the provisions
of the Corporation Code. When the statutory term of a non­
incorporated agency expires, the powers, duties and functions as
well as assets and liabilities of that agency revert back to, and are re­
assumed by, the Republic of the Philippines, in the absence of special
provisions of law specifying some other disposition thereof. 12.
Chartered institution refers to any agency organized or operat­
ing under a specific charter, and vested by law with functions relat­
ing to specific constitutional policies or objectives: This term includes
the state universities and colleges, and the monetary
·
authority of the
·
state. 13

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

§ 1.05. Creation and abolition of agencies.


Administrative agencies, boards and commissions are public
offices. The term "public office" refers to the right: authority and
duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for a given period
either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the appointing
power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign
. functions of government, to be exercised by that individual for the
benefit of the public_ ts A public office refers to either of two concepts,
as a functional unit-of government, such as department or bureau,
or as a position held or occupied by individual persons, whose functions
are defined by law or regulation. 16 A public office is a public trust or
responsibility, and embraces the idea of term, duration, emoluments,
powers and duties. All of them taken together constitute a public
office. 17
.A public office is created by the Constitution or by law or by an
officer or tribunal to which the power to create the office has been
delegated by the legislature. The Constitution established offices
which perform administrative functions. These are the President, he
being the chief administrative officer; the Constitutional Commis­
sions, namely: the Commission on Elections, the Civil Service Com­
missions and the Commission on Audit; the Office of the Ombuds­
man; the National Economic and Development Authority, the Com­
mission on Human Rights; and the National Police Commission.
All administrative agencies or bodies other than those estab­
lished by the Con_stitution are created by statutes or by officers or
tribunals authorized by Congress to do so expressly or impliedly.
Except such offices as are created by the Constitution, the
creation ofp)lhlkoffices is primarily a legislative function. In so far
as the legislative power in this respect is not restricted by the

"U.S. v. Dorr, 2 Phil. 332 [1903].


15Fernandez v. Sto. 1bmas, 59 SCAD 488, 248 SCRA 194 (1995].
16Sec. 2(9), 1987 Administrative Code.
17 63 Am. Jur. 2d 667.
6 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
AND ELECTION LAW

constitutional provision, it is supreme, and the legislature may de­


cide for itself what offices are suitable, necessary, or convenient.
When in the exigencies of government it is necessary to create and
define duties, the legislative department has the discretion to deter­
mine whether additional offices shall be created, or whethe·r these
duties shall be attached to and become ex-officio duties of existing
offices. All offices created by the legislature are wholly within the
power of that body, and it may prescribe the mode of filling the office
and the powers and duties of the office holders, and, if it sees fit,
abolish the office. 18

§1.06. Power to reorganize includes power to create or


abolish offices.
The legislature usually exercises the power to. create or abolish
by delegating it to the President or to another executive officer or
body. The means by which the legislature makes the delegation is by
authorizing reorganization.
Reorg�I!���t�Qll!� �h� p�o�es§ of r.�structu��11g_!he bureaucracy'1,3
Qf n.,i��ti9n�\ !;!n!'.!.fl:-m�tjOJ:l�\ ��t,.J!P,, tQ make n ffi!),!:� :Yi�!>!�j!! �rm�
ga
qf the economy, efficiency, effectiveness and make it more re�P.O��jye
to the n�ed§ of it$ p-µl:>li� ..�l!�I!t�l� !3§ �-µtll.Orized !>Y .1!!.W., 19
Reorganization is the means used by the legislature to reorganize.or
abolish offices, which it may do so by law directly or indirectly by
authorizing an executive department or agency to reorganize its
office.20 The legislative power to reorganize - and therefore to abolish
offices - applies to all offices, including lower courts, except only
those created by the Constitution itself.21

§1.07. Reasons for creation of administrative agencies.


There are no less than fifty (50) administrative agencies
performing administrative, executive, investigative, rule-making or
quasi-judicial powers, or a combination of these powers. And they
keep multiplying as problems of modern society keep growing.
Adniinistrative agencies are government bodies charged with

18Eugenio v. CSC, 60 SCAD 262, 243 SCRA 196 [1995).


19Simon v. Civil Service Commission, 215 SCRA410 (1992}.
20 National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration v. Civil Service
Commission, 221 SCRA 145 [i993].
21De la Llana v. Alba, 112 SCRA 294 [1982].
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 7
Introductory

administering and implementing particular legislations.22 The l'<"-\­


sons why there has been a need for, and a growing number of, spe­
cialized administrative agencies are as follows:
1. To unclog court dockets. To relieve courts of the burden of
resolving all controversies, specialized agencies have been created to
hear and decide particular disputes.23
2. To meet the growing complexities of modern society. As
problems of modern society multiply, which can hardly be met by the
legislature, administrative agencies are established to promptly cope
up with such problems. 24
3. To help in the regulation of ramified activities of a devel-
oping country. 26
4. To entrul?t to specialized agencies in specified fields with
their special knowledge, experience, and capability the task of dealing
with problems thereof as they have the experience, expertise and
power of dispatch to provide solutions thereto.26
These reasons necessitate the creation by Congress of a number
of administrative agencies.
'
The most common types of administrative bodies tasked with
the duties· and powers of performing administrative, regulatory,
investigative, quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions, or one
or any combination thereof, may be classified as follows:
1. Agencies c'reated to function in situations wherein the
government is offering some gratuity, grant, or special privileges,
like the defunct Philippine Veterans Boara, Board on Pensions for
Veterans, Philippine Veterans Administration, Government Service
Insurance System, and the Social Security System.
2. Agencies. set up to function in situations wherein the
government is seeking to carry on certain governmental functions,
like the Bureau oflmmigration, the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the
Board of Special Inquiry and Board of Commissioners, the Civil
Service Commission, the Central Bank.

22Republic v. Court of Appeals, 200 SCRA 226 (1991].


23Lianga Bay Logging, Inc. v. Judge Enage, July 16, 1987.
2
'Solid Homes, Inc. v. Teresita Payawal, Aug. 29, 1989.
25/bid.; Reyes v. Caneba.
26
/bid.; Blue Bar Coconut Phil. v. Tantuico, Jr., July 29, 1988; Packet Bell Phil.,
Inc. v. SEC, May 19, 1987.
8 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFfICERS
AND ELECTION LAW

3. Agencies set up to function in situations wherein the gov-


ernment is performing_ somP. h11siness service for the public, like the
Bureau of Posts;·fhe Postal Savings Bank; Metropolitan Waterworks
and Sewerage Authority, Philippine National Railway s, the Civil
Aeronautics Administration.
4. Agencies set up to function in situations wherein the gov-
ernment is seekinP- ta :ce�ulate businer-;s affected with public inter­
est, like the .1<·1ber inspection Board, the Philippines Patent Office,
Office of the Insurance Commissioner.
5. Agencies set up to function in situations where the
government is seeking�r the _police power to regulate private
business and md1viduaJs, like the 8ecurities and Exchange
Commission, Board of Food Inspectors, the Board of Review of Motion
Pictures, and the Professional Regulation Commission.
6. Agencies set up to function in situations wherein the
government is seeking_ to adjust indiYidual contr.9versifi?S because of
some strong social policy invo1vea, such as the National Labor
Relations Commission, the Court ofAgrarian Relations, the Regional
Offices of the Ministry of Labor, Bureau of Labor Standards, Women
and Minors Bureau. 27
7. Agencies set up to function in situations where the
government is seekinE,Lto conduct investigations and gath�r e�nce
for information, recommenaauon or pro;ecution of cnmes, such as
the Commission on Human .K1ghts, the National Bureau of
Investigation and the Prosecutor's Office.

�=- :. =.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

Administrative agencies neither fall under the legislative nor


judicial branches ofgovernment. Hence, in accordance with the three
classifications ofgovernmental powers, they more .logically fall under
the executive department. 'rhey are granted by the legislature with
administrative, executive, investigatory, legislative or judicial powers
or a combination of these, as exceptions to the general rule against
delegation of power. 3 They are thus a distin·c t department of
government.
Administrative agencies have powers or functions which are
administrative and sometimes ministerial in character as well as
quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial power, as may be conferred by the
Constitution or by law.4 They have only such powers �s are expressly
granted to them by law and those that are'necessarily implied in the
exercise thereof. 5
The two most important powers of administrative officers are
the quasi-legislative and the quasi-judicial powers. The first.enables
them to promulgate implementing rules and regulations, and the
second enables them to interpret and apply such regulations. Such
arrangement has been accepted as a fact oflife ofmodern governments
and cannot be considered as violative of due process as long as the
cardinal requirements thereof are observed. 6 It has been said that
this combination of powers is the principal reason which has given
rise to the necessity of "Administrative Law" as a new classification
of the law.7

§2.09. Vesture of powers liberally construed.


It is a settled principle oflaw that in determining whether an
administrative agency has certain powers, the inquiry should be
from the law itself and the authority given should be liberally
construed in the light of the purposes for which it was created, and
that which is incidentally necessary to a full implementation of the
legislative intent should be upheld as being germane to the law.
Necessarily, too, where the end is required, the appropriate means
are deemed given.8

31 Am. Jur. 2d 872.


4
Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v. Fener, Feb. 28, 1985.
•Guerzon v. CA, 164 SCRA 182 (1988].
'�o.,:trn Shipping Lines, Inc. v. POEA, 166 SCRA 533 [1988].
··:. -"-= J-_, 2d 890.
...,,.,..., ' .:. · .�.Li.,lJera, 162 SCRA l [1988].
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 11
Powers of Administrative Agencies
B. Express and Implied Powers

Liberal construction is adopted to enable administrative agi:·.n­


cies to discharge their assigned duties in accordance with the legis­
lative purpose or intent., For instance, in line with this policy, ;·;,1e
Supreme Court sustained the competence of National Housing Au­
thority, in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it by P.D. No. 957
and P.D. No. 1344, to determine the rights of the parties under a
contract to sell a subdivision lot.9 It upheld the power of the board
of transportation to issue provisional permits as a step towards the
legalization of colorum taxicab operations. 10 It held that the power
of the secretary of public works and communications to order the
removal, as a public nuisance, of the construction or building of dams,
dikes which encroach into any public navigable river, stream, coastal
waters and any navigable public waters or waterways, includes the
incidental authority to determine whether the encroachments, though
within titled property, are within the bed of a river, which can be
declared a public nuisance and ordered removed. 11
The powers of executive or administrative agencies or officials
are either express and implied, or discretionary and ministerial, or
directory and mandatory.

B. EXPRESS AND IMPLIED POWERS

§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

9Solid Homes, Inc. v. Payawal, 177 SCRA 72, 79.


10M atienzo v. Abellera, 162 SCRA 1 [1988J.
"Heirs of Santiago Pastral v. Secretary of Public Works and Communications,
162 SCRA 619 [1988].
12Sarcos v. Castillo; 26 SCRA 853 [1969].
12 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
AND ELECTION LAW

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

§2.11. Grant of jurisdiction and what is impli¢d therefrom.


Settled is the rule that jurisdiction to hear and decide cases,
which involves the exercise of adjudicatory power, is conferred only
by the Constitution or by statute. It cannot be conferred by the Rules
of Court. 16 "Jurisdiction over the subject matter must exist as a
matter of law and cannot be fixed by agreement of the parties, ac­
quired through, or waived, enlarged or diminished by, any act or
omission; neither can it be conferred by acquiescence of the tribu­
nal."17 An administrative agency cannot grant itself jurisdiction to
decide a particular matter by issuing the appropriate rules and regu-

13Villegas v. Subido, 30 SCRA 498 [1969].


14Radio Communications of the Phil., Inc. v. Santiago, 58 SCRA 493 (1974].
15Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan, 79 SCAD 954 (1997].
16Pimentel v. COMELEC, 101 SCRA 769 (1980].
17Chung Ka Bio v. IAC, 163 SCRA 534, 545-546 (1988]. .
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW I;:\
Powers ofAdministrative Agencies
B. Express and Implied Powers

lations in the exercise of its quasi-legislative power, where the en-


abling statute does not so confer. 18
Jurisdiction cannot be implied from the lan�age_of � statute
in the absence of a. clear legislati.�e.. intent to that effect.19 If the
language of the law is clear as to the scope of jurisdiction granted, it
cannot be construed to include that which is not conferred. The In­
surance Code, for instance, grants the Insurance Commissioner the
power to adjudicate claims and complaints not exceeding one hun­
dred thousand pesos in any single claim, excluding interest, costs
and attorney's fees, involving any loss, damage or liability for which
an insurer may be answerable under any kind of policy or contract
for insurance. It has been held that this jurisdiction does not cover
claims or complaints arising from relationship affecting insurance
company and its agents as the commissioner's quasi-judicial author­
ity is limited to adjudicating claims and complaints filed by the in­
sured against the insurance company. 20
Problems as to whether an administrative agency has
jurisdic­tion over certain matters arise when the language of the
law is not clear. In Garments a.nd Textile Export Board v. Court of
Appeals,21 the issue raised is whether the Board has jurisdiction to
resolve as to who, between two contending private entities, is
entitled to cer­tain garm�nt quotas, pu_r sua:f!t to the _power
gra?ted it by __ law to cancel or suspend .quota allocations. While
holding that the Board has the jurisdiction to do so, the Court
equivocated as to whether the grant was express or merely implied,
apparently because the lan­guage of the law is· not so clear. It said:
"On the basis of the provi­sions of law cited x x x, that power to
adjudicate on the question of an entity's entitlement to export
allocations was expressly granted to the GTEF, or at the very least,
was necessarily implied from the power to cancel or suspend quota
allocations, is beyond cavil."22

The grant of judicial or quasi-judicial power to try actions car­


ries with it all necessary and incidental powers to employ all writs,
processes and other means essential to make its jurisdiction
effec­tive.23 Every regularly constituted court or quasi-judicial body
has 18Taule v. Santos, 200 SCRA 512 (1991}.
19Pimentel v. COMELEC, 101 SCRA 769 [1980); Dimagiba v. Heraldez, 102
Phil. 1016 (1958] .
20Phil. American Life In s. Co. v. Ansaldo, 234 SCRA 509 [!994].
2179 SCAD 515, 268 SCRA 258 (1997].
22/bid., p. 295.
23Shioji v. Harvey, 43 Phil. 333 (1922]; Suanes v. Chie f Accountant of the Eer.­
ate, 81 Phil. 877 (1948].
14 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
AND ELECTION LAW

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.

C. MINISTERIAL AND DISCRETIONARY POWERS

§2.12. Ministerial power.


The duties and powers of public officers may either be ministe­
rial or discretionary. A ministerial duty is one which is so clear and

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

specific as to leave no room for the exercise of discretion in its per­


formance. A purely ministerial act or duty, in contradistinction to a
discretionary act, is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a
given state of f�cts, in a_ prescribed manner, in obedience to the
mandate of legal authority, without regard to the existence of his
own judgment, upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. If
th� la.w _iµiposes �.Q�U'. �P.Qn -� pybl�c _Qfficer,. �pg gives bJµi the
right to decide how '?!.when. the cluty sl?-all be pe_ rformed, such
dut� c\i§lcr�tlc.>nw.y_and not ministerial. The duty is ministerial
only when the discharge ot the same requires neither the exercise
of official discretion nor judgment.29
The fact that the duties of an official are ministerial does not
necessarily follow that he may not, in the administration of his office,
determine questions of law. This determination of what the law is
involves the exercise of judgment.30

§2.13. Ministerial duty distinguished from discretionary


power. .
A ministerial duty is one which is so clear and specific as to
leave no room for the exercise of discretion in its performance. On
the other hand; a discretionary duty is that which by its nature
requires the exercise ofjudgment. A purely ministerial act or duty is
one in which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts,
in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate oflegal authority,
without regard to ot the exercise of his own judgment, upon the
propriety of the act done. But if the law imposes a duty upon a public
officer and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall
be performed, such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. The
duty is. ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires
neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment.31
The distinction between ministerial and discretionary powers
or duties is important to determine what remedy may be availed of
by an aggrieved party against the non-performance of duty by the
officer. If the duty· is ministerial, mandamus may lie to compel
performance; ifthe duty is discretionary, a petition for certiorari may

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

lie where there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of


jurisdiction on the part of the official or administrative agency.

§2.14. Discretionary power.

As a general rule, discretion is the faculty conferred upon an


official by which he may decide a question either ·way and still be
right. 32
Discretion, when applied to public functionaries, means a power
or right conferred upon them by law of acting officially, under certain
circumstances, uncontrolled by the judgment or consciences of others.
If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the
right to decide how or -,.,.hen the duty shall be performed, such duty
is discretionary and not ministerial.33
A discretion entrusted to a public officer may not, as a rule, be
delegated. It has been held that an officer to whom a discretion is
entrusted cannot delegate it to another, the pre�umption being that
he was chosen because he was deemed fit and competent to exercise
that judgment and discretion, and unless the power to substitute
another in his place has been given to him, he cannot delegate his
duties to another. In those cases in which the proper execution of the
office requires on the part of the officer the exercise of judgment or
discretion, the presumption is that he was chosen because he was
deemed fit and competent to exercise that judgment and discretion,
and, unless the power to substitute another in his place has been
given ·to him, he cannot delegate to another. 34
Discretion is, in the carrying out of public functions, the faculty
or right which the law confers to act officially under certain
circumstances according to the dictates of other's own con��ience or
judgment without the imposition of the judgment or con�cience of
others. 35 When applied to public functionaries, it means a power or
right conferred upon them by law of acting, under certain
circumstances, uncontrolled by the judgment or conscience of others.
If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives· him the
right to decide how or when the public duty shall be performed, such

32Asuncion v. De Yriate, 28 Phil. 67 [1914]; Young v. Monblan, 205 SCRA 33


(1992).
33Mei-alco Securities Corporation v. Savellano, 117 SCRA 804 (1982].
.
34
Binamira v. Garrucho, 188 SCRA 154 (1990].
36People v. Ramos, 78 Phil. 392 [1947].
ADMINISTRA'I'IVE LAW ., -'
Powers of Administrative Agencies
D. Mandatory and Permissive Duties and Powers

duty is discretionary.36 A discretionary duty is that which by its


nature requires the exercise of judgment.37
Discretion means sound discretion exercised not arbitrarily or
willfully, but wit4 r�gard to what is right and equitable under the
circumstances an_d the law and directed by officer's reason and
conscience to Just result.�8 ln the absence of arbitrariness or grave
abuse of discretion, the officer conferred with discretion to decide a
question may decide the question either way and still be right39 and
his decision is not subject to the contrary judgment or control of
others.40

D. MANDATORY AND PERMISSIVE


DUTIES AND POWERS

§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.

§2.16. Mandatory and directory powers or duties, generally.


The law defines whether a function or power vested in an official
or administrative agency is mandatory or directory. A mandatory
statute is a .statute which commands either positively that some-

36Republic v. Capulong, 199 SCRA 134 (1991].


37Mario v. Capulong, 222 SCRA 593 (1993}.
38People v. Quibate, 131 SCRA 96, Dissent (1984}.
39 Young v. Monblan, 205 SCRA 33 (1992}.
• Meralco Securities Corp. v. Savellano, 117 SCRA 804 (1982).
0
18 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
AND ELECTION LAW

thing be done, or performed in a particular way, or negatively that


something be not done,41 leaving the person concerned no choice on
the matter except to obey.42 A mandatory statute is one that· contains
words of command or of prohibition,43 the omission to follow which
renders the proceeding to which it relates illegal and void, or the
violation of which makes the decision therein rendered invalid.44
Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory
laws shall be void, except when the law itself a.uthorizes their valid­
ity.45 Where a statute is mandatory, the court or quasi-judicial tribu­
nal has no power to distinguish between material and immaterial
breach thereof or omission to comply with what it requires. What the
law decrees must be obeyed against pain of sanction or declaration
of nullity of what is done in disregard thereof.46
A directory statute is a statute which is permissive or discre­
tionary in nature and merely outlines the act to be done in such a
way that no injury can result from ignoring it or that its purpose can
be accomplished in a manner other than that pres. cribed and sub­
stantially the same result obtained.47 A statute which merely· oper­
ates to confer discretion upon a person, namely, to act according to
the dictates of his own judgment and conscience and not controlled
by the judgment and conscience of others, is directory.4 8 Considering
'the nature of a directory statute, the nonperforIIlance �f what it
prescribes, though constituting in some instances an irregularity or
subjecting the official concerned to disciplinary or administrative
sanction, will not vitiate the proceedings therein taken. 49

§2.17. When mandatory or directory.


There is no universal rule by which dir�ctory provisions in a
statute may in all circumstances be distinguished from those which
are m�ndatory. Neither is there an absolute test for determining

"Brehn v. Republic, 9 SCRA 172 [1963).


2
' Sarina v. Court ofFirst Instance ofBukidnon, 24 SCRA 715 [1968).
43
Brehn v. Republic, 9 SCRA 172 [1963).
"Provincial Treasurer ofNegros 0cc. v. Azcona, 115 Phil. 618 [1962).
46Art. 5, Civil Code; Buyco v. PNB, 112 Phil. 588 (1961).
46 Sarina v. Court ofFirst Instance ofBukidnon, 24 SCRA 715 (1968).
47Miller v. Lakewood Housing Co., 180 NE 700, 81 ALR 1239 (1932).
48
Capati v. Ocompo, 113 SCRA 794 ( 1982]; Meralco Securiti�s Corp. v. Savellano,
117 SCRA 804 [1982].
49Marcelino v. Cruz, G.R. No. 42428, March 18, 1983; Phil.Assn. of Free Labor
Unions v. Secretary of Labor, 27 SCRA 40 (1969].
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 19
Powers of Administrative Agencies
D. Mandatory and Permissive Duties and Powers
whether a statutory direction is to be considered mandatory or dir?-c­
tory. In the determination of this question, t}:ie_ primary object is :.o
ascerta,.Jn leg�slative intent. The legislative intent must be obtaimd
from all the surrounding circumstances, and the deter-mination does
not depend on the form of the statute. Consideration must be given
to the entire statute, its object, purpose, legislative history, and the
consequences which would result from construing it one way or the
other, and the statute must be construed in connection with other
related statutes. Words of permissive character may be given a
mandatory significance in order to effect the legislative intent, and,
when the terms of a statute are such that they cannot be made
effective to the extent of giving each and all of them some reasonable
operation, without construing the statute as mandatory, such
construction should be given.r:0
On the other hand, the language of a statute, however manda­
tory in form, may be deemed directory whenever the legislative
purpose can best be carried out by such construction; but the con­
struction of mandatory words as directory should not be lightly
adopted and never where it would in fact make a new law instead of
that passed by the legislature. Whether a statute is mandatory or
directory depends on whether the thing directed to be done is of the
essence of the thing required, or is a mere matter of form, and wh1:1t
is a matter of essence can often be determined only by judicial con­
struction. Accordingly, when a particular provision of a statute re-
· lates to son;ie immaterial matter, as to which compliance with the
statute fa a matter of convenience rather than substance, or where
the directions of a statute are given merely with a view to the proper,
orderly and prompt conduct of business, it is generally regarded as
directory, unless followed by words of absolute prohibition; and a
statute is regarded as directory where no substantial rights depend
on it, no injury can result from ignoring it, and the purpose of the
legislature can be accomplished in a manner other than that pre­
scribed, with substantially the same result. On the other hand, a
provision relating to the essence of the thing to be done, that is, to
matters of substance, is mandatory, and when a fair interpretation
of a statute, which directs acts or proceedings to be done in a certain
way, shows that the legislature intended a compliance with such
provision to be essential to the validity of the act or proceeding, or
when some antecedent and prerequisite conditions must exist prior

"°Tafiada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051 [1957].


20 ADMINISTRATfVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
AND ELECTION LAW

to the exercise of the power, or must-be performed before certain


other powers can be exercised, the statute must be regarded as
mandatory. 51

§2.18. Test to determine nature of statute and that of power.


The test generally employed to determine whether a statute is
mandatory or directory or that of the power vested by it is to ascertain
the consequences that will follow in case what the statute requires
is not done or what it forbids is performed. Does the statute prescribe
a result in addition to, or apart from, what it ·requires? Will third
parties suffer as a consequence of what the person charged· by the
statute to do within a prescribed limit fails to do? Does the law give
a person no alternative choice? Is what the statute prescribes a matter
of substance and not of form? Will there be more injury to the public
by a disregard of what the law provides? If the answers are in the
affirmative, the statute is, as a rule, mandatory; otherwise, it is
directory.
Whether a statutory ·requirement is mandatory or directory
depends on its effect. If no substantial rights depend on it and no
injury can result from ignoring it; and the purpose of the legislature
can be accomplished in a manner other than that prescribed and
substantially the same results obtained, then the statute will
generally be regarded as directory; but if not, it will be mandatory. 52
Similarly, statutory requirements intended for the protection of
the citizens and by a disregard of which-their rights are injuriously
affected are regarded as mandatory; they must be followed or the
acts done will be invalid. The power of the officer in such cases is
limited })y the manner and conditions for its exercise. 63.
A statute will not be construed as mandatory and requiring a
public officer to act within a certain time limit ev.en if it is couched
in words of positive command if it will cause hardship or-injustice on
the part of the public who is not at fault.64 Nor will a statute be
interpreted as mandatory if it will lead to absurd, impossible or
mischievous consequences. The statute will instead be construed as
directory, so as to avoid such results, without prejudice to subjecting

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

the officer concerned to administrative sanction for his failure to do


what th.e law requires.66

E. ERRORS IN EXERCISE OF POWERS


§2.19. Government not bound by errors of public officers.
� The government can do no wrong. It authorizes only legal acts
by its officers. Its officers and agents do wrong or commit unauthorized
acts. Aild when they do, they are not errors or-acts of the government.
For this reason, the government is never estopped by such mistake
or erro:c. Neither does it bar future action in accordance with law. If
the mistake or error causes prejudice to another and it is done in bad
faith or beyond the scope of his authority, he alone is liable therefor
and he cannot invoke the non-suability of the st&-ce as a defense
against his personal_ liability.56
_r;fistakes of government personnel in performance oftheir duties
should not affect public interest. Errors of public officers should never
deprive the people of the right to rectify them and recover what
might be lost or bartered away in any action, deal or transaction
concerned. 57
The state authorizes only legal acts.by its officers. Unautho­
rized acts of government officials are not acts of the state, and an
action against the officials by one whose rights have been invaded or
violated by such acts, for the protection of his rights, not a suit
against the state within the rule of immunitY.. of the state from suit.
Similarly, an action at law against a state officer on the ground that,
while claiming fo act for the state, he violates or invades the per­
sonal ·and property rights of the plaintiff, under an unconstitutional
act or under an assumption of authority which he does not have, is
not a suit against the state within the constitutional provision that
the state may not be sued without its consent. Thus, an officer sued
in his private or personal capacity for acts done beyond the scope of
his authority or for unlawful or tortious acts while discharging offi­
cial function, cannot invoke the doctrine of �tate immunity from suit.

55Marcelino v. Cruz, G.R. No. 42428, March 18, 1983.


�Republic v. PhiL Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., 32 SCRA 211 [1970]; Director ofBu­
reau of Telecommunications v. Aligaen, 33 SCRA 368 [1970]; Zamora v. Court of Tax
Appeals, 36 SCRA 77 (1970].
57Leveriza v. IAC 157 SCRA 282 [1988).
22 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
AND ELECTION LAW

For the doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an instrument


for perpetrating an injustice.58

§2.20. Government is not estopped by mistakes of officers.


It is familiar rule that erroneous application and enforcement
ofthe law by public officers do not block subsequent c9rrect application
of the statute and that the government is never estopped by mistake
or error on the party of its agent.69 In other words, the government
can subsequently correct the mistake or the erroneous application of
the law. 60 A person acquires no vested right in such mistake.
It is a firmly settled rule of law that the Government is not
bound by the errors committed by its agents. In the performance of
its governmental functions, the State cannot be estopped by the
neglect of its agents and officers. Although the. Government may
generally be estopped through the affirmative acts of public officers
acting within the their authority, the neglect or omission of public
duties will not and should not produce that effect.61 The rule is more
true than in the field of taxation. It is axiomatic that the Government
cannot and must not be estopped particularly in matters involving
taxes. Taxes are the lifeblood of the nation through which the
government agencies continue to operate an� with which the
government agencies continue to operate and with which the State
effects its functions for the welfare of its constituents. The errors of
certain administrative officers should never be allowed to jeopardize
the Government's financial position. 62

§2.21. Presumption of regularity.


Government officials are presumed to perform their functions
with regularity and strong evidence is necessary. to rebut this
presumption.63 Under the law of public officers, acts done in the
performance of official duties are protected by the presumption of
good faith, and even mistakes committed by such public officers are

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

not actionable as long as it is not shown that they were motivated by


malice or gross negligence amounting to bad faith.64
The legal presumption is that official duty has been duly per­
formed. This presumption is particularly strong as regards adminis­
trative agencies vested with powers which are quasi-judicial in na­
ture, in connection with enforcement of laws affecting particular
fields of activity, the proper regulation and/or promotion of which
requires a technical or special training, aside from a good knowledge
and grasp of the over all conditions, relevant to said fields, obtaining
in the nation. For this reasori, unless there is absolutely no evidence
to support its decision or finding or such evidence is clearly, manifestly
and patently insubstantial, findings of fact of an administrative
agency are accorded respect and finality.65

6•Sanders v. Veridiano II, 162 SCRA 88 [1988).


65Blue Bar Coconut Phil. v. Tantuico, 163 SCRA 716 [1988].
CHAPTER Ill
POWER OF CONTROL, SUPERVISION
AND INVESTIGATION

A. PRESIDENT AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE


AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

§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.

§3.23. Executive power of the President.


· The President is the Chief Administrative Officer of the
Government. While the Constitution does not expressly say so, he
has that position by reason of his being the Chief Executive and the
head of government. He welds all administrative powers that inhere
in such position. Administrative power is an adjunct, and is designed
to complement the effective exercise, of executive power, vested in
the President. Administrative agencies o r bodies exercising
administrative, investigative, rule-making, and quasi-judicial powers,
as conferred by law, are parts of the executive branch 0f government,
as they are neither legislative nor judicial in the allocation of the
great powers among the three branches of government - the
legislative, executive and judicial departments.
Administrative powers of the President can be implied from his
executive power. An understanding of executive power is therefore in

24
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 25
Power of Control, Supervision and Investigation
A. Presidimt as Chief Executive and Administrative Officer

order. hi Marcos v. Manglapus, 1 the Supreme Court sumrneo ·.1p


executive power.as follows:

"As stated above, the Constitution provides that '(t)he


executive power shall be vested in the President of the
Philippines.' (A.rt. VII, Sec. 1). However, it does not define
what is meant by 'executive power' although in the same
article it touches on the exercise of certain powers by the
President, i.e. , the power of control over all executive
departments, bureaus and offices, the power to execute
the laws, the appointing power, the powers under the
commander-in-chief clause, the power to grant reprieves,
commutations and pardons, the power to grant amnesty
with the concurrence of Congress, the power to contract or
guarantee foreign loans, the power to enter into treaties
or international agreements, the power to submit the
budget to Congress, and the power to address Congress
(Art. VII, Secs. 14-23).
XXX

"The inevitable question then arises by enumerating


certain powers of the President. Did the framers of the
.
Cons.titution intend that the President shall eiercise those
specific powers and no other? A.1:e these enumerated powers
the breath and scope of 'executive power'? x x x.
XXX

"It would not be accurate, however, to state that


'executive power' is the power to enforce the laws, for the
President is head of state as well as head of government
and whatever powe'rs inhere in such positions pertain to
th·e office unless the Constitution itself withholds it.
Furthermore,· the Constitution itself provides that the
execution of the laws is only one of the powers of the
President. It also grants the President other powers that
do not involve the execution of any provision of law, e.g.,
h�s power over the country's foreign relations.
"On these premises, we hold the view that although
the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise

,.1177 SCRA 668 [1989].


26 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFJi'ICERS
AND ELECTION LAW

of specific powers of the President, it mafntains intact


what is traditionally considered within 1 the scope of
'executive power.' Corollarily, the powers of the President
cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers
enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, executive
power is more than the sum of specific powers so
enumerated.

§3.24. President's power of control.


.::::- Section 17, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that
the "President shall have control of all the executive departments,
bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully
executed." The President's power of control means his power to alter
or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done
in the performance of his duties and to substitute his judgm ent with
that of the latter. It is said to be the very heart pf the meaning of
Chief Executive. The presidential power of contrQl over the executive
branch of government extends to all executive officers from cabinet
secretary to the lowliest clerk in the executive department. He is the
Chief Executive, the head of government and the chief administrative
officer.2
The power of control under th�_const�tutional provision implies
the right of the President to interfere in the exercise of such discretion
as may be vested by law in the officers of the executive departments,
bureaus, or offices of the national government, as well as to act in
lieu of such officers. 3 The President, in the exercise of the powers of
control, can do what any of his cabinet secretary can lawfully do as
conferred by law._ Jj'or instance, i�Araneta v. Gatmaitan,4 the legality
of the President's issuance of an executive order banning fishing by
trawl was questioned because the Secretary of Agriculture, and not
the President, was the official authorized by Congr ess to issue rules
and regulations to implement the ban on trawl fishing. In sustaining
the legality of the executive order, the Supreme Court ruled that
since the Secretary of Agriculture was empowered to regulate or ban
fishing by trawl, the President, in the exercise of his power of control,
can take over from him such authority and issue the executive order

2Carpio v. Executive Secretary, 206 SCRA 290 (1992].


3
Pelaez v. Auditor General, 15 SCRA 569, 582, 583 (1965).
4101 Phil. 238 (1957].
ADMINISTRATfVE LAW 27
Power of Control, Supervision and Investigation
A. President as Chief Executive and Administrative Officer

to exercise it. The President's power of control means that if a cabinet


secretarv or a head of a bureau or ae:encv can issue rules and
�eguiauons. as autnonzea ov 1aw. tne rresment nas tne power not
onlv to modifv or amend the same but can also sunnlant the rules bv
another set entirelv diflerent from those issued bv his subordinate.
The President exercises the power of control through executive
departments and executive officials. Under the Constitution. all
executive and administrative oriranizations are adiuncts of the
P.XP.r.nt.ivP. i!P.nRrt.mP.nt.. t.hP. hP.ROR ofthP. vRrim1R P.XP.r.ut.ivP. i!P.m:irt.mP.nt.c:
are assistants and· a1rnnts of the Chief Executive. and, except in
cases where the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or
the law to .act in oe'rson or the exigencies of the situation demand
that he act nersonallv. the multifarious executive and administrative
'fnnr.t.ionR of t.}-lP. (;hiP.f F.,rnr.nt.ivP. ATP. OP.rformP.n hv ROO t.hronuh t.hP.
executive deoartment secretaries as his alter egoes, and the acts of
the secretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated .in
the regular: course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated
by the ChiefExecutive, preemptively the acts of the ChiefExecutive.5
The totality of executive power is vested in the President by the
Constitution. It means that the President is the Executive of the
Government and. no other. The heads of the executive departments
occupy political positions and hold office in an advisory capacity and
should be the President's bosom confidence. Each head of a
department is, and must be, the President's alter ego in the matters
of that department.where the President is required by law to exercise.
The President's power of control includes the power to detail aq
executive officer in the Office of the President. or to any executive
office. without anv orior aooroval from anv executive officer, so long
as_ there is no reduction in rank or salarv and is not considered as El
disciolinarv action. In this sense, for those discharging purely
executive functions in the national government, he gives orders to
all and takes orders from none. (Tecson v. Salas, 34 SCRA 275 [1970)).
Hence, the act of the President �annot be countermanded by a
deoartment secretarv who is a mere subordinate of the President6
nor can a subordinate of a department secretary disregard his
superior's altering his action in the performance of his function as
the department secretary, who has power of control over him, acts as

6Tecson v. Salas, 34 SCRA 275 (1970).


6Franche v. Hernandez, 109 Phil. 782 [1960].
28 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
AND ELECTION LAW

the President's alter ego and his action is presumed to be that ofthe
President. 7

§3.25. Doctrine of qualified political agency.


The President cannot be expected to exercise his control
powers all at the same time and in person, and there is need for
him to delegate some of them to his Cabinet members. This reality
or truism gives rise to the doctrine of qualified po1itical agency.
Under this doctrine, all executive and administrative organizations
are adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the various
executive departments are assistants and_agents of the Chief
Executive, and, except in cases where the Chief Executive is
required by the Constitution or law to act in person or the exigencies
of the situation demand that he act personally, the multifarious
executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are
performed by and through the executive departments, and the acts
of the Secretaries of such departments, performed and
promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless
disapproved or i:eprobated by the Chief Executive, preemptively
the acts of the Chief Executive. In other words, the President's
power ofcontrol is directly exercised by him over the members of
the Cabinet who, in turn, and by his authority, control the
bureaus and other offices under their respective jurisdictions in the
executive departments.8
The acts ofa department Secretary are presumed to be the acts
of the President. Thus, where the President is granted the authority
to sell certain parcels of land, the sale effected by a department
Secretary has the same effect as if done by the President himself.9.

§3.2EJ. I,\y aut horit y of the President.


The Executive Secretary or his Deputy or Assistant Executive
Secretary or any cabinet secretary, who acts and signs "By Authority
of the President," acts not for himself but for the Presidept. Thus,
acts or contracts executed by the Executive or Deputy Executive
Secretary "By Authority of the President" are presumed valid and

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

performed in behalf of the President and should thus be accorded


due respect. One of his my riad functions is to exercise prim&ry
authority to sign papers "By authority of the President." He attests
executive orders and other presidential issuances unless attestation
is specifically delegated to other officials by him or by the President;
assists the President in the administration of special projects; and
perform such other functions as the President may direct. His
personality is in reality but the projection of that of the President,
his acts, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business,
are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive,
presumptively th.e acts of the Chief Executive. Such acts are not
subject to review by the courts in view of the principle of separation
of powers which accords cb-equal status to the three great branches
of the government, absent any showing that the President, in doing
so, acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction. 10
The Executive Secretary or even a Deputy or Assistant Executive
Secretary, if he acts "By authority of the President," can modify,
alter, or set aside acts or rulings of a department secretary as he acts
for and on behalf of the President." 11

§3.27. Limitations o:ri the President's control power.


The power o f control of the President over executive
departments, bureaus or offices implies, as a rule, no more than the
authority to assume directly the functions thereof, to interfere in the
exercise of discretion by its officials, or to alter, modify or set aside
what a subordinate o_fficials have done and to substitute his judgment
for that of the latter. Generally speaking, the power of control does
not include the following: (i-) the abolition or creation of an executive
office, 12 �) the,suspension or removal of career executive officials or
employees without due process of law, 13 and (SJ the setting aside,
modification, or supplanting of decisions of guasi�uclicial agencies,
including that of the Office of the President, on contested cases that
have become final pursuant to law or to rules and regulations
promulgated to implement the law. 14

10 Malayan Integrated Industries Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 213 SCRA640 [1992).


11Exteneive Enterprises Corp. v. Sarbro & Co., Inc., 17 SCRA41, 49-50 [1966).
12Pelaez v. Auditor General, 15 SCRA 569 [1965) .
13Larin v. Executive Secretary, 88 SCAD 212, 280 SCRA 713 [1997).
"Camarines Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Torres, 91 SCAD 995 , 286 SCRA
666 [1998).
ADMINISTRATIVE·LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
AND ELECTION LAW

All actB of an executive or administrative office or agency, other


than final decisions rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory power
in contested cases, are subject to the President's power of control,
such as rules and regulations, interpretations or applications of the
law. These may be reviewed, modified or set aside at any time,
especially when they are later found to be erroneous, except that
private rights which have become vested thererunder may not be
unsettled or disturbed thereby. Thus, while the general rule is that­
an erroneous construction of a law by an administrative or executive
officer whose duty is to enforce it may not give rise to a vested right,
nor estop the government by such mistake, 16 the rule admits of
exceptions, as when in reliance thereon in good faith and a person
complies with what the law requires as construed by the
administrative officer, his right which accrued therefrom may not be
disturbed. The principles ofjustice and good faith di�tate and ·
operate
'
to create such exceptions. 16
The general rule is that the President's power of control applies
to acts of a subordinate official and not to the official who performs
the acts. He may not, by his control power, suspend or remove the
official without due process.of law, except those officials who serve at
his pleasure, such as cabinet secretaries. In Ang-Angco v. Castillo, 17
th� Court ruled that the _p,ow'r of control ."merely.�pplies to the
exercise of control over the ?Cti, of subordinate and_ not over the actor
or agent himself of the act. It only means that tpe President may set
aside the judgment or action taken by a subordinate in the
performance of his duties." 18 It added, however, that the power of
control may, to some extent, applies to the official himself, when it
said:
"There is some point in the argument that the power
of control of the President may extend to the power to
investigate, su�pend or remove officers -and employees who
belong to the executive department if they are presidential
appointees or do not belong to the classified· service for
such can be justified under the principle that the power to
remove is inherent in the power to appoint (Lacson v.

16United Christian Missionary Society v. Social Security Commission, 30 SCRA


983 [1969]; Legaspi v. Mathay, 68 SCRA 253 [1975].
18Cf. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. Co� o(T� Appeals, 108-SCRA 142 [ 1981].
179 SCRA 619 [1963].
18lbid., p. 629.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 11
Power of Control, Supervision and Investigation
A. President as Chief Executive and Administrative Officer

Romero, supra), but not with regard to those officers or


employees who belong to the classified service for as to
them that inherent power cannot be executed." 19
In Villaluz v. Zaldivar,20 the Supreme Court ruled
that there "is merit in the claim that petitioner, being a
presidential appointee, belongs to the non-competitive or
unclassified service of the government' and as such he can
only be investigated and removed from office after due
hearing by the President of the Philippines under the
principle that 'the
· ·
power to remove is inherent in the power
appoint.' 21
,.Pending investigation of an administrative complaint against a
presidential appointee who is a career officer, the President or a
<;stbinet secretary acting on his behalf may, however, detai'I said officer
to any other executive office. For if the President or a caJ:>ihet secretary
can, by the power of control, nullify or set aside what a subordinate
has done in the performance of his duties, he can order the detail of
such subordinate to the Office of the President or to any executive
department, so long as the detail does amount to an imposition of
disciplinary action. 22
The President's power of control does not apply. to reviewing,
modifying or setting aside a decision of a subordinate official in the
exercise of his quasi-judicial power after the decision has become
final pursuant to. law or the rules issued to implement it which
prescribes the per.i.od of appeal. For public interest requires that
proceedings already terminated should not be altered at every step,
which include quasi-judicial proceedings before quasi-judicial
agencies.23
In Camarines Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. u. 1brres,24 the
Supreme Court r�iterated the rule that a decision of a quasi-judicial
agency which has become final can no longer be set aside or supplanted
by the President in the {lxercise of his power of control.

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

§3.28. President's power of supervision.


The constitutional provision that the "President shall have
control ofail the executive departments, bureaus and offices" implies
t�t he may not have the power of control over agencies which ar.e
not categorized as executive departments, bureaus and offices, unless
lhe law creating them provides that he shall have such power. In
a9�enc� of such law; the President may have only the power of
sµperv.ision, which is only !?Verseeing 9r the eower to see that the
offieials concerned perform their duties, and ifthey la�r fail or �eglect
to fulfill them, to take such action or steps as pr�scribed by law to
make them perform their duties.26 The 1935 Constitution provides
that the President shall "exercise general supervision over all local
governments as may be provided by law." The 1987 Constitution
reiterated this provision, but deleted the phrase "as may be provided
by law." Construing th�. old provision on general supervision of the
President over local government units, the Supreme Court, in
Rodriguez u. Montinola, 27 ruled that "the power ofgeneral supervision
granted the President, in the absence of any express provision oflaw,
may not generally be interpreted to mean that ·he, or his alter ego,
the Secretary of Finance, may direct the form and manner in which
local officials shall perform or comply with their duties."28
In Taule u. Santos,29 the Supreme Court held that "Presidential
power over local governments is limited by the Constitution to the
exercise of_ general supervision 'to ensure that local affairs are
administered acc�rding to law.' The general SUPElrvision is exercised

26 Fortich v. Corona, 289 SCRA 624 (1998].


28
Mondano v. Silvosa, 97 Phil. 143 [1955].
2794 Phil. 964 [1964).
28 94 Phil. 973 [1954).
29200 SCRA 512 (1991].
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 33
Power of Control, Supervision and Investigation
A. President as Chief Executive and Administrative Officer

by the President through the Secretary of Local Government." "The


fundamental law permits the Chief Executive to wield no mnre
authority than that Qf checking whether· said local government or
the officers thereof. perform their duties as provided by statutory
enactments. Hence, the President cannot interfere with local
governments so long as the same or its officers act within the scope
of their authority. Supervisory power, when contracted with control,
is the power of mere oversight over an inferior body; it does not
include· any restraining authority over such body." "(A)lthough the
Department (of Local Government) is given the power to prescribe
rules, regulations and other issuances, the Administrative Code limits
its authority to merely 'monitoring compliance' by local government
units of such issuances. To monitor means 'to watch, observe or check.'
This is compatible with the power of supervision of the Secretary
over local governments which as earlier discussed is limited to
checking whether the local government unit concerned or the officers
thereof perform their duties as provided by statutory enactments."30

§3.29. Control, supervision. and review by other executive


officials.
The department secretary exercises control, supervision and
review of acts done by subordinate officials and employees in his
department. In turn, a head of a bureau or office exercises such
powers over his subordinate personnel. The power of control, in that
sense, means the power of an officer to alter, modify or nullify or set
aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his
duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the
latter.31 Supervision meflftS-'Overseeing._or the power or authority of
an officer to see that their subordinate otucers perform.their duties.
If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them, the former may take such
action or steps as prescribed by law to make them perform their
duties. Supervision is a lesser power than control. As thus defined,
the power of supervision does not allow the superior to annul the
acts o( the subordinate, for that comes under the power of control.
What he can do only is to see to it that the subordinate performs his
duties in accordanoe with law Review, on the other hand, is a
reconsideration or re-examination for purposes of correction. The
power of review is exercised to determine whether it is necessary to

30Ibid., pp. 521, 522, 523.


31 Borres v. Cano�oy, 108 SCRA 181 [1981].
34 ADMINISTRATNE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
AND ELECTION LAW

correct the acts of the subordinate. If such correction is necessary, it


must be done by the authority exercising control over the subordinate
or through the instrumentality of the courts of justice, unless the
subordinate motu proprio corrects himself after his error is called to
his attention by the official exercising the power of supervision and
review over him. If at all, the power to review_ includes the pow�r to
disapprove; but it does not carry the authority to substitute one's
own preferences for that chosen by the subordinate in the exercise of
its sound discretion. 32
Under the 1987 Administrative Code, supervision and control
include only the authority to: (a) act directly whenever a specific
function is entrusted by law or regulation to a subordinate; (b) direct
the performance of duty; restrain the commissjon of acts; (c) review,
approve, reverse or modify acts and decisions of subordinate officials
or units; (d) determine priorities in the execution of plans and
programs; and (e) prescribe standards, guidelines, plans and
programs. Specifically, administrative supervision is limited to the
authority of the department or its equivalent to: (1) generally oversee
the operations of such agencies and insure that. they are managed
effectively, efficiently and economically but without interference with
day-to-day activities; (2) require the submission of reports and cause
the conduct of management audit, performance evaluation and
inspection to determine compliance with policies, standards and
guidelines of the department; (3) take such action as may be necessary
for the proper performance of offici�l functions, including rectification
of violations, abuses and other forms of mal-administration; (4) review
and pass upon budget proposals of such agencies but may not increase
or add to them. 33
Where the law confers upon a department secretary supervision
and control over subordinate officers, the department head can modify,
nullify or set aside the decision of the subordina�e officer and can
even directly exercise the powers granted the latter. 34
The department secretary's supervision and control over all
bureaus and offices under his jurisdiction is limit�d to the ·bureaus
and officers under him, E.�t
does not extend to agencies attached to

32 Phil. Gamefowl Commission v. IAC, 146 SCRA 294, 300 (1986].


33Kilusang Bayan, etc. v. Dominguez, 205 SCRA 92 [1992].
s.sichangco v. Board of Commissioners of Immigration, 94 SCRA 61 (1979].
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Power of Control, Supervision and Investigation
A. President as Chief Executive and Administrative Officer

the department,1,Attachment, for administrative purposes, "refers '1-.o


the lateral relationship between the department or its equivaleat
and· the attached age_ncy or corporation foIY,'purposes of policy Rnd
program coordination. The coordination shall be accomplished by
having the department represented in the governiJ;1g board of the
attached agency or corporation, either as chairman or as a member,
with or without voting rights, if this is permitted by the charter;
having the attached ·corporation or agency comply with a system of
periodic reporting which
. shall reflect the progress of programs and
projects; and having he department or its equivalent provide general
policies through its ·representative in the board, which shall serve as
the framework for the internal policies of the attached corporation or
agency." An attached agency has a larger measure of independence
from the department to which it is attached than one which is under
the departmental supervision and control or 'administrative
· supervision. The ·attachment ·is merely for policy and program
'
coordination.35· ·
In Phil. Gamefoul Commission v. IAC,36 the issue raised is
whether the Philippine Gamefoul Commission has power of control
or only of supervision over local municipalities in the grant of
cockfighting licenses. Section 2 of P .D. No. 1802 provides that the
Commission shall have the power to "Issue licenses for the holding
of international derbies" and to "promulgate rules and regulations
relative to the holding, methods, procedures, operations and conduct
of cockfighting in general as well as accreditation of cockpit person­
nel and association of cockpit owners, operators and lessees, to el­
evate the standard of cockfight." On the other hand, PD. No. 1802,
as amended by P.D. No. 1802-A, provides that "City and Municipal
Mayors with the concurrence of their respective 'Sanggunians' shall
have the authority to license and regulate regular cockfighting pur­
suant to the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission
and subject to its review and supervision." The Commission set aside
the license granted 1:,y the local government officials to an applicant
and instead issued the license to another person . The Court ruled
that the Commission has· no power of control.

35Corona v. CA, 214 SCRA 378 (1992].


_36 46 SCRA 294 [1986].
36 ADMINISTRA'l'IVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
AND ELECTION LAW

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.

§3.31. Notice and hearing in investigation.


One of the cardinal requirements of due process is notice and
hearing. If the law, upon which the investigation is authorized,
·provides that the person investigated be given notice or accorded the
opportunity to be heard, then such right cannot be ignored nor he be
denied notice and hearing without violating his right to due process.
However, if the law is silent on the matter, the question as to whether
or not a person who may probably be affected or called to answer
certain questions in the exercise of investigative powers of officials
or administrative agencies is entitled to due process or to notice and·
hearing depends upon the stage during which the investigation is
conducted and the possible consequences to him of the outcome of
such investigation. 37

• §3.32. Executive power of investigation.


The President has the power to order the conduct of investigation
for a number of purposes, such as for all administrative functions,
rule-making, �djudication, and for purpo.ses no more specific than
illuminating obscure areas to find out what if any thing should be

37 8P.r.rP.tArv of ,Justice v. Lantion. 322 SCRA 160 (2000).


ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Power of Control, Supervision and Investigation
B. Power of lnvestigation

done. As chief administrative officer, the President may make inv�P-·


tigations, not only in proceedings of a legislative or judicial nature,
but also in proceedings whose sole purpose is to obtain information
upon which future action of a disciplinary, administrative, prosecutory,
legislative or judicial nature may be taken. 38 In Evangelista v.
Jarencio,39 the Supreme Court expounded on the importance and
usefulness of this i�v.estigatory power:
"It has been essayed that the life blood of the admin­
istrative process is the flow of fact, the gathering, the or­
ganization and the analysis of evidence. Investigations
are. useful for all administrative functions, not only for
rule-making;acljudication, and licensing, but also for pros­
ecuting, for supervising and directing, and for purposes
no more specific than illuminating obscure areas to find
out what if anything should be done. An administrative
agency may be authorized to make investigations, not only
in proceedings of a legislative or judicial nature, but also
in proceedings whose sole purpose is to obtain informa­
tion upon which future action of a legislative or judicial
nature may be taken and may require the attendance of
witnesses in proceedings of a purely investigatory nature.
It may conduct general inquiries into evils calling for cor­
rection, and to report findings to appropriate bodies and
make recommendations for action."40
The President's in.vestigatory power emanates from his power
of supervisio� a'nd control over all executive de(i�rtments, b'ureaus,
and offices; his power of supervision over local government units;
and his power of appointment of presidential appointees, which are
conferred upon him by the Constitution. His investigatory power
also comes from powers delegated to him by the legislature. Thus,
Sec. 64(c) of the Revised Administrative Code empowers the Presi­
dent -

"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
.

Evangelista v. Jarencio, 68 SCRA 39 (1975].


38
39
68 SCRA 99 (1975].
•068 SCRA 104 (1975).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
AND ELECTION LAW

connection therewith to designate the official, committee,


or person by whom such investigation shall be conducted."
The above provision has not been repealed by the 1987 Admin­
istrative Code, as what it impliedly repealed or modified are "All
laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations or portions thereof, in­
consistent with this Code," and the above quoted Sec. 64(c) of the
Revised Administrative Code is not inconsistent with any provision
of the i987 Administrative Code.41 Section 64(c) has, in fact, been
adopted as part thereof when in Sec. 20, Book III, it provides:

"Sec. 20. Residual Powers. - Unless Congress pro­


vides otherwise, the President shall ex�rcise such other
powers and functions vested in the President which are
provided for.under the laws and which are npt speci{\caUy
enumerated above, or -�Nhich are not delegated by the
President in accordance with.law."
The word "laws" in the above provision includes Sec. 64(c) of
the Revised Administrative Code.
Pursuant to Sec. 64(c) of the Revised Administrative Code, the
President has the power to create a Presidential Agency to conduct
investigations. Thus, he issued Executive Order.No. 4 dated January
7, 1966 creating the Presidential Agency on Reforms and Government
Operations (PARGO) with the following functions and responsibilities:

"b. 'lb investigate all activities invoiving or affecting


immoral practices, graft and corruption, smuggling (phy­
sical or tecpnical), lawlessness, subversion, and all other
activities which are prejudicial to the government and the
public int�rests, and to submit proper recommendations
to the President of the Philippines.
"e. To investigate cases of graft and corruption and
violations of Republic Act Nos. 1379 and 3019; and gather
necessary evidence to establish prima facie, acts of graft
and acquisition of unlawful amassed wealth.
"h. To receive and evaluate, and to conduct fact­
finding investigations of sworn complaip.ts against the acts,
conduct or behavior of any public official or employee and

1
' Cf. Mecano v. COA, 216 SCRA 500 (1992).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Power of Control, Supervision and Investigation
B., Power of Investigation

to file and prosecute the proper charges with the approp­


riate agency."
The President empowered PARGO to summon witnesses '>y
subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, administer oaths, take testi­
mony or evidence relevant to the investigation. In Evangelista v.
Jarencio,42 the issue raised is whether the Agency, acting thru its
officials, has the authority to issue subpoenas in its conduct of fact­
finding investigations not in connection with quasi-judicial or ad­
judicatipn functions. In upholding the power of the Agency to issue
such subpoena, the Supreme Court said:
"Rightly, administrative agencies may enforce sub­
poenas issued inlhe 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.
It is not necessary, as in the case of a warrant, that a
specific charge or complaint of violation of law be pending
or that the order be made pursuant to one. It is enough
that the investigation be for a lawfully authorized purpose.
The purpose of the subpoena is to discover evidence, not to
prove a pending charge, but upon which to make one if the
discovered evidence so justifies. Its obligation cannot rest
on a trial of the value of testimony sought; it is enough
that the proposed investigation be for a lawfully authorized
purpose, an� that the proposed witness be claimed to have
information that might shed some helpful light. Because
judicial power is reluctant if not unable to summon
evidence until it is shown to be relevant to issues on
litigations it does not follow that an administrative agency
charged wit� seeing that the laws are enforced may not
have and exercise powers of original inquiry. The
administrative agency has the power of inquisition which
is not dependent upon a case or controversy in order to get
evidence, bu_t can investigate merely on suspicion that the
law is being violated or even just because it wants
assurance that it is not. When investigative and accusatory
duties are delegated by statute to an administrative body,
it, to, may take steps to inform itself as to whether there
is probable violation of the law. In sum, it may be stated

4268 SCRA 99 [1975].


40 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
AND ELECTION LAW

that a subpoena meets the requirements for enforcement


if the inquiry is: (1) within the authority of the agency; (2)
the demand is not too indefinite; and (3) the information
is reasonably relevant."43
In the exercise of his investigatory power,"the President may do
so thru an executive officer, or create a body or committee to conduct
the investigation, empower said officer, body or committee to issue
subpoena and subpoena duces tecum for the purpose, and to make
recommendations, on the basis of which he will make his appropriate
action.44

§3.33. Investigatory powers, as incidents of main function.

Most administrative agencies which have been granted by Jaw


with ex�tive, quasi-legislative and quas'i°-judicial power� have also
investigatory powers in aid or as incidents of the exercise of such
powers, as means to m �ke ·the performance of the latter effective.
Inquisitive power, which is known as examining or investigatory
power, is one of the determinative powers of an administrative body
which better enables it to exercise its quasi-judicial authority. This
power allows the administrative body to inspect the records and
premises, and investigate the activities, of persons or entities coming
under it jurisdiction, or require disclosure of information by means
of accounts, records, reports, testimony of witnesses, production of
documents, or otherwise. 45
Power of investigation consists in gathering, organizing, and
analyzing evidence, which is a useful aid or tool in an administrative
agency's performance of its rule-making or quasi-judicial functions.
Investigation is indispensable to prosecution. 46
In investigations by an investigating body or·committee, whose
report may be the basis of an administrative ch�rge against public
officer or employee, the latter is not entitled to be informed of the
findings and recommendations of said investigating body or
committee. He is only entitled to be informed of the. charges against
him, to a hearing of said charges, to an opportunity to meet the

4368 SCRA 105-107.


44Larin v. Executive Secretary, BB SCAD 212, 280 SCRA 713 [1997).
45
Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, 322 SCRA 160 (2000).
46lbid.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 41
Power ofControl, Supervision and Investigation
B. Power of Investigation

evidence against him, to present his own evidence47 and to be :far­


nished with copy of the administrative decision, so that he may, i-�;1e
so desires, appeal therefrom to the Civil Service Commission within
fifteen (15) day s from notice.48

§3.34. Investigatory power as main function.


An investigatory body with the sole power of investigation does
not exerd.sejudicial functions and its power is limite_g. to jn�stigating
the facts and making findings in respect there�o.'Th� tes� whether
an administrative body is exercising judicial functions or merely
investigatory functions is,:-.adjudication signifies the exercise of power
and authority to adjudicate upon the rights and obligations of the
parties before 1t.�e qply purpose of investigation is to eyaluate
evidence submitte·d before it based on facts and circumstances
presented to it, and if the agency is not authorized to make a final
pronouncement affecting the parties, then there is an absence of
judicial discretion and judgment.49
T here are administrative agencies which are granted only·
investigatory powers. Two may be cited as examples, namely, the
Commission on Human Rights and the National Bureau of
Investigation.
T he Commission on Human Rights, created by the 1987
Constitution, has been granted the following powers and functions:50
1. To investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all
forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights;
2. To adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure,
and cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the
Rules of Court;
· 3. To provide appropriate legal measures for the protection
of human rights of all persons within the Philippines, as well as
Filipinos residing abroad, and to provide for preventive measures
and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights
have been violated or need protection;

47Ruiz v. Drilon, 209 SCRA 695 (1992].


48 Pefianco v. Moral, 118 SCAD 391, 322 SCRA 439 (2000].
49 Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, 322 SCRA 160 [2000].
60Sec. 18, Art. XIII, Constitution.
42 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
AND ELECTION LAW

4. To exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or deten­


tions fadlities;
5. To establish a continuing program of research, education,
and information to enhance respect for the primacy of human rights;
6. To recommend to the Congress effective measures to
promote human rights and to provide for compensation to victims of
violations of human rights, or their families;
7. To monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with
international treaty obligations on human rights;
8. To grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose
testimony or whose possession of documents or other evidence is
necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any investigation
conducted .by it or under its authority;
9. To request the assistance of any department, bureau, office,
or agency in the performance of its functions;
10. To appoint its officers and employees in accordance with
law; and
11. To perform such other duties and functions as may be
provided by law.
In Carino v. Commission on Human Rights, the question raised
is whether the Commission has the power to adjudicate or exercise
quasi-judicial power, as an incident of its power to investigate. The
Supreme Court ruled that it has none and explained the meaning
and scope of the power to investigate, thus:

"T he Court declares the Commission on Human


Rights to have no such power; and that it was not meant
by the fundamental law to be another court.or quasi-judi­
cial agency in this country, or duplicate much less take
over the functions of the latter. ,·
"The most that may be conceded to the CommissiOf
in the way of adjudicative power is that it may investigat�,
i.e., receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards
claimed human rights violations involving civil and
political rights. But fact-fipdjng is n�t adjudication, and

61204 SCRA 483 [1991].


ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 43
Power of Control, Supervision and Investigation
B. Power of Investigation

can'i,-ot be-likened to the judicial function of.a court of


justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or official. The
function of receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom
the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function, properly
speaking. � be considered as such, the faculty of receiving
evidence and making factual conclusions in a controversy
must be accompanied by the authority of applying the law
to those factual conclusions to the end that the controversy
may be decided or determined authoritatively, finally and
definitely, subject to such appeals or modes of review as
may be provided by law. This function, to repeat, the
Commission does not have.
XXX

x x x 7,b il_!_vestigate is not to adjudicate or �djudge.


Whether hi'the popular or the technical sense, these terms
have well-understood and quite distinct meanings.
!;"Investigate,' commonly understood, means to
examine, explore, jnquire or delve or probe into, research
on, study.. The dictionary definition of 'investigate' is 'to
observe or study closely: inquire into sy stematically: 'to
search or inquire into: x x x to subject to an official prove
x x x: to conduct an official inquiry.' The purpose of
investigation, of course, is to discover, to find out, to learn,
obtain information. Nowhere included or intimated is the
notion of settling, deciding or resolving a controversy
involved in the facts inquired into by application of the
law to the facts established by inquiry.
"The legal meaning of 'investigate' is essentially the
same: '(t)o follow up step by step by patient inquiry or obser­
vation. To trlice or track; to search into; to examine and
inquire into wi�h care and accuracy ; to find out by careful
inquisition; examination; the taking of evidence; a legal
inquiry ;' to inquire; to make an investigation,' 'investigation'
being in turn described as '(a)n administrative function,
the exercise of which ordinarily does not require a hearing.
2 Am Jur 2d Adm L Sec 257; x x x an inquiry, judicial or
otherwise, for the discovery and collection offacts concern­
ing a certain:matter or matters.
"'Adjudicate,' tommonly or popularly understood.
means to adjudge, arbitrate, judge, decide, determine.
44 ADMINISTRATIVE
. LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
AND ELECTION LAW

resolve, rule on, settle. The dictionary defines the term as


'to settle finally (the rights and duties of the p&rties to a
court case) on the merits of issues raised: x x x to pass
judgment on: settled judicially: x x x act as judge.' And
'adjudge' means 'to decide or rule upon as a judge or with
judicial or quasi-judicial powers: x x x to award or grant
judicially in a case or controversy x x x."
"In the legal sense, 'adjudicate' means: "To settle in
.
the exercise of judicial authority.. To determine finally.
Synony mous with adjudge in its strictest sense;' and
'adjudge' means: 'To pass on judicially, to decide, settled or
decree, or to sentence or condemn. XXX Implies a judicial
determination of a fact, and the entry of judgment.'"62
Thus, the power of the Commission on Human Rights is basically
investigatory and informational in nature. It may refer the results of
its investigation to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution
of crimes involving violations of civil and political rights. As the
scope of its investigatory power covers all forms of human rights
violations involving civil and political rights, its investigations on
these matters can also focus public opinion on them, which may
hop·efully deter the commission of violations of human rights as
against those inclined to do so.
The National Bureau oflnvestigation is another administrative
agency, whose power is basically investigatory and informational.
Section 1 of R.A. No. 157, which created the Bureau of National
Investigation, grants the agen<:Y the following powers:
1. To undertake investigation of crimes and other offenses
against the laws of the Philippines, upon its initiative and as public
.
interest may require;
2. To render assistance, whenever properly requested in the
investigation or detection of crimes and other offenses;
3. To act as .a national clearing house of criminal and other
informations for th·� benefit and use of all prosecuting and law­
enforcement entities of the Philippines, identification records of all
persons without criminal convictions, records of identifying marks,
characteristics, a.nd ownership or possession of all firearms as well
as of test bullets fired therefrom;

62204 SCRA 492-496.


ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 4fi
Power of Control, Supervision and Investigation
B. Power of Investigation

4. To give technical aid to all prosecuting and fatw-enforcemeni,


officers and entities. of the Government as well as the courts that
may require its services;
5. To extend its services, whenever properly requested in the
investigation of cases of administrative or civil nature in which the
Government is interested;
6. To undertake the instruction imd training of representative
number· .of city and municipal peace officers at the request of their
respective superiors along effective methods of crime investigation
and detection in order to insure greater efficiency in the discharge of
their duties;
7. Tei establish and maintain an up-to-date scientific crime
laboratory and to conduct researches in furtherance of scientific
knowledge in criminal investigations; and
8. To perform such other related functions as the Secretary
of J�stice may assign from time to time."
The powers and functions of the NBI are not judicial or quasi­
judicial in nature. Its functions "are merely investigatory and
informational in nature. It has no judicial or quasi-judicial powers
and is incapable of granting any relief to a party. It cannot even
determine probable.cause. It is an investigative agency whose findings
are merely recommendatory. It undertakes investigation of crimes
upon its own initiative and as public welfare may require. It renders
assistance when requested in the investigation or detection of crimes."
It is not an agency referred to under Circular No. 28-91, Revised
Circular No. 28-91 and Administrative Circular No. 04-94, on forum
shopping.53 However, on the basis of its investigation of a crime, the
NBI may file the corresponding complaint with the Prosecutor's Office
or with the Department of Justice for preliminary investigation and,
if so warranted, for filing by the latter of the information in court.

§3.35. Investigatory powers of the Ombudsman.


The Office of the Ombudsman is a:creation of the Constitution.
The Ombudsman is the protector of the people against abuses of
government officials and employees. He has been granted vast powers,
· which may be classified as follows: i_nvestigatory power; prosecutory

53Cabarrus, Jr. v. Bernas, 87 SCAD 239, 279 SCRA 388, 396 [199i}.
46 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
AND ELECTION LAW

power; public assistance functions; authority to inquire and obtain


information; and function to adopt, institute and implement
preventive measures. These powers are provided in the Constitution
and in Republic Act No. 6770.54
The authority of the Ombudsman to investigate any illegal act
or omission of an,Y. public official is broad enough to include the
investigation of any crime committed by a public official. The law
does not qualify.the .nature of the illegal act or omission of the public
official or employee that the Ombudsman may 'investigate. It does
not require that the act or omission be related to or be connected
with or arise from, the performance of official duty . Since the law
does not distinguish, neither should the court.65 ·
While the authority of the Ombudsman to investigate any act
or omission of any public officer or employee, other than those
specifically excepted under the Constitution and Republic Act No.
6770, which appears illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient, is broad,
the Constitution and the Ombudsman Act did not-intend to confer
upon the Ombudsman veto or revisory power over an exercise of
judgment or discretion by an agency or office upon whom the judg­
ment or discretion is lawfully vested. Thus, on the question of whether
to accept or reject a bid and award contract vested by law in a gov­
ernment agency, which involves the exercise of dis.cretion, the Om­
budsman has exceeded his power by reviewing the award and grant­
ing it to another bidder.66
The Constitution requires that the Ombudsman and his Depu­
ties, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints
filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of
the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality there­
of, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall,
in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and
the result thereof. The Constitution has granted· the Office of the
Ombudsman the following powers, functions, and duties:

(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any


person, any act or omission of any public official, employee,
office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.

6'Concerned Officials ofMWSS v. Vasquez,58 SCAD 409,240 SCRA502 [1995].


55Deloso v. Domingo, 191 SCRA 545 (1990].
66Concerned Officials ofMWSS v. Vasquez, 58 SCAD 409,240 SCRA502 [1995].
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Power of Control, Supervision and Investigation
B. Power oflnvestigation

(2) Direct, upon compliant or at its own instance,


any public official or employee of the Government, or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as
of any government-owned or controlled corporation with
original charter, to perform and expedite any act or duty
required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse
or impropriety in the performance of duties.
(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate
action against a public official or employee at fault, and
recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine,
censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.
(4) Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate
case, and subje<;:t to such limitations as may be provided
by law, to furnish it with copies of documents relating to
contracts or transactions entered into by his office involving
the disbursement or use of public funds or properties, and
report any irregularity to the Commission on Audit for
appropriate action.
(5) Request any government agency for assistance
and information necessary in the discharge of its
responsibilities, and to examine, if any necessary, pertinent
records and documeQts.
(6) Publicize matters covered by its investigation
when circumstances so warrant and with due prudence.
(7) Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape,
mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in the Government
and make recommendations for their elimination and the
observance of high standards of ethics and efficiency.
(8) Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise
such other powers or duties as may be provided by law. 67
Apart from the constitutional provisions, Republic Act No. 6770,
otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act of1989'' granted the Office
of the Ombudsman additional powers, functions and duties, to wit:
(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on.
complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public
officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or.

57Sec. 13, Art. XI, Constitution.


48 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
AND ELECTION LAW

omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or ineffi­


cient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by
the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary .
. jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any
investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of
such cases.
(2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance,
any officer or employee of the Government, or of any sub­
division, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as any
government-owned or controlled corporations with original
charter, to perform and expedite any act �r duty required
by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or
impropriety in t!1e performance of duties..
(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate
action against a public officer or employee at fault or who
neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty required by
law, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion,
fine, censure or prosecution, and ensure compliance
therewith; or enforce its disciplinary authority as provided
in Section 21 of this Act: Provided, That the refusal of any
officer without just cause to comply with an ord.er of the
Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure,
or prosecute an officer or employee who is at faµlt or who
neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty required by
law shall be a ground for disciplinary action against said
officer.
(4) Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate
case, and subject to such limitations as it may provide in·
its rules of procedure, to furnish it with cqpies of documents
relating to contracts or transactfons entered into by his .
office involving the disbursement or use of public funds or
properties, and report any irregularity to the Commission
on Audit for appropriate action.
(5) Request any government agency for assistance
and information necessary in the discharge of his
responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary in the
discharge of its responsibilities, pertinent records and
documents.
(6) Publicize matters covered by its investigation
of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (1), (2) and (4)
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 4!
Power of Control, Supervision and Investigation
. B. Power of Investigation

hereof, when circumstances so warrant and with due


prudence: Provided, That the Ombudsman under its rules
and regulations may determine what cases- may not be
made public: Provided, further, That any publicity issued
by the Ombudsman shall be balance, fair and true.
(7) · Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape,
mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in the Government,
and make recommendations for their elimination and the
observance or"high standards of ethics and effi'ciency.
· (8) Administer oaths, issue subpoena and subpoena
duces ·tecum, and take testimony in any investigation or
inquiry, including the power to examine and have access
to bank accounts and records.
(9) Puriish for contempt in accordance with the
Rules of Coqrt and under the same procedure and with
the same penalties provided therein.
(10) Delegate to the Deputies, or its investigators or
representatives such authority or duty as shall ensure the
effective exercise or performance' of the powers, functions,
and duties hereinafter provided.
(11) Investigate and initiate the proper action for
the recovery of ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth
amassed after February 25, 1986 and the prosecution of
the parties involved herein.
The Ombudsman shall give priority to complaints
filed against high ranking government officials and/or those
occupying supervisory positions, complaints involving
_grave offenses as well as complaints involving large sums
of money and/or properties."58

MSec. 15, R.A. No. 6770.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai