Page

1 of 49

GEN ERAL PRI N C I PL ES: ( UL EP ) ADM IN ISTRATIV E L AW B ranc h of mode rn l aw unde r w hi c h the Exe c De pt of the Govt, ac ti ng as a Q uasi l e gi sl ati ve or Q uasi - J udi c i al c apac i ty, i nte rfe re s w i th the c onduc t of the i ndi vi dual for the purpo se of promoti ng the w el l be i ng of the c ommu ni ty, as unde r l aw s re gul ati ng publ i c i nte re st, profe ssi ons, trade s and c al l i ngs, rate s and pri ce s, l aw s for the prote c ti on of publ i c he al th and safe ty, and the promoti o n of publ i c c onve ni e nc e . ADM IN ISTRATIV E BODY It is a Gove rnme nt al authori t y othe r than a C ourt w hi c h affe c ts the ri ghts of Pri vate Parti e s throu gh ei the r Adj udi c a ti on or Rul e Mak i ng. ADM IN ISTRATAI VE AGEN CY a Govt body c harge d w i th Admi ni ste ri n g and i mpl e me nti ng parti c ul ar l e gi sl ati on. e . g. are W ork e rs C ommi ssi on and the li k e . Te rm AGEN C Y i nc l ude s any De partme n t, Inde pe nde nt Establ i shme n t, C ommi ssi on , Admi ni str ati on , Authori ty, B oard or B ure au. ADM IN ISTRATIV E AGEN CY are NO T C O URTS, the y are ne i the r part of the J udi c i al sys nor are the y dee m J udi c i al Tri bunal s. ADM IN ISTRATIV E POWER I t i s c onc e rne d wi th the W ork of appl yi n g pol i c i e s and e nforc i ng orde rs as de te rmi ne d by prope r Gove rnme ntal organs. I t e nabl e s the PRES to fi x a uni form stand ard of Admi ni str ati ve Effi c ie nc y and c he c k the O ffi ci al C onduc t of hi s age nts. To thi s end, he c an I ssue Admi orde rs, rul e s and re gul ati ons. As

ADM IN ISTRATIV E ORDER An Ordi nanc e issue d by the Pre s w hi c h re l ate s to spe c i fi c aspe c ts in the admi ni str ati ve ope rati on of govt, I t must be i n harmo ny w i th he l aw and shoul d be for the sol e purpose of I mple me nti ng l aw and c arryi ng out the L e gi sl ati ve Pol i c y. Statu te pre vai l s ove r Admi O rde r i n c ase of c onfl i c t. ADM IN ISTRATIV E FUN CTION S: Re fe rs to the Exe c uti ve mac hi ne ry of the govt and the pe rformanc e by that mac hi ne ry of Gove rnme nt al Ac ts. Re fe rs to the Manage me nt ac ti ons, de te rmi nati on and orde rs of Exe c uti ve O ffi ci al s as the y admi ni ste r the l aw s and try to mak e Govt e ffe c ti ve . The re is an Ele me nt of PO SI TI VE AC TI O N, of Supe rvi si on and C ontrol ( RE: MO N Z AN O ) SCOPE L AW: OF ADM IN ISTRATIV E

I nc l ude s al l that porti on of PUB L IC L AW c onc e rni ng Exe c uti ve and Admi ni stra ti ve offi c i al s. I n thi s se nse i t i nc l ude s: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. l aw of sove re i gn state s, the i r pow e rs and duti e s l aw s of publ i c offi ce rs the i r e le c ti on and appoi n tme nt and re moval c i vi l se rvi c e and the ri ghts , duti e s and li abi l i ti e s of offi c e rs, muc h of the l aw of Publ i c C orp and the l aw rel ati ng to Govt Se rvi c e s and the di stri buti on of the B ounti e s of govt and fi nal l y al l of that gre at and grow i ng mass of le gal doc ti nre s havi ng to do w i th the Enforc e me nt of Statu te l aw re gul ati ng Pri vate affai rs. i t ne ce ssari l y i nc l ude s al so the PRO C EDURAL me thods by w hi c h Substa nti ve l aw i n thi s fi e l d i s e ffe c tuate d

9.

Page ( STATI O N , TRI B UN AL S, 2 n d e d) ADMI

2 of 49

CH IEF CON CERN o f ADM I L AW: I s the prote c ti on of ri ghts and i ts subj matte r i s, the re fore, the N ature and the mode of Exe rc i se of Admi Powe r and the Syste m of rel i e f agai nst Admi ns trati ve func ti on .

3 . rul e s, re gul ati ons or orde rs of suc h Admi Autho ri ti e s, e nac te d and promul gate d i n pursu anc e of the purpo se s for w hi c h the y are c re ate d and e ndow e d ( abl e ) 4 . de te rmi nati on, de ci si ons and orde rs of suc h Admi authori ti e s made i n the Se ttl e me nt of C ontrove rsi e s in the i r Parti c ul ar Fi el ds. ( 4 2 Am J ur 2 88 ) SOURCES OF ADM I L AW: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. C O N STI l e gi sl ati ve e nac tme nts c ourt de c i si ons admi rul i ngs and tre ati e s of re c ogni ze d authori ti e s. ADM IN ISTRAT IVE L AW C arrie s out thi s pl an in i ts Mi nute st De tai l N ot onl y suppl e me nts C onsti tuti onal l aw i n so far as i t re gul ate s the Admi ni strati ve O rgani zati on of the Govt; but al so CO MPL EMEN TS C onsti l aw , i n so far as i t de te rmi ne s the rul e s of l aw re l ati ve to the Ac ti vi ty of Admi authori ti e s. Tre ats the re l ati ons of the Govt w i th the IN di vi dual L ays stre ss Ri ghts on Tre ats of the Same Rel ati on from the standpoi nt of the Govt L ays stre ss on Duti e s ( MAL C O M)

M AIN

FUN CTION :

I s to ke e p the admi ni strati o n of Govt i n ac ti on and i n orde rl y manne r. Admi L aw transmi ts the W IL L of the state from i ts sourc e to the poi nt of i ts appl i c ati on. It gove rns the Transmi ssi on of the Ac ti ve Pow e r, se ei ng that i t doe s not w aste i tse l f i n vai n e fforts to sol ve the probl e ms of the State , that i t re sul ts at some e ffe c ti ve e nd and that i t doe s not go ami ss and c ommi t some w rong. K IN DS O F ADMI N I STRATI VE L AW : 1 . statute s se tti ng up Admi ni str ati ve Authori ti e s, e i the r by C re ati on board and c ommi ssi on or Admi offi c e rs or by c onfi di ng the pow e rs and duti e s to exi sti ng boards, c ommi ssi ons or offi c e rs, to ampl i fy, appl y , exe c ute and supe rvi se the ope rati on of, and de te rmi ne c ontrove rsi e s, ari si ng unde r Parti c ul ar l aw s i n the e nac tme nt of w hi c h the L e gi sl ati ve de c i de for matte rs of C onve ni e nc e or for Q ui c k e r or more e ffi c ie nt admi ni str ati on to w i thhol d the c ontrove rsi e s, at l e as ti n the F i rst i nstanc e from the C ourts of c ommon l aw . 2 . that B ody of Doc tri ne s and de c i si on de ali ng wi th the C re ati on, ope rati on and e ffe c t of de te rmi nati on and re gul ati ons of suc h Admi Authori ti e s.

CON STITUTION AL L AW L ays doe s the Ge n pl an of Gove rnme ntal O rgani zati on

GOCC is wit hin t he s cop e and me aning of Go vt o f t he PH ils !

Page

3 of 49

PHI L S

Se c 2 de fi ne s GO VT OF THE

7 . Admi ni str ati ve bodi e s se t up to mak e the Govt as PRI VATE PARTY GSI S. PURPOSE OF ADM IN ISTRATIV E PORCEEDIN GS: Mai nl y to PRO TEC T the publ i c se rvi c e, base d on the ti me honore d pri nc i pl e that PUB L IC OF FI C E is a PUB LI C TRUST.

As the C orporate Gove rnme ntal e nti ty through w hi c h the func ti ons of Govt are e xe rc i se d throug h w hi c h the F unc ti ons of Gov are Exe rc i se d throu gho ut the Phi l s i nc l udi ng same as the c ontrary appe ars from the c onte xt, the vari ous arms throug h w hi c h Pol i ti c al authori t y i s made effe c ti ve i n the PHi l s, w he the r pe rtai ni ng to the Autonom ous Re gi ons, the Provi nc i al , C i ty, Muni c i pal i ty or B arangay Subdi vi si on or O THER forms of L oc al govt. GO C C are wi thi n the sc ope and me ani ng of the Govt of the Phi l i f the y are PERF O RMI N G GO VERN MEN T AL or PO LI TIC AL F UN C TI O N S. Admi body may be c re ate d by C onsti tuti o n or Statute . TYPES OF ADM I BODIES: 1 . bodi e s to OF F ER GRATUI TI TY, grant or spe c i al pri vi le ge s e . g. Phi l Ve te rans Admi ni strati o n and DSW D 2 . B odi e s to C ARRY on C e rtai n AC TUAL BUSI N ESS of Govt B OC , BI R and Tari ff C ommi ssi on 3 . B odi e s to Pe rform some B usi ne ss se rvi c e for the Publ i c B ure au of Posts, PN R 4 . B odi e s to REGUL ATE busi ne ss affe c te d wi th Publ i c I nte re st L TFB 5 . B odi e s to Re gul ate Pri vate B usi ne ss and I ndi vi dual s unde r Pol i ce Pow e r SEC , Pate nts offi c e 6 . bode s to ADJ UST I ndi vi dual C ontrove rsi e s be c of some Stron g Soc i al pol i c i e s N L RC

ADM IN ISTRATI VE FUN CTION C onnote s or pe rtai ns to Admi ni strati o n , espe c i al l y manage me nt, as by Managi ng or C onduc ti ng, di re c ti ng or supe ri nte ndi ng the Exe c uti on, Appl i c ati on or c onduc t of pe rsons or thi ngs. It e ntai l s an opportu ni ty to be he ard, the produc ti o n and we i ghi ng of Evi de nc e and a De c i si on or Re sol uti on the re of.

QUASIJUDICIAL FUN CTION Te rm w hi c h appl i e s to the Ac ti on, Di sc re ti on etc , of publ i c Admi nsi trati ve offi c e rs or bodi e s, w ho are Re qui re d to IN VESTI GATE fac ts, to asc e rtai n the exi ste nc e of fac ts, hol d he ari ngs and draw c onc l usi on from the m, as a basi s for the i r Offi c i al ac ti on and to Exe rci se di sc re ti on of a J udi c i al N ature ( UN I V N UEVA C AC ERES MARTI N EZ ) OF VS

JUDICIAL FUN CTION W he re he has the pow e r to de te rmi ne W HAT THE L AW

QUASI JUDICIAL FUN CTION

te rms w hi c h appl i e s to the Ac ti ons, di sc re ti on etc

Page is and W HAT THE l e gal ri ghts of the parti e s are , and the n unde rtak e s to De te rmi ne the se que sti ons and Adj udi c ate the ri ghts of the parti e s of Publ i c Admi ni strati ve offi c e rs or bodi e s. . re qui re d to I nve sti gate fac ts or asc e rtai n the exi ste nc e of fac ts, hol d he ari ngs, and draw c onc l usi on from the m as a B asi s for the i r O ffi ci al Ac ti on and to e xe rc i se Di sc re ti on of a J udi c i al N ature ( L I GA N G MGA B ARAN GAY N ATIO N AL VS ATI ENZ A) APPO I N TI VE govt OF FI CI AL S

4 of 49
of the

EX C EPT offi c i al s that may be REMO VED onl y by I MPEAC HMEN T, Me mbe rs of the C ongre ss and the J udi c i ary. W hi l e X has the rank of Justi c e of CA ( as a NL RC C O MMI SSI O N ER ) , he doe s not be l ong to the J ud but to the Exe c uti ve De pt. Thi s si mpl y me ans that he has the same c ompe nsati on and pri vi l e ge s as to the j usti c e s of C A. If the SC we re to i nve sti gate X, it w oul d be pe rformi ng a NO N -J UDI C I AL func ti on. Thi s w i ll vi ol ate the Pri nc i pl e of Se parati on of Pow e rs.

DOCTRIN E OF SEPARAT ION OF POWERS: I ts obj e c t is the PRESE RV ATI O N of pol i ti c al safe guar ds agai nst the c apri c i ous exe rc i se of pow e r and i nc i de ntal l y i t l ays dow n the broad li ne s of an Effi c i e nt Di vi si on or F unc ti on. It obtai ns not through Expre ss provi si on B UT by Ac tual Di vi si on i n our C onsti tuti o n. Eac h De pt of the Govt has Exc l usi ve C ogni zanc e of matte rs w i thi n i ts j uri s and i s supre me w i thi n i ts sphe re . B ut i t doe s not foll ow from the fac t that the 3 Pow e rs are to be ke pt se parate and di sti nc t that the C onsti i nte nde d the m to be absol ute l y unre strai ne d and i nde pe nde nt from e ac h othe r. The C onst has provi de d for an El aborate syste m of C HEC K S and B AL AN C ES to se c ure c oordi nati o n i n the w ork i ngs of the vari ous de pt of the govt ( F RAN C I SC O VS N AGMAM AL A SAK I T. . ) N OBL EJAS VS TEEH AN KEE S 2 1 of O MB UDSMAN AC T ve sts w i th the O ffi ce of the O mbuds ma n wi th Di sc i pl i nary authori t y ove r all EL EC TI VE and PURPOSE OF TH E TH EORY OF SEPARATION OF POWERS FORM TH E POIN T OF VIEW OF ADM IN ISTRATIV E L AW: I t i s de si gne d: 1 . to se c ure ac ti on and 2 . fore stal l ove r ac ti on w hi c h ne c e ssari l y re sul ts from Undue C onc e ntrati on of pow e rs an the re by obtai n Effi c i e nc y and Pre ve nt De spoti sm ( P VS RO SEN THAL ) ADM I AGEN CIES DIRECTL Y CREAT ED BY TH E 19 87 CON STI : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. COA C SC C O MEL EC C HR offi c e of the O MB UDSMAN and DEPUTI ES 6 . O FF IC E of the Spe c i al Prose c utor 7 . N EDA 8 . C e ntral Mone tary Authori ty The i mportanc e of al l the se C onsti tuti o nal B odie s The y C AN N O T be abol i she d by the Le gi sl ature ,

Page The y are MADE C O N STI TUTIO N AL AGEN C I ES to i nsul ate the m from Pol i ti c al pre ssure and i nfl ue nc e . The y promul gate the i r ow n rul e s and re gul ati ons. PRES c an c re ate Admi Age nc i e s thru the i ssuanc e of Exe c O rde r. e . g. c re ati on F i ndi ng B ody. of F ac t EXCEP TION DEL AGATION OF

5 of 49
N ONby the fo to

1 . w he n pe rmi tte d C onsti i tse l f

2 . i n c ase of De l e gati on L EGI SL ATI VE PO W ER L oc al govt

3 . de l e gati on of Powe r to F IL L IN de tai l s. Thi s me ans MATTERS of DETAI L may be le ft by the l e gi sl ature to be fi l le d by rul e s and re gul ati ons to the adop te d or promul ga te d by Exe c uti ve O ffi c e rs and Admi ni str ati ve bodi e s. Thi s i s k now n as the pow e r of SUBORDIN ATE L EGISL ATION . In SUB O RDI N ATE, de l e gate d Rul e -mak i ng by Admi ni str ati ve age nc i e s, al l that may be re asonabl y de mande d i s a sow i ng that the De le gate d l e gi sl ati on c onsi sti ng of Admi ni str ati ve Re gul ati ons are ge rmane to the Ge n Purpose s proj e c te d by the Gove rni ng or Enabl i n g Statu te ( RAB O R VS C SC )

POWERS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

OF

Admi age nc i e s de ri ve the i r pow e r to promul gate rul e s and re gul ati ons from the L EGI SL ATURE, The se pow e rs may be Expre ss or I mpl ie d, and i t may DEL EGATED to Admi ni s trati ve age nc i e s. RUL E O N NO N -DEL AGATI O N OF PO W ERS No de pt of the Govt EX C EPT w he n authori ze d by the C O N STI c an abdi c ate authori ty or esc ape re sponsi bi l i ty by de l e gati ng any of i ts autho ri ty to anothe r body. The powe r c onfe rre d upon the Le gi sl ature to MAK E L AW S C AN N O T be del e gate d by that De pt to any othe r body or authori t y. W he re the sove re i gn pow e r of the State has l oc ate d the authori ty, the re i t must re mai n.

4 . DEL EGATI O N of Rul e Mak i ng and Adj udi c at ory pow e rs to Admi ni str ati ve bodi e s provi de d ASC ERT AI N AB L E Standar ds are me t 5 . de l e gati on to ASC ERTAI N F AC TS, c onti nge nc i e s or e ve nts upon w hi c h the appl i c abi l i ty or non appl i c abi l i ty of the l aw i s made to de pe nd 6 . de l e gati on of Powe r to the PEO PL E AT L ARGE if Re se rve d by the C onsti tuti o n 7 . de l e gati on of Powe r to the Exe c uti ve i n F ore i gn or I nte rnati onal rel ati ons. ETH ICAL BASIS of t he PRIN CIPL E OF N ON DEL EGATION OF L EGISL ATIVE POWER:

Page

6 of 49
OF

B ase d on the pri nc i pl e that suc h a De l e gate d Pow e r c onsti tute s not onl y a Ri ght but a Duty to be pe rforme d by the de l e gate by the I nstrume ntal i ty of hi s ow n j udgme nt ac ti ng i mme di ate l y upon the Matte r of L e gi sl ati on and not through the I nte rve ni ng mi nd of anothe r ( US VS B ARRI AS) A furthe r de l e gati on of suc h pow e r w oul d i nde e d c onsti tute a N e gati on of the duty i n vi ol ati on of the trust re pose d in the del e gate mand ate d to Di sc harge it di re c tl y ( KI L USAN G MAYO UN O L AB O R C EN TER VS GARC I A J R) RATION AL E IN FAVOR OF DEL EGATION OF L EGISL ATIVE FUN CTION S: W i th the grow i ng c ompl e xi ti e s of mode rn li fe , the MUL TI PL IC ATI O N of the subj of Gove rnme ntal re gul ati on and the i nc re ase d di ffi c ul ty of Admi ni ste ri n g the l aw s, the re is c onstan tl y grow i ng te nde nc y tow ard the de le gati on of Grow i ng pow e r by the L e gi sl ati ve and tow ard the approv al of the prac ti c e of the c ourts ( TAB L ARI N VS GUTI ERREZ )

TEST OF VAL IDITY DEL EGATION OF POWERS :

1. C O MPL ETEN ESS or I nc ompl e te ne ss of the Statute Te st and 2 . Abse nc e OR Suffi c i e nc y of Stan dar d Te st So as NOT TO VIOL ATE t he Princip le of Se p arat io n of Po we rs , it is e ss e nt ial t hat t he L AW DEL AGATIN G Pro ce s s mus t : 1 . be C O MPL ETE I N I TSEL F I T must se t forth the Pol i c y to be e xe c ute d by the Del e gate and 2 . F IX A STAN DARD L I MI TS of eac h are suffi c i e ntl y de te rmi nate or de te rmi nabl e to w hi c h the De le gate must c onform. COM PL ETEN ESS IN COM PL ETEN ESS STATUTE TEST OR TH E

OF

L aw must be C O MPL ETE i n al l i ts te rms and provi si ons w he n i t le ave s the L e gi sl ati ve B ranc h that nothi ng i s L EF T to the j udgme n t. St at ut e may be COM PL ETE whe n t he : a. subj e c t b. the manne r and c . e xte nt of i ts ope rati on is State d i n i t.

DEL EGATION OF POWER TO M AKE L AWS

DEL EGATION OF AUTH ORITY OR DISCRETION as to it s EXECUTION to be ex e rcis ed und e r or in Purs uance of t he L aw No val i d obj e c ti on c an be made ( EDU VS ERI C TA)

The TEST OF CO MPL ETEN ESS has be e n sai d to be w he the r the provi si on is SUFF I CI EN TL Y DEFI N I TE and Ce rtai n to e nabl e one to k now hi s Ri ghts and O bl i gati ons. The l e gi sl ati ve doe s not di c tate i ts func ti on w he n i t De sc ri be s w hat j ob must be done , w ho must do i t, and the sc ope of hi s authori t y. Statu te is NOT ne ce ssari l y I NC O MPL ETE and he nce an UN DUE DEL EGATI O N of pow e r be c i s DEL EGATE DI SC RETI O N .

May not be done , me ani ng, the pow e r to MAK E L AW S may not be de le gate d

Page The be t the : TRUE DI SC RETI O N is UN L AWFUL POWER:

7 of 49
OF

DEL EGATION

DEL EGATION OF POWER t o M AKE L AW W hi c h ne c e ssari l y i nvol ve s a Di sc re ti on as to w hat the l aw shal l be and c onformi ng authori t y O R DISCRETION as to EXECUT ION To be e xe rc i se d pursu anc e of the l aw . it s in

The re must be a STAN DA RD w hi c h i mpl i e s at the ve ry l e ast that the L EGI SL ATURE i tse l f de te rmi ne s matte rs of Pri nc i pl e and l ays dow n F undame nt al pol i c y. STAN DA RD thus de fi ne s: a. l e gi sl ati ve pol i c y b. mark s i ts li mi ts c . maps out i ts boun dari e s and d. Spe c i fi e s the Publ i c Age nc y to appl y i t. I t i ndi c ate s the C i rc umstanc e s unde r w hi c h the Le gi sl ati ve c omman d i s to be effe c te d. I t i s the c ri te ri on by w hi c h the L e gi sl ati ve purpose may be c arri e d out. The re afte r the EX EC UTI VE or ADMI N I STRATI VE O FF IC E de si gnate d may i n pursuanc e of the above gui de l i ne s promul g ate Sup pl e me ntal Rul e s and Re gul ati ons. Stan dar d may e i the r be Expre ss or I mpl ie d. Stan dar d thou gh DO ES N O T HAVE TO BE SPEL L ED out spe c i fi c al l y. I t c oul d be I MPL I ED from the Pol i c y and Purpose of the ac t c onsi de re d as a W hol e ( AGUSTI N VS EDU) 3 CRITERIA FOR DEL EGATIN G A L EGISL ATIVE POWER TO BE L AWFUL : 1 . PO L IC Y must be c le arl y de l e gate d i n the l angua ge of the Statu te and not l e ft to the Di sc re ti on of the DEL EGATE 2 . statute must PRO N O UN C E STAN DA RDS to gui de the Exe c utory be havi or of the de le gate , pre sumabl y suc h standar ds w oul d al so have the vi rtue of gi vi ng the c ourt, some thi ng to de te rmi ne i n mak i ng a J udi c i al Re vie w . 3 . the del e gate must spe c i fy i n hi s O rde r the F ac ts and C i rc um that j usti fi e d the ac ti on.

ABSEN CE OR SUFFICI EN CY OF STAN DARD TEST Eve n i f a statute del e gate s authori t y, i t l ays dow n a pol i c y of DEFI NI TE STAN DARD by w hi c h the Exe c uti ve or Admi ni stra ti ve offi c e r or B oard may be gui de d in the e xe rc i se of hi s DI SC RETI O N ARY AUTHO RI TY. I f the Statute fi xe s N O STAN DA RD and Grants an offi c e r or board UNC O N TRO L L ED and UN L I MI TED DI SC RETI O N suc h statute i s an Unc onsti tu ti onal de l e gati on of pow e r. A STAN DARD is the c ri te ri on l ai d dow n by the L e gi sl ati ve by w hi c h the pol i c y and purpo se of ht el aw may be c arri e d out. I t de fi ne s the Le gi sl ati ve pol i c y, mak e s i ts li mi ts and k ee ps out i ts bound ari e s, It i ndi c ate s the c i rc umstanc e s unde r w hi c h l e gi sl ati ve c ommand may be e ffe c te d. STAN DARD must be e mbodi e d i n the Ve ry provi si on of the statute de le gati ng authori ty. How e ve r, i t may be F O UN D EL SEW HERE, O the r provi si ons of the Statu te may be c onsi de re d.

Purpose of the l aw may not be le ft i n the asc e rtai nme nt of standar d, thi s i s so be c Stan dar ds nee d not be te ste d i n i sol ati on but re fe rre d to the purpo se of the l aw , i ts fac tual bac k gro un d and of i ts Statutory c onte xt. STAN DARD TH AT M UST BE SET TO AVOID TH E TAIN T OF

Page

8 of 49

DEL EGATION OF M IN ISTERIAL POWERS Publ i c offi c e rs c an de l e gate MIN I STERI AL DUTI ES or F UN C TI O N S suc h as those i nvol vi ng the EX ERC I SE OF DI SC RETI O N O R JUDGMEN T i n c onne c ti on wi th Pe rs onne l Matte rs wi thi n the li mi ts pre sc ri be d in Appr opri ate stand ards, gui de l i ne s or Re gul ati ons. Thi s i s so be c i t i s humanl y i mpossi bl e to atte nd pe rsonal l y to the Matte r of appoi nt me nt, Promoti o n and Di sc i pl i ne of the thousa nd ee s in the govt se rvi ce ( ESC AL AN TE VS SUB I DO ) 1 98 9 C harte r of Ci ty of Ml a, Mayor has the pow e r to I nve sti gate C i ty offi c i al s and e e s appoi nte d by hi m in c onne c ti on the re wi th, admi ni ste r oath, tak e te sti mony and i ssue Sub poe na . Mayor i ssue d an EO c re ati ng a C ommi tte e c hai re d by X to i nve sti gate anomal i e s i nvol vi ng l i ce nse d i nspe c tors of the Li c e nse I nspe c ti on Di vi si on of the O fc of the C i ty Tre asure r. In the c ourse of i nve sti gati on, X subpoe ne d Y PRI VATE CI T w orki ng as a book k e e pe r of Asi a hardw are . Y re fuse d to appe ar c onte ndi n g that the C omm of X has no pow e r to i ssue subpoe na. R: C omm has no pow e r to Issue subpoe n a. ( C ARMEL O VS RAMO S) I n c re ati ng the C omm, the Mayor di d not grant the pow e r to i ssue subpoe nas. B esi de s the Mayor c annot de le gate hi s pow e r to I ssue subpoe na. ??? SUBL EGATION : Is the transmi ssi on of authori t y of the he ads of the Age nc i e s to Subo rdi na te s.

PRI N C I PL ES of O RGAN I Z ATI O N de mand that those at the top of the offi c e must be abl e to c onc e ntrate the i r atte nti on upon the l arge r and more i mportan t que sti ons of Pol i c y and Prac ti c e , and the y be fre e d so far as possi bl e , from the c onsi de rati on of the Smal l e r and le sse r i mportan t matte rs of De tai l s.

PERM ISSIBL E SUBL EGATION : Me ans that Mi ni ste ri al F unc ti ons may be de l e gate d to assi stants. How e ve r, the re is NO AUTHO RI TY to de le gate ac ts w hi c h are DI SC RETI O N ARY and Q UASI J UDIC I L i n nature . An offi c e r re qui re d to USE HI S OWN J UDGMEN T and Di sc re ti on i n mak i ng an O rde r is N O T PREC L UDED from uti l i zi ng subor di nate s to I nve sti gate and Re port Fac ts and Re c omme nda ti ons i n re l ati on to the advi sabi l i ty of the orde r. L EGISL ATIVE STAN DARDS TH AT ARE CON SIDERED ADEQUAT E IN TH E PH IL S: a. ne c e ssary i n the i nte re st of l aw and orde r b. publ i c i nte re st c . j usti c e , e qui ty and substa nti al me ri ts of the c ase d. publ i c we l fare e . si mpl i c i ty, e c o and e ffi c ie nc y f. ade quate and e ffi c ie nt i nstruc ti on g. re asonabl e ne ss as an IMPL I ED standar d h. stand ards for Pri ce F i xi ng i . purpo se to be ac c ompl i she d j . i n orde r to prote c t to I nte rnati onal Re se rve s, to prote c t the stabi l i ty of the PESO and mai ntai n Mone tary Stabi l i ty and to promote the ri si ng l e ve l of purc ha se , e mpl oyme nt and

Page Re al i nc ome i n the PHi l s k . w hat i s Moral and Educ ati o nal l . w hat is SAC RI L EGI O US POWERS AN D FUN CTION S OF ADM IN ISTRATIV E AGEN CIES The y are de fi ne d ei the r i n the C onsti or i n Le gi sl ati on or B oth. W he re the y are c re ate d by Statu te or w he re the se pow e rs are to be De fi ne d by Le gi sl ati on, the pow e rs of Admi ni str ati ve age nc i e s are l i mi te d to the STATUTES c re ati ng the m to those c onfi ne d Expre ssl y or by N e ce ssary or F ai r I mpl i c ati on. 1 . Rul e Mak i ng or Q uasi L e gi sl ati ve Pow e r 2 . adj udi c at ory or Q uasi J udi c i al pow e r 3 . e xe c uti ve or Admi ni str ati ve pow e r 4 . i nc i de ntal pow e rs

9 of 49

FORTUN E TABAC CO DOCTRIN E in re lat io n t o Ad minis t rat ive Rule M ak ing : I t says that W he n an Admi ni str ati ve Rul e goe s be yond me re l y provi di ng for the me ans that c an fac i li tate or re nde r l ess c umbe rsome ( aw k w ard) the I mpl e me ntati on of the l aw and Subs tanti al l y I N C REASES the burde n of those GO VERN ED, i t be hoove s the age nc y to ac c ord at le ast to those di re c tl y affe c te d a c hanc e to be he ard and the re afte r, to be dul y i nforme d, B EF O RE the i ssuanc e i s gi ve n the forc e and e ffe c t of l aw . e . g. Re v Me mo that w oul d i nc re ase Tax Li abi l i ti e s of affe c te d taxpaye rs w oul d be i nval i date d if the y are not afforde d due proc e ss ( C I R VS C A) DOCTRIN E OF IM PL ICATION N ECESSARY

RUL E M AKIN G OR L EGISL ATIVE POWER

QUASI

Pow e r to PRO MUL GATE RUL ES and re gul ati ons or Ge ne ral O rde rs. The y are le gal l y bi ndi ng and Re c ei ve statutory force onc e the y be c ome e ffe c ti ve pursu ant to l aw . Grant of Rul e Mak i ng Pow e r to admi ni ste r age nc i e s is a REL AX ATI O N to the Pri nc i pl e s of Se parati on of Pow e rs and i s an Exc e pti on to the N O N DEL EGATI O N of Le gi sl ati ve pow e rs. SUBORDIN ATE L EGISL ATION I s c al c ul ate d to promote the publ i c i nte re st. I t i s ne c e ssary be c of the Grow i ng C ompl e xi ty of mode rn l i fe , the mul ti pl i c ati on of the subj e c ts of Gove rnme ntal Re gul ati ons and the I nc re ase d di ffi c ul ty of Admi ni ste ri ng the l aw ( P VS MACEREN )

W he re the GEN ERAL PO W ER i s c onfe rre d or duty e nj oi ne d, e ve ry parti c ul ar powe r ne c e ssary for the Exe rc i se of the one or the pe rformanc e of the othe r i s al so c onfe rre d. The re fore , the I NC I DEN TAL PO W ER to promul ga te suc h rul e s ne c e ssary for the prope r e xe rc i se of i ts Exc l usi ve pow e r must be dee me d by N ec e ssary i mpl i c ati on to have be e n l odge d ( al so in the O ffi ce or C ommi ssi on ) { VAL EN C I A VS C A} The pow e r of al l admi bodi e s to PRO MUL GA TE I N TERN AL RUL ES and re gul ati ons c ome s form the DO C TRI N E OF N EC ESSARY I MPL IC ATI O N ! N ATURE OF TH E RUL E M AKIN G POWERS OF ADM IN ISTRATIV E BODIES: I t i s a De l e gate d Pow e r, w hi c h i t may not use e i the r to abri dge the authori ty gi ve n i t by the C ongre ss or the C onsti or to Enl arge i ts powe rs be yond the sc ope i nte nde d.

Page I t may not mak e rul e s and re gul ati ons w hi c h are I NC O N SI STEN T wi th the prov of the C onsti or Stat ute , partuc l ar y the Statu te i t i s admi ni ste ri ng or w hi c h c re ate d i t, or w hi c h are i n de rogati on of, or de fe at the purpo se of a statute ( CO N TE VS C O A) FREE TEL EPH ON E WORKERS UN ION VS M IN OF L ABOR Ame ndme n t to the LC w hi c h e mpow e rs Se c of L abor to assume j uri s i n l abor di spute s. L abor fe d c onte nds that i t is an Undue de le gati on of l e gi sl ati ve pow e r. R: no. i t i s not an undue de l e gati on of pow e r. I t i s sti l l the PRES w ho shal l have the c ontrol ove r the Mi ni stri e s. I t may hap pe n the re fore , that a si ngl e pe rson may oc c upy a Dual posi ti on of Mi ni ste r and Asse mbl yma n. To the e xte nt, how e ve r , that w hat is i nvol ve d i s the Exe c uti on or Enforc e me nt of L e gi sl ati on, the Mi ni ste r i s an O ffi c i al of the Exe c B ranc h of the govt. B esi de s, the F undame ntal pri nc i pl e of Se parati o n of Pow e r must be fle xi bl e and mal le abl e . C onsti di d not mak e the Pre si de nc y and C ongre ss ri val s for pow e r but partne rs for progre ss bei ng TRUSTE E of the Pe opl e , c ustodi ans of the i r he ri tage . A ri gi d appl i c ati on of the N O N -DEL EGATI O N DO C TRI N E w oul d be an obstac l e to N ati onal e fforts at de ve l opme nt and progre ss. I nste ad, DEL EGATI O N must se rve as the DYN AMO of Mode rn Govt

10 of 49

KIN DS OF ADM IN ISTRATI VE RUL ES AN D REGUL ATION S : 1 . THO SE i ssue d by REASO N OF PARTI C UL AR DEL EGATI O N of authori t y. The y are al so c al l e d the SUPPL EM EN TARY OR DETAIL ED L EGISL ATION ( FI LL I N G IN OF DETAI L S ) 2 . those i nte rpre ti ng the statute be i ng admi ni ste re d. The y are al so c al le d IN TERPRETA TIVE RUL ES AN D REGUL ATION S I ts purp ose i s to c onstrue the statute be i ng admi ni ste re d ( C I R VS C A) Thus, the i nte rpre tati on of and Admi ni str ati ve Govt Age nc y w hi c h i s task e d to I mpl e me nt a statute , is ac c orde d gre at re spe c t and ordi nari l y c ontrol s the c onstruc ti o n of the c ourts ( REP VS SAN DI GAN B AYAN ) 3 . those i nvol vi ng a De te rmi nati on unde r a De le gate d Pow e r w he the r a Statu te shal l go i nto e ffe c t. K now n as L EGISL ATION CON TIN GEN T

Admi age nc i e s has al so the pow e r to mak e I NTERN AL RUL ES! II. ADJUDIC ATORY OR QUASIJUDICIAL POWER Pow e r to he ar and adj udi c ate the ri ghts of pe rsons be fore i t. I t i s the pow e r to He ar and De te rmi ne Q of Fac t to w hi c h the l e gi sl ati ve pol i c y i s to appl y to and de ci de i n ac c ordanc e wi th the standar ds l ai d dow n by the l aw i tse l f in e nforc i ng and

Page admi ni ste ri ng ( CI R VS C A) QUASI BODY : the same AGEN CY l aw OR

11 of 49

JUDICIAL

I t i s an O rgan of the Govt othe r than the C ourt and othe r than a L e gi sl ature , w hi c h affe c ts the ri ghts of Pri vate Parti e s throu gh e i the r Adj udi c ati on or Rul e Mak i ng. QUASI- JUDICIAL ADJUDIC ATION Me ans a DETERMI N ATI O N of Ri ghts, Pri vi l e ge s and Duti e s re sul ti ng i n a de c i si on or O rde r w hi c h appl i e s to a SPEC IF I C SI TUATI O N ! WH AT DOES QUASI- JUDICIAL PROC IN VOL VE: 1 . tak i ng and e val uati on of e vi d 2 . de te rmi ni ng F ac ts base d upon the Evi de nc e pre se nte d and 3 . re nde ri ng an O RDER or De c i si on supporte d by the F ac ts Approve d ( SEC OF J USTI C E VS L AN TI O N ) III. EXECUTIV E ADM IN ISTRATIV E POWER I s the powe r L IC EN SE or Pe rmi ts . to OR Iss ue

W hi c h shal l gove rn the Equi val e nt and an Age nc y unde r i ts j uri s is li mi te d to the authori t y to suc h De pt to ge ne ral l y ove rse e the ope rati on of the Age nc y unde r i t to i nsure the same i s Manage d e ffe c ti ve l y and Ec onomi c al l y, WI THO UT I N TERF ERI N G w i th i ts day today ac ti vi ti e s; and to tak e suc h ac ti on as may be N EC ESS ARY for the prope r pe rformanc e of O ffi c i al func ti on, i nc l udi ng the Re c ti fi c ati on of Vi ol ati ons, abuse s or othe r forms of Mal admi ni st rati on. ( AURI L O VS RAB I ) ADM IN ISTRATI VE L AW SUPERVISION Me ans ove rse e i ng or the pow e r or authori ty of an O ffi ce r to see that SUB O RDI N ATE OF FI C ERS pe rform the i r duti e s, If the L ATTER F AI L or Ne gl e c t to F ul fil l the m, the FO RMER may tak e suc h ac ti on or ste p as pre sc ri be d by l aw to mak e the m pe rform the i r duti e s. ADM IN ISTRATI VE CON TROL Me ans the pow e r of an O ffi ce r to Al te r or MO DIF Y or N ULL IF Y or SET ASI DE w hat a Subordi nate O ffi ce r had done in the pe rformanc e of hi s duti e s and to subst anti ate the j udgme nt of the forme r for that of the l atte r ( MO N DAN O VS SI L VO SA)

IV. IN CIDEN TAL POWERS I nc l ude s the ff pow e rs: a. i nve sti gati ng N BI fi ndi ngs are me re l y Re c omme nda tory. I t has N O T j udi c i al or Q uasi J udi c i al pow e rs and is I nc apabl e of Granti ng any Re l ie f to any party ( C AB ARRUS VS B ERN AS) b. c. d. e. f. supe rvi si ng prose c uti ng advi si ng de c l ari ng i nformal l y adj udi c ati n g

REQUISITES FOR VAL IDITY OF ADM IN ISTRATIV E RUL ES AN D REGUL ATION S: 1 . rul e s and re g must have be e n i ssue d on the Autho ri ty of l aw 2 . the y must be w i thi n the sc ope and purvi e w of the l aw 3 . the y and must be re asonabl e

SCOPE OF ADM IN STRATIVE SUPERVISION

4 . must be e spe c i all y C ri mi nal

PUB LI SHED those w i th or Pe nal

Page c ondi ti ons N TC ) ( SMART VS

12 of 49

ADM IN ISTRATIV E ADJUDIC ATION : I s the powe r to he ar and de te rmi ne or asc e rtai n fac ts and de c i de by the appl i c ati on of rul e s of l aw to the Asc e rtai ne d fac ts. I n i ts Ge ne ral Se nse, i t i s any pow e r of an Admi ni str ati ve age nc y O THER than Rul e Mak i ng but i s IN C L UDES LI C EN SI N G! Pow e r i s ADMI N STRA TI VE or Q UASI J UDIC I AL and prope rl y e xe rc i sabl e by Admi ni strati ve authori t y w he re the func ti on of an offi ce r or body i s PRI MARI L Y admi ni str ati ve . Pri mary duty of the Admi Age nc y he re is to DEC I DE Q UEST I O N O F L EGAL RI GHTS be t Pri vate Parti e s. ADM IN ISTRATI VE ADJUDICATION Re fe rs to i ts EN D PRO DUC T c al le d O RDER, AW ARD or DECI SI O N Admi Orde r appl i e s to a SPEC I FI C SI TUATI O N, he nc e it is Parti c ul ar and I mme di ate Is the Pre se nt de te rmi nati on of ri ghts , pri vi le ge s an duti e s of a Pre se nt ti me or oc c urre nc e . RUL E M AKIN G C onsi st i n the I SSUAN C E OF RUL ES and Re gul ati ons Has ge ne ral Appl i c abi l i ty

i ts i nte nti on i n Expre ss Te rms that w oul d le ave no doubt, as e ve n suc h Q uasi - J udi c i al pre rogati ve s must be l i mi te d i f the y are to be val i d, onl y to those I N CI DEN TAL TO or IN C O N N EC TI O N w i th the pe rformanc e of Admi ni str ati ve duti e s w hi c h do not amount to c onfe rme nt of J uri sdi c ti on ove r a Matte r exc l usi ve l y ve ste d i n the c ourts. CL ASSIFIC ATION ADJUDICA TIN G POWERS 1 . EN ABL IN G POWERS Pow e r to pe rmi t or al l ow some thi ng w hi c h the l aw unde rtak e s to re gul ate by thei r approv al . e . g. Grant or De ni al of li c e nse s in a Parti c ul ar busi ne ss or oc c upati o n i nc l udi ng the i ssuanc e of Ce rti fi c ate s of Publ i c C onve ni e nc e by the L TRFB . 2 , DI REC TI N G PO W ERS I ll ustrate d by the C orre c ti ve Pow e rs of Publ i c uti li ty c ommi ssi on , Pow e rs of Asse ssme nt unde r the Re ve nue and Asse ssme nt l aw s. The y are futhe r c l assi fie d i nto: a. DI SPEN SI N G PO W ER Autho ri ty to Exe mpt from or Re l ax a Ge ne ral Prohi bi ti o n or Autho ri ty e . g. authori ty of Z oni ng Boards. OF

It Prospe c ti ve

is

b. EX AMI NI N G PO W ERS I nve sti gatory or i nqui si tori al pow e rs w hi c h i nc l ude the pow e r to I nspe c t or to Se c ure or to Re qui re the di sc l osure of i nformati o n by me ans of Re c ords of ac c ounts etc , thi s i nc l ude s: 1 . subpoe n a pow e rs 2 . sw e ari ng of w i tne sse s 3 . i nte rrogati n g the w i tne ss 4 . c al l i ng for produc ti on of book s, pape rs and re c ords

L IM ITATION OF CON FERM EN T OF QUASI JUDICIAL AGEN CIES L e gi sl ature may c onfe r on Admi boards Q uasi -J udi c i al pow e rs i nvol vi ng the Exe rc i se of J udgme nt. How e ve r, L EGI SL ATURE the must state

Page 5 . re qui ri ng that book s, pape rs and re c ords be made avai l abl e for i nspe c ti on 6 . i nspe c ti ng the pre mi se s or oc ul ar i nspe c ti on 7 . re qui ri ng wri tte n answ e rs to Q ue sti onnai re s 8 . re qui ri ng re ports, pe ri odi c or spe c i al 9 . re qui ri ng the F il i ng of State me nts. c . SUMMA RY PO W ER The authori ty to appl y c ompul si on or forc e agai nst a pe rson or prope rty to e nforc e a l e gal purpo se WI THO UT re sorti ng to a J udi c i al Proc e e di ng to authori ze suc h ac ti on e . g. Di strai nt and Le vy for the c ol le c ti on of I nte rnal Re ve nue taxe s. L I MI TS O N THE RUL E MAK I N G PO W ERS OF ADMI N I STRATI VE B O DI ES: 1 . i t is an axi om i n Admi l aw that admi authori ti e s shoul d N O T AC T arbi trari l y and c apri c i ousl y i n the i ssuanc e of rule s and re gul ati ons. TO B E VAL I D, suc h rule s and re gul ati ons must be Re asonabl e and F ai rl y adap te d to se c ure the e nd i n vi e w. If show n to be ar no re asonabl e re l ati on to the purpo se for w hi c h the y are authori ze d to be i ssue d, the n the y must be he l d to be I nval i d! Thus, a re sol uti on of PRC prohi bi ti n g e xami ne e s from atte ndi n g re vie w c l ass, re c ei ve hand outs, re vie w mate ri al s, TI PS i s IN VAL I D! Rsn: it i nfri nge s on the Exami ne e s ri ght to Ac ade mi c F re e dom and li be rty, guara nte e d by the C onsti tuti on. The y shoul d be all ow e d to ac qui re use ful k now le dge that

13 of 49

w i ll PRO MO TE the i r pe rsonal grow th ( L UPAN GC O VS C A) 2 . i ssuanc e s must not ove rri de , but MUST REMAI N c onsi ste nt and harmo ny wi th the l aw the y see k to appl y and i mpl e me nt. Admi rul e s and re g are i nte nde d to c arry out, ne i the r to suppl an t nor to modi fy the l aw . 3 . admi Re gul ati on s c annot e xte nd the l aw and Ame nd a l e gi sl ati ve e nac tme nt, for se ttle d i s the rule that Admi Re gul ati ons must be in Harmony wi th the pRovi si ons of the l aw . I n the c ase that the re i s a DI SC REPAN C Y be tw ee n the basi c l aw and an I MPL EMEN TI N G RUL E or Re gul ati on, i t is the F O RMER that pre vai l s ( basi c l aw ) 4 . Q uasi J udi c i al bodi e s must not be too dog mati c as to re stri c t the mse l ve s to l i te ral i nte rpre tati on of w ords, phrase s and se nte nc e s a C ompl e te and W hol i sti c vie w must be tak e n i n orde r to re nde r a j ust and e qui tabl e j udgme n t ( PHIL TO DAY VS N L RC )

5 . an Admi ns trati ve C i rc ul ar c annot supe rse de , abrog ate , modi fy or nul l i fy a statute be c a Statute i s MO RE supe ri or than an Admi ni str ati ve Ci rc ul ar ( L EYN ES VS C O A) PO W ER OF ADMI BO DY PUN I SH C O N TEMPT TO

I n the abse nc e of any Provi si on of l aw , Admi bodi e s do not posse ss the I nhe re nt pow e r to Puni sh C onte mpt. The powe r to Puni sh for C onte mpt i s IN HEREN T i n al l C ourts; i ts Exi ste nc e i s esse nti al fo the pre se rvati on of orde r i n J udi c i al Proc e e di ngs and for the e nforc e me nt of j udgme nts, orde rs and mand ate s of c ourts,

Page and c onse que ntl y, in Admi ni str ati on of J usi tc e , the

14 of 49

I ts e xe rc i se by Admi bodi e s has be e n i nvari abl y l i mi te d to Mak i ng e ffe c ti ve the Pow e r to El i ci t TESTI MO N Y. And the e xe rc i se of that pow e r by Admi bodi e s in furthe ranc e of i ts Admi F unc ti on has bee n he l d i nval i d ( MASAN GC AY VS CO MEL EC ) PURPO S E OF PUBL I C ATI ON 1 . de te rmi ne the date of effe c ti vi ty of l aw s 2 . al so a re qui re me nt of Due Proc e ss 3 . i nform the publ i c of the c onte nts of the l aw or rul e s and Re gul ar c ourts be fore the i r ri ghts and i nte re sts are affe c te d by the same , as w el l as to gi ve those affe c te d, an O pportuni t y to voi c e out w hate ve r opposi ti on the y may have to a gi ve n l aw and to ve nti l ate the i r stanc e on the matte r. HO W MUST L AW S, RUL ES AN D REGUL ATI O N S B E PUB L I SHED Must be publ i she d i n F UL L or i t i s no publ i c ati on at all , I t must be publ i she d as soon as possi bl e i n the O FF IC I AL GAZ ET TE and not e l se w he re as a re qui re me nt for the i r e ffe c ti vi ty( as ame nde d or i n a N EW SPAPE R O F GEN CI RC UL ATI O N I N THE PHI L I PPI N ES ) E. . G OF L AW S, RUL ES AN D REGUL ATI O N S THAT MUST B E PUB L I SHED: 1 . al l l aw s not onl y to those of Ge ne ral appl i c ati on but al so al l l aw s that REL ATE to the pe opl e i n Ge ne ral l i ke l aw granti n g C I TI Z EN SHI P to a PARTI C UL AR IN DI VI DUAL rsn: matte r of publ i c i nte re st 2 . al l statute s i nc l udi ng those of LO C AL APPL I C ATI O N and PRI VATE L AW S

3 . PD, EO i n the exe rc i se of L e gi sl ati ve Pow e rs w he ne ve r the y are DEL EGATED by the l e gi sl ature or at pre se nt, di re c tl y c onfe rre d by the C onsti 4 . admi rul e s and re gul ati ons, if the i r purpo se i s to ENF O RC E or i mpl e me nt exi sti ng l aw pursu ant to a Val i d de l e gati on 5 . c harte r of a Ci ty 6 . PD nami n g publ i c pl ac e s afte r a F AVO RED I N DI VI DUAL or Exe mpti ng hi m form C e rtai n prohi bi ti o ns or Re qui re me nts 7 . c i rc ul ars i ssue d by the MB i f the y are me ant to F IL L -IN -DETAI L S EX C EPTI ON S TO THE PUB L IC ATI O N REQ UI REMEN T: 1. i nte rpre tati ve rul e s and those me re l y of I N TERN AL N ATURE, that i s, re gul ati ng onl y the PERSO N N EL of the Admi ni str ati ve Age nc y and not the publ i c , ne e d not be publ i she d. l e tte rs of Instruc ti on i ssue d by Admi supe ri ors c onc e rni ng the rule s and gui de l i ne s to be fol l ow e d by the i r Subor di na te s in the pe rformanc e of the i r duti e s.

2.

Thi s i nc l ude s IN STRUC TI O N S made by the Se c of DSW D on the c ase studi e s to be made i n Pe ti ti on for Adopti on or the rul e s l ai d dow n by the He ad of the Govt age nc y on the Assi gnme nts or W ork l oads of hi s Pe rsonne l or the W e ari ng of O ffi c e uni forms. i f the l aw, rule , or re gul ati on i s not publ i she d i s i ts I N EF F EC TI VE and i t may not be Enforc e d.

Page F : PO EA e nac te d a MO A w hi c h e nume rate d al l ow abl e fee s w hi c h may be c oll e c te d from the appl i c ant s w ho de si re to w ork abroa d, Thi s w as not publ i she d or fi l e d w i th the N ati onal Admi ni stra ti ve Re gi ste r. I t re asone d that i t w as not ne c e ssary to publ i sh the same , si nc e it w as O NL Y ADDRES SED TO A SPEC IF I ED GRO UP, name l y Pri vate Empl oyme n t Age nc i e s or Autho ri ty hol de rs. R: thi s i s not c orre c t. The fAc t that the sai d c i rc ul ar i s addre sse d onl y to SPEC I F I ED GRO UP, name l y PRI VATE EMPL O YMEN T AGEN C I ES or Autho ri ty Hol de rs DO ES not tak e i t aw ay form the ambi t of the rul i ng i n Tanada vs Tuve ra. PHI L ASSO C OF EX PO RTERS VS TO RES: SERVI C E

15 of 49

Admi Ci rc ul ars que sti one d the re i n w e re addre sse d to an Eve n SMAL L ER GRO UP, name l y the Phi l and HK age nc i e s e ngage d i n the re c rui tme nt of w ork e rs for HK and sti l l the c ourt rul e d thre i n that, for L AC K O F PRO PER PUBL I C ATI ON the sai d c i rc ul ars may not be e nforc e d or i mpl e me nte d. Admi rul e s and re gul ati ons must be publ i she d if the i r PURPO S E is to enforc e or I mpl e me nt exi sti ng l aw pursu ant to a Val i d de le gati on

ADM I IN TERPRETATION OF RUL ES IS N OT BIN DIN G IN TH E COURTS: W he n an Admi or Exe c uti ve Age nc y re nde rs an O PI NI O N or I SSUES a State me nt of Pol i c y, i t me re l y i nte rpre ts a PRE EX I STI N G L AW and the Admi I nte rpre tati on of the l aw i s at be st, ADVI SO RY, for i t i s the c ourts that fi nal l y de te rmi ne w hat the L AW MEAN S! ( SAGUN VS PHHC )

POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF ADMI BODIES

ADMI BO DI ES c an mak e rule s and re gul ati ons or I nte rnal rul e s of proc e dure for an Admi body c annot func ti on e ffi c i e ntl y w i thout a Se t of Rue s to gove rn i ts proc e e di ngs. It must ADO PT c e rtai n rul e s of proc e dure that shoul d gove rn i ts proc ee di ngs be fore i t.

Page I t i s i mprac ti c a bl e for the l aw mak e rs to provi de Ge ne ral Re gul ati on for vari ous and varyi ng de tai l s of Manage me n t. REASO N S W HY DEL EGATE THE PRO MUL GA TE REGUL ATI O N S ADMI N I STRATI VE 1. CO N GRES S C AN AUTHO RI TY TO RUL ES AN D TO B O DI ES:

16 of 49

Purvi e w of the Ac t ( O L SEN VS AL DEN ESE) E. G O F RUL E AN D REGUL ATI O N THAT I S VOI D SAN TI AGO VS CO MEL EC C O MEL EC c annot val i dl y promul gate rul e s and re gul ati ons to i mpl e me nt the e xe rc i se of the ri ght of the pe opl e to di re c tl y propose ame ndme nt s to the C onsti tuti o n throu gh the Syste m of I NI TI ATI VE. Thi s i s so be c i t doe s not have that pow e r unde r RA 6 73 5.

that the L e gi sl ature fi nds i t IMPRAC TI C AB L E , i f not i mpossi bl e , to anti c i pate si tuati ons that may be me t i n c arryi ng the l aw i nto effe c t the i nte rpre tati on gi ve n to rul e or re gul ati on by those c harge d w i th i ts e xe c uti on i s e nti tle d to the gre ate st w ei ght by the c ourt c onstrui n g suc h rul e or re gul ati on, and suc h i nte rpre tati on w il l be fol l ow e d UN L ESS it appe ars to be cl e arl y UN REASO N AB L E or ARB I TRARY ( PN O C VS C A) ADMI NI STRATI V E IN TERPRET ATI O N O F L AW W he n Re nde rs O pi ni on Gi ve s State me nt Pol i c y, it an or a of

2.

Re l i anc e on the C O MEL EC S powe r unde r S 2 ( 1 ) ART 9 C of the C onsti i s mi spl ac e d, for the l aw s and re gul ati ons re fe rre d to the re i n are those promul g ate d by the C O MEL EC T unde r a. S 3 Art 9 C of C onsti or b. L aw w he re Subor di na te L e gi sl ati on is authori ze d and w hi c h sati sfi e s the c ompl e te ne ss and the suffi c i e nt Stan dar d te sts I nte rpre tati on of an Age nc y of i ts OW N RUL ES shoul d be gi ve n more w ei ght than the I N TERPRETATI O N by that Age nc y of the l aw i t is me re l y task e d to admi ni ste r i t ( B AGATSI N G VS C O M ON PRI VATI Z ATI O N ) Thi s is so be c C O N TEMPO RAN EO US c onstruc ti o n and i nte rpre tati on of the l aw by the I mple me nti ng and Admi Age nc y i s ac c orde d gre ate r re spe c t by the C ourts.

ADMI NI STRATI V E RUL E

W he n an Admi Age nc y promul ga te s rul e s and re gul ati ons, i t mak e s a N EW l aw w i th the Forc e and Effe c t of a Val i d l aw

It me re l y IN TERPRET S a Pre -exi sti ng l aw

REQ FOR TH E VAL IDITY OF ADM I ORDERS AN D REGUL ATION S 1. The authori ty of the Admi ni str ati ve O ffi ce r to mak e suc h rul e s and re gul ati ons must be B ASED on some L e gi sl ati ve Ac t and rul e s and re gul ati ons must FO LL O W and be w i thi n the Sc ope and

2.

Errone ous i nte rpre tati on of I ll e gal re gul ati ons c an ne ve r be rati fi e d by PREDEC ESSO R l aw s e spe c i all y i f the y are exe c ute d by pe rsons w i th se l fi sh i nte re st of mai ntai ni n g the i r il l usory hol d on pow e r ( GMC R VS BEL L

Page TEL EC O MMUN I C ATI ON S I NC ) PHI L 4. is

17 of 49

To de te rmi ne w he the r an AC T a l aw or an Admi I ssuanc e : form.

admi re gul ati ons must be in HARMO N Y wi th the provi si ons of the l aw .

F rom i ts N ATURE, not i ts

I n c ase of Di sc re panc y be t the B asi c L aw and the I mpl e me nti ng rul e and re g, the forme r pre vai l s. If ADMI BO DY F AIL S TO I N TERPRET AN D APPL Y THE PRO PER PRO VI SI O N S of suc h rul e s and re gul ati ons: The AGGRI E VED PARTY shoul d the n go to the c ourt to prote c t hi s i nte re st. J udi c i al pow e r shoul d asse rt i tse l f. F : w i fe fi le d an Admi c ase vs H i n PRC for re voc ati on of hi s e ngi ne e ri ng l i ce nse on the groun d of I MMO RAL I TY and F al si fi c ati on of Marri age c ontrac t. H fi le d a moti on to suspe nd the proc e e di ngs be fore the PRC i n vi ew of the pe nde nc y of the Annul me nt c ase i n RTC . R: moti on shoul d be de ni e d. The FI LI N G O F THE CI VI L C ASE for Annul me n t of Marri age doe s not ne ce ssi tate the SUPSEN SI O N of Admi proc e e di ngs be fore the PRC . The re Q UESTI O N . is NO PREJ UDI C I AL

DEL I N EATIO N OF THE SC O PE OF PO W ERS O F ADMI O FF IC I AL S TO PRO MUL GA TE RUL ES AN D REGUL ATI O N S: 1. Admi rul e s and re g w he n promul gate d i n pursu anc e of the Proc e dure or Autho ri ty c onfe rre d upon the Admi Age nc y, have the forc e and e ffe c t of l aw

W he ne ve r Admi Age nc i e s mak e s rul e s and re gul ati ons, i t must be GERM AN E to the obj e c t and purpo se of the l aw and i t must c onform to the Stand ards tha thte l aw pre sc ri be s. Admi bodi e s have the PO W ER TO I SSUE ADMI REGUL ATI O N S w hi c h are PEN AL I N N ATURE w he re l aw i tse l f mak e s the vi ol ati on of the Admi re gul ati on PUN I SHAB L E and PRO VI DES for i ts pe nal ty. ( VI C TO RI AS MI L LI N G CO VS SO C I AL SEC URI TY C O MMI SSI O N ) 2. pow e r of Admi OF FI C I AL S to prom ul gate rul e s i n the I mpl e me ntati on of the Statu te is ne ce ssari l y l i mi te d to w hi c h is provi de d for in the L e gi sl ati ve Enac tme nt.

I t must not ame nd nor ove r rul e the Ac t of the Le gi sl ature , or e nl arge , al te r or re stri c t the provi si ons of the l aw w hi c h i t admi ni ste rs ( P VS MAC EREN ) 3. Admi rule s and re gul ati ons are ENF O RC ED to w ee d out unde si rabl e publ i c se rvants to mai ntai n MO RAL I TY and HARMO N Y, as we l l as to ac hi e ve effi c ie nc y i n the Govt se rvi c e i n orde r to prote c t and pre se rve the i nte gri ty of the Govt to i nspi re PUBL I C C O NF I DEN C E the re on ( TAGAO N VS RO A)

S 32 PRC rul e s provi de s that ADMI PRO C be fore i t shal l N O T B E SUSPEN DED notw i thsta ndi n g the exi ste nc e of a C ri mi nal and / or C i vi l c ase agai nst the Re sponde n t i nvol vi ng the same fac ts as the Admi c ase . The all e gati on i n the ADMI C O MPL AI N T be fore the PRC are not c onfi ne d to the issue of al l e ge d B i gamous Marri age c ontrac te d by the Husba nd and Paramo ur. He i s al so c harge d w i th I MMO RAL I TY, the exi ste nc e of thi s c harge j usti fi e s the C onti nua ti on of the proc ee di ng be fore the PRC ( TE VS C A)

Page

18 of 49

2 00 2 C ong passe d a l aw c re ati ng De pt of Human Habi tat and authori zi n g the De pt Se c to promul gate rul e s and re gul ati ons. Sup pose the l aw de cl are d that Vi ol ati on of the I mpl e me nti ng rul e s and re gul ati ons so i ssue d w oul d be puni sh abl e as a C ri me and AUTHO RI Z ED the De pt Se c to PRESC RI B E the pe nal ty for suc h vi ol ati on. I f the l aw de fi ne s ce rtai n ac ts as vi ol ati on fo the l aw and mak e s the m puni shabl e for e xampl e W I TH IMPRI SO N MEN T OF 3 YRS or a fi ne of 10 K or B O TH i n the Di sc re ti on of the c ourt, C an i t be PRO VI DED I N THE I RRI promul gate d by the De pt Se c that the i r vi ol ati on wi l l al so be SUB J EC T TO THE SAEM PEN AL TI ES as those provi de d IN THE L AW I TSEL F ? R: no. Rul e s and re gul ati ons promul gate d by the Se c of Human Habi tat c annot provi de that the pe nal ti e s for the vi ol ati on of the l aw be the SAME as the PEN AL TI ES for the vi ol ati on of the l aw . US VS BARRIAS: The FI XI N G OF THE PEN AL TY for C RI M OF F EN SES i nvol ve s the e xe rc i se of L e gi sl ati ve Pow e r and C AN NO T B E DEL EGATED, the L AW I TSEL F MUST PRESC RI B E THE PEN AL TY!! F : PPA Ge n manage r i ssue d an AO to e ffe c t that all e xi sti ng Re gul ar appoi nt me nt to Harbor Pi l ots posi ti ons shal l re mai n val i d onl y up to De c 3 1 of the c urre nt yr and that all appoi n tme nts to Harbor Pi l ot posi ti ons shal l be onl y for te rm of 1 YR from date of e ffe c i ti vty, subj to YEARL Y REN EW AL or C anc e l l ati on by the PPA afte r c onduc t of a Ri gi d Eval uati on of Pe rformanc e . Pi l otage as a PRO F ESSO N may be prac ti c e d onl y by dul y l i ce nse d i ndi vi dual w ho have to pass 5 govt profe ssi onal exami nati o ns.

HARB O R PI L O T ASSO C c hal l e nge d, AO vi ol ate d the pi l ots ri ghts to e xe rc i se the i r profe ssi on and ri ght to DP and sai d AO w as i ssue d w i thout Pri or N oti c e and He ari ng. PPA c ounte re d that the AO w as val i d as i t w as i ssue d i n the e xe rc i se of Admi c ontrol and supe rvi si on ove r habor Pi l ots unde r PPA i s Le gi sl ati ve C harte r; that i n i ssui ng i t w as pe rformi ng i ts Exe c uti ve or L e gi sl ati ve and N O a Q uasi J ud func ti on; R; CO RO N A VS UN I TED HARB O R PI L O TS ASSO C I ATI O N OF THE PHI L S PI L O TAGE as a profe ssi on i s prop ri ght prote c te d by the guaran te e of DP. The PRE- EVAL UATI O N C AN C EL L ATI ON of the li c e nse of Harbor Pi l ots e ve ry yr is UN REASO AN B L E and vi ol ate d the i r gi ht to Substa nti ve DP. The re new al i s de pe nde nt on the eval uati on afte r the l i ce nse s have be e n c anc e l l e d, the i ssuanc e of ADMI O RDER al so vi ol ate d Proc e dural DP, si nc e no PRI O R PUB LI C HEARI N G w as c onduc te d. As he l d i n CI R VS C A: w he n a Re gul ati on is be i ng issue d unde r the Q UASI L EGI SL ATI VE authori ty of an Admi Age nc y, the re qui re me nts of NO TI C E, HEARI N G AN D PUB LI C ATI O N must be obse rve d

Page

19 of 49

RATE IN C REASE wi thout he ari ng i s VAL I D i f j usti fi e d by URGEN T PUB L IC N EED, suc h as I nc re ase i n F UEL c ost. The pow e r of Publ i c Se rvi c e C omm to grant suc h i nc re ase w as uphe l d i n Se ve ral c ase s.

FIXING RATES, WAGES AND PRICES

RUL ES OF ADM I AGEN CIES BE CON SIDERED L EGISL ATIVE IN CH ARACTER: W he n the rul e s l ai d dow n by the ADmi Age nc y are MEAN T to appl y TO AL L EN TERP RI SES O F GI VEN K IN D THRO UGHO UT THE PHI L S, subj of c ourse of DP! 1 98 7 Mani l a transport c o appl i e d to UPW ARD ADJ USTMEN T of i ts rate s be fore the Transport Re gul atory Board ( TRB ) Pe ndi ng the pe ti ti on, TRP W I THO UT PREVI O US HEARI N G grante d a Ge ne ral N ati onw i de PRO VI SI O N AL I NC REA SE i n rate s. AN O THER O RDER TRB re qui re d the c o to pay the UN PAI D supe rvi sory fe e s c ol le c ti bl e unde r the Publ i c Se rvi c e l aw Afte r due noti c e and he ari ng ont e h basi s of e vi d pre se nte d by the Mani l a Transport C o - TRB i ssue d AN O THER O RDER REDUC I N G the rate s appl i e d for by 1/ 4 t h R: the O RDERS i n thi s c ase i nvol ve the e xe rc i se of J UDI C I AL F UN C TI O N by an Admi age nc y, and the re fore , as a GR the ri ghts unde r AN G TI B AY C ASE shoul d be appl i e d. VIGAN EL ECTRIC L IGTH CO VS PSC: He l d that a RATE O RDER, w hi c h appl i e s e xc l usi ve l y to a PARTI C UL AR PARTY and is PREDI C ATED on F i ndi ng of fac t, PART AK ES of the N ATURE of a QUASI JUDICIAL rathe r than L EGI SL ATI VE FUN C TIO N . The 1ST granti n g O RDER: PRO VI SI O N AL

2 N D O RDER Re qui ri ng the C o to pay unp ai d Supe rvi sory F ee s unde r the Publ i c Se rvi ce Ac t c annot be sustai ne d. The C o has the ri ght to be he ard, be fore i t maybe orde re d to pay ( AN G TI B AY VS C I R) 3 r d orde r C AN be j usti fi e d. The fac t that the TRB has al l owe d a PRO VI SI O N AL RATE I NC REA SE doe s not bi nd i t to mak e the O rde r Pe rmane nt, i f the e vi de nc e l ate r submi tte d doe s not j usti fy the i nc re ase but, on the c ontrary, w arrants the Re duc ti on of Rate s! I n FI XI N G RATES, the Stan dard w hi c h the L e gi sl ature i s re qui re d to pre sc ri be for the Gui da nc e of Admi Age nc i e s i s that the RATE MUST BE REASO N AB L E AN D J UST!! M ETH OD OF DETERM IN IN G REASON ABL E IN RATES I t i s not a Q ue sti on of F ormul a, but a MATTER OF SO UN D B USI N ESS YET EN GL I GHTEN ED JUDGMEN T. A me thod ofte n e mpl oye d i n de te rmi ni ng Re asonabl e ne ss i s the F AI R RETURN upon the Val ue of the Prope rty to the Publ i c Uti li ty, C ompe ti ti on is al so ve ry i mporta nt fac tor i n De te rmi ni ng Re asonabl e ne ss of Rate s si nc e a C arri e r is al l owe d to mak e suc h rate s as are Ne c e ssary to me e t c ompe ti ti on. 1 99 1 : ERB in re sponse to publ i c c l amor, i ssue d a REso approvi ng and adopti ng a sc he dul e for B RI N GI N G DO W N

Page the pri c e s of O IL produc ts for a pd of 1 yr stari ng Aug 15 , 1 99 1, ove r the O bje c ti on of Oi l C o w hi c h c l ai m the pd c ove re d i s TO O L ON G to pre j udge and fore see . R: REso i s i nval i d!! Si nc e the ERB issue d the REso WI THO UT A HEARI N G. The RESO he re i s NO T A PRO VI SI O N AL O RDER and the re fore i t c an onl y be i ssue d afte r appropri a te noti c e and he ari ng to affe c te d parti e s. PH IL COM M UN ICATION S SATEL L ITE CORP VS AL CUAZ : That an O RDER PRO VI SI O N AL L Y re d ucing t he rat e s w hi c h a PUBL I C UTI LI TY c oul d c harge , c oul d be i ssue d w i thout pre vi ous noti c e and he ari ng, C AN NO T APPL Y! Phi l postal c o c an fi x sal ari e s and e mol ume nts of i ts ow n ee s thi s is e xpre ssl y provi de d for i n the i r C harte r, it has F i sc al Auton oy to be e xe rc i se d by the Postmas te r Ge ne ral and approve d by the B OD. Thi s pow e r i s N O T AB SO L UT E, for thi s maybe e xe rc i se d onl y i n ac c ordanc e w i th the Stand ard se t forth by l aw li k e the Sal ary Stan dar di zati o n i n re l ati on to GAA. To e nsure c ompl i anc e , i t must be REVI EW ED by the DB M! N ATURE OF RATE FIXIN G: I t re qui re s De xte ri ty of j udgme n t and sound di sc re ti on w i th the se ttle d goal of arri vi ng at a j ust and re asonabl e rate ac c e ptabl e to both publ i c uti l i ty and publ i c . FACTORS TO CON SIDER IN RATE M AKIN G OR RATE FIXIN G 1 . rate shoul d c onfi sc atory not be

20 of 49

provi de re asonabl e re turn on the i nve stme nt 3 . rate must be REasoa nbl e and Fai r and must be afforad abl e to the EN D USER w ho w i ll uti l i ze the se rvi ce s. FREEDOM FROM COAL ITION VS ERC: DEBT

The PRO VI SI O N AL RATE ADJ USTMEN T is not i nc ompati bl e w i th the PO LI C Y TO PRO TEC T PUB L IC I N TEREST.

The PRO VI SI O N AL RATE ADJ USTMEN T must be PUB L I SHED to gi ve the c onsume rs an opport uni ty to be he ard. The Rate i nc re ase is PRO VI SI O N AL I N C HARAC TE R and i t may be MO DIF I ED or EVEN REC AL L ED anyti me . More ove r, the ERC is mand ate d to pre sc ri be a Rate SETTI N G METHO DO LO GY i n the PUB L IC IN TEREST and TO PRO MO TE EFF IC I EN C Y EPIRA L AW do es no t e xp re ss ly allo w t he GRAN T OF PROVISION AL RATE ADJUSTM EN TS . I t doe s not me an that ERC has no pow e r to fi x rate s! B ec c onsi de ri ng the i nte nt of the C ongre ss i n e nac ti ng the EPI RA and re adi ng the statute s i n i ts e nti re ty, i t i s pl ai n to se e that the l aw has EX PAN DED the j uri s of the REGUL ATO RY BO ARD, the ERC i n thi s c ase , to e nabl e the l atte r to I mpl e me nt the Re forms sought to be ac c ompl i she d by the EPI RA. W he n the L EGI SL ATO RS de c i de to broade n the j uri s of the ERC , the y di d not i nte nd to abol i sh or re duc e the pw oe rs al re ady c onfe rre d upon ERC S pre de c e ssors. To sustai n the vi ew tha the ERC posse ss onl y the PO W ERS AN D F UN C TI O N S L I STED unde r S 43 of EPI RA l aw i s to F RUSTRATE the obj e c ti ve s of the l aw , w hi c h is, i t wi l l w re ak

2 . rate shoul d e nabl e publ i c uti l i ti e s to ge ne rate re ve nue s to c ove r ope rati onal c osts and

Page havoc on the e nvi ronme nt. Re gul atory

21 of 49

ADMI AGEN C I ES C AN BE EMPO W ERED TO APPRO VE PRO VI SI O N AL L Y, RATE S OF PUB L IC UTI L I TI ES EVEN W I THO UT A HEARI N G O R EX PARTE F or it is provi de d for by l aw, Expre ssl y

Affe c te d parti e s IS NOT A REQ UI REMEN T of due Proc e ss EX C EPT w he re the L e gi sl ature i tse l f re qui re s i t ( ASSO C I ATI O N OF IN TERN ATI O N AL SHI PL LI N G L IN ES IN C VS PPA ) ADMI AGEN C I ES C AN N O T AB RO GATE the Rate s F i xe d and L EAVE the fi xi ng of Rate s to Pri vate c ontrac ti ng parti e s on a Gi ve n busi ne ss ac ti vi ty: F or RATE FI XI N G PO L IC Y i s a GO VERN MEN T AL REGUL ATI O N , by le avi ng the matte r to the de te rmi nati on of the parti e s w oul d J ETTI SO N GO VERN MEN T PO L IC I ES and C hange i t to a L AI SSEZ F AI RE ac ti vi ty, some thi ng, w hi c h , onl y the L EGI SL ATURE c oul d do ( PI SA VS C A) C O N GRESS C AN I N TERVEN E AN YTI ME de spi te the Exi ste nc e of Admi Age nc i e s e ntruste d wi th W age F i xi ng Pow e rs: B Y vi rtue of i s PL EN ARY PO W ERS of L EGI SL ATI O N , W he n C ong doe s so, the re sul t is not the w i thdraw al of pow e rs de le gate d to the W age B oards but CO O PERATI VE L AW MAK I N G i n an are a w he re I ni ti ati ve and Expe rti se are re qui re d ( PI SA VS C A) MAN I L A EL EC TRI C CO VS C A: W he n a c ustome r de mans for a B REAK DO W N and ITEMI Z ATO N of purc hase d pow e r adj ustme nt i n El e c tri c bi l l i t i s w i thi n the REGUL A R C O URT! The que sti on of de te rmi ni ng B re ak dow n and i te mi zati on of purc hase d pow e r adj ustme n t i s N O T A MATTER that i n any w ay pe rtai n to B O E s Supe rvi si on , C ontrol or J uri s to re gul ate and fi x pow e r rate s,. The que sti on fal l s wi thi n the ambi t of J UDI C I AL DETERMI N ATI O N and ADJ UDI C ATIO N , Thus i t i s the REGUL A R C O URT, not the B O E that has j uri s to e nte rtai n a C I VIL AX N suc h as a de mand for Bre ak dow n and Ite mi zati on of purc ha se d pow e r adj ustme nt.

S1 6 c Publ i c Se rvi ce L aw and be si de s, PRO VI SI O N AL RATES , are by the i r nature , TEMPO RA RY and subj e c t to Adj ust me nt i n c onformi ty wi th the DEFI N I TI VE RATES approve d AF TER FI N AL HEARI N G ( RADI O C O MMUN I C ATIO N S O F THE PHI L VS N TC )

PROVISION AL AUTH ORITY I s an O RDER granti n g a TEMPO RA RY PERMI T to ope rate a PARTI C UL AR Utl i ty Se rvi ce i mme di ate i ssue d DURI N G the PEN DEN C Y of an appl i c ati on for a Franc hi se or Ce rti fi c ate of Publ i c C onve ni e nc e for sai d se rvi ce on the mai n groun d of URGEN T PUB L IC ne e d the re fore ( JAVEL L AN A VS L A PAZ IC E PL AN T) Rat e Fix ing i s N O T an Ex e rcis e o f ADMI N STRATI VE PO W ER but of a L EGISL ATIVE POWER! I F AN ADMI AGEN C Y fi xe s RATE S, w hat must i t fi rst do? R: i t de pe nds. W he re the rul e s and or rate s i mpose d by an Admi Age nc y APPL Y EX C L USI VEL Y to a PARTI C UL AR PARTY, pre di c ate d upon a Fi ndi ng of F ac t, the AGEN C Y pe rforms a func ti on partak i n g a Q UASI -J UDIC I AL C HARAC TE R and PRI O R noti c e and he ari ng are Esse nti al to the val i di ty the re of. I f the AGEN C Y i s i n the e xe rc i se of i ts LEGI SL ATI VE F UN C TI O N S or w he re the Rate s are MEAN T to appl y to AL L EN TERPRI S ES of a gi ve n k i nd throu gho ut the c ountry, how e ve r, the GRAN T of PRI O R N O TI C E and he ari ng to the

Page PD 12 06 the B UREAU O F EN ERGY i s the age nc y authori ze d to REGUL AT E and FI X THE PO W ER RATES to be c harge d by Ele c tri c C o, thus it has j uri s ove r MERAL C O . PD 5 51 w as passe d pre c i se l y to e nabl e the Grante e s of El e c tri c franc hi se s to Re duc e the i r Rate s w i thi n the rEac h of C onsume rs. ( i bi d) Autho ri ti e s ope rators, to

22 of 49
TV,

C AB L E

EO 43 6 ve sts the N TC the Re gul ati on and Supe rvi si on of C abl e TV i n the PHi l s. Und e r t he WEL FARE CL AUSE L GC ; GEN ERAL OF TH E

The L GU c an Re gul ate the ope rati on of c abl e tv but onl y w he n i t EN C RO AC HES on PUB LI C PRO PERTI E S, suc h as: use of publ i c strs ri ghts of w ays foundi ng of struc tu re s the parc e l i ng of l arge re gi ons, be yond the se parame te rs, i ts ac ts w oul d be UL TRA VI RES ( ZO O MZ AT VS P) EASTERN TEL ECOM VS ICC I t i s the N TC w hi c h i s c l othe d wi th authori ty and gi ve n ampl e di sc e ti on to gratn a PRO VI SI O N PERMI T or AUTHO RI TY, i ncl udi n g the authori t y to i ssue C ERTI FI C ATE OF PUB L IC C O VEN I EN C E and N EC ESSI TY ( C PC N ) F or the a. i nstal l ati on, b. ope rati on and mai nte nanc e of C ommuni c a ti ons F ac i li ti e s and Se rvi c e s c . radi o c ommu ni c ati ons syste ms d. te le phone and tel e graph sys e . as w el l as authori ty to De te rmi ne the AREA S of O PERATI O N of appl i c an ts for Te le c om se rvi c e s. DEL ROSARIO VS P N TC is the sole age nc y authori ze d to SEI Z E 2 W AY RADI O S and not Pol i c e O ffi c e rs, EX C EPT, i f the se 2 W AY RADI O S are the subj of Se arc h W arrant. SAN ADO VS CA The ac ton of an Admi Age nc y i n GRAN TI N G or DEN YI N G or SUSPEN DI N G or REVO K I N G a l i ce nse , pe rmi t, franc hi se or a. b. c. d.

LICENSING FUNCTION
WH EN M AY A PERM IT be IM PRESSED wit h CON TRACTU AL CH ARACTER? I t must be C ATEGO RI C AL L Y DEMO N STRAT ED tha the ve ry Admi age nc y, w hi c h is the SO URC E of the pe rmi t w oul d pl ac e suc h BURDEN on i tsel f. A PERMI T is NOT A C O N TRAC T but a me re Spe c i al Pri vi l e ge, A LI C EN SE grante d by the State i s al w ays REVO C AB L E! The AB SEN C E O F EX PI RY DATE i n a LI C EN SE doe s not mak e i t pe rpe tual F or the li c e nse c annot l ast be yond the l i fe of a B asi c Autho ri ty unde r w hi c h it is i ssue d. N TC has l i ce nse s the or pow e r to grant C e rti fi c ate of

Page C e rti fi c ate of Publ i c C onve ni e nc e and N e ce ssi ty is ADMI N I STRATI VE OR Q UASI J UDI C I AL . The ac t i s N O T PUREL Y Admi ni str ati ve but QUASI J UDI C I AL or ADJ UDI C ATO RY si nc e it is de pe nde nt upon the Asc e rtai nme nt of F ac ts by the Admi Age nc y, upon w hi c h a De c i si on i s to be made and ri ghts and l i abi l i tie s de te rmi ne d.

23 of 49

c re di bi l i ty of w i tne sse s or othe rw i se Substi t ute i ts j udgme n t for that of the Admi age nc y wi th re spe c t to the Suffi c i e nc y of e vi d 3 . admi DEC I SI O N S i n matte rs w i thi n the Exe c uti ve J uri s c an onl y be se t asi de on PRO O F O F GRO SS AB USE O F DI SC RETI O N , fraud or Error of l aw ( MO N TEMAYO R VS B UN DAL I AN ) 5 DAY BAR RUL E IN VESTIGA TION : IN ADM I

I t i s an IN DI SPEN SAB L E PRO C EDURE in Admi I nve sti gati on that BO TH e nabl e s the parti e s the re i n to EX PL O RE the possi bi l i ty of CL ARI F YI N G the i r probl e ms or mi sunde rst andi ngs and ac c ords the DEF the re i n Ade qua te ti me to Pre pare a Sui ta bl e de fe nse i n c ase NO SETTL EMEN T IS REAC HED. ( s 38 R 14 I RR BK 5, EO 29 2 ) An AN ON YM OUS COM PL AIN T/ L e t te r which is no t e ve n s ubs crib e d and s wo rn to can be t he BASIS of Ad mi Inve s t ig at io n !

INVESTIGATION AND ADJUDICATION POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

BASIC PRIN CIPL ES IN VESTIGATION in ADM I

ADM IN ISTRATIV E OFFEN SES DO N OT PRESCRIBE !! ( F LO RI A VS SUN GA) ADMI AGEN C I ES AUTHO RI Z ED to IN VESTIGA TION S! c an be mak e

1 . B URDEN is on the C O MPL AI N AN T to prove by SUB STAN TI AL EVI DEN C E the al le gati on in hi s C ompl ai nt 2. in REVI EW I N G DEC I SI ON S of the B ranc h of the Govt, ADMI Exe c

F or a LI MI TED PURPO S E, w hi c h i s to O B TAN IN FO RMATI O N on w hi c h FUTURE AC TI O N of a L e gi sl ati ve or J udi c i al nature may be tak e n. It may C O N DUC T Ge n i nqui ri e s i nto evi l s c al l i ng for C orre c ti on and to Re port fi ndi ng to Appro pri ate bodi e s and mak e Re c omme nda ti ons for Ac ti ons. PURPO SE O F ADM I PROCEEDIN G Mai nl y to PRO TEC T THE PUB LI C Se rvi ce base d on the ti me honore d pri nc i pl e that a PURPO SE O F CRIM PROCEEDIN G Is the PUN I SHMEN T of C RI MES

the FI N DI N GS O F F AC TS made the re i n are to be re spe c te d so l ong as the y are supporte d by Subs tanti l a Evi d. He nc e , i t i s not for the Re vi ew i ng c ourt to we i gh c onfl i c ti ng e vi d, de te rmi ne the

Page PUB LI C is a TRUST O FF IC E PUBL I C AL SO M AL OGA VS GELL A:

24 of 49

ADM I AGEN CIES CAN ISSUE SUBPOEN AS

In orde r to Di s c ove r Evi de nc e , NOT TO PRO VE PEN DI N G C HARGE B ut to mak e one i f the DI SC O VERED EVI DEN C E so j usti fi e s. It is e nough that the PRO PO SED IN VESTI GATI O N be for a L AWF UL L Y AUTHO RI Z ED PURPO S E. REQ FOR TH E ISSUAN CE AN D VAL IDITY OF ADM I SUPOEN AS: 1 . must be wi thi n the Autho ri ty of the Age nc y 2 . de mand is i nde fi ni te 3 . i nformati o n Re l e vant. is NOT TO O

W he n a C O MPL AI N T is i nstate d by the HEAD OF OF FI C E agai nst an Empl oye e , i t ne e d not be ve ri fi e d for the si mpl e re ason that sai d HEAD OF O FF IC E is de e me d to be ac ti ng i n hi s O ffi c i al C apac i ty and unde r hi s O ath of O ffi ce . It is onl y w he n the C HARGE O R CO MPL AI N T I S FI L ED B Y AN O THER PERSO N tha the c harge wi l l be VERI F I ED for the purpo se of prote c ti ng the EEs agai nst Mal i c i ous c ompl ai nts w hi c h are fi le d onl y for the purpo se of HARA SSI N G THEM! ADM IN ISTRATIV E OFFEN SE: I t i s e ve ry ac t or c onduc t or omi ssi on w hi c h amou nts to or c onsti tute s any of the grounds for DI SC I PL I N ARY AC TI ON . S 6 0 L GC ( SAL AL I MA VS GUI N GO N A) The re is N O DIFFEREN CE b e t WARRAN T OF ARREST iss ue d b y a Jud g e and WA in Ad mi Pro ce e d ing , It is on IM PL EM EN TATION t hat s pe ll out t he d if fe re nce ! In CRIM WARRAN TS: I t i s i ssue d onl y afte r PC is de te rmi ne d by the J udge In WARRAN TS ADM IN ISTRATIVE t he will

re asonabl y

L ABOR SEC canno t iss ue CON TEM PT ORDER ag ains t a JUDGE OF REGUL AR COURT: The prope r ste p for an Admi O ffi c i al i s to SEEK the DI SMI SSAL of the c ase BEF O RE the c ourt on the groun d that the MATTER di d not fal l w i thi n the domai n of the powe rs c onfe rre d on i t. De partme ntal ZEAL may not be pe rmi tte d to outru n the authori t y c onfe rre d by Stat ute . 2 WAYS TO COM M EN CE AN ADM I PROCEEDIN G AGAIN ST SUBORDIN ATE OFFICERS AN D EM PL OYEES 1 . may be c omme nc e d by the HEAD or C hie f of the B ure au or O ffi c e c onc e rne d and thi s authori t y c an be DEL EGATED and suc h de l e gati on i s not c ontrary to DP ( HERN AN DO VS F RAN C I SC O ) 2 . Upon C O MPL AI N T fil e d by Anothe r Pe rson ( B UEN O VS C O RDOB A)

I t i s i ssue d onl y to C arry out a fi nal Fi ndi ng of a vi ol ati on e . g. to c arry out fi nal orde r of de portati o n or to e ffe c t c ompl i anc e of an O rde r of C onte mpt! Pre s c annot i ssue W A for the purpo se of DEPO RTATI O N , it must be i ssue d by the J UDGE! BID COM M has t he p o we r t o ARREST and DETAIN t he p e t it io ne r PEN DIN G DETERM IN ATION OF PC ( in Phe d op hilia cas e) le ad ing t o Ad mi inve s t ig at io n ( HARVEY VS SAN TI AGO ):

Page Ye s, in the li ght of F AC TUAL CI RC UMSTAN C E S i n the c ase at bar: 1 . thus, the re w as a 3 mos surve i l l anc e agai nst pe tnr 2 . RO C provi de s W arrantl e ss Are e st and 3 . se i zure of Photos of nude c hi l dre n c an be made proba bl e basi s for hi s arre st.

25 of 49

JUDICIAL DETERM IN ATION OF SUFFICI EN CY OF STAN DARDS RUB I - i nte re st of l aw , publ i c orde r and publ i c i nte re st PRI N C I PL E SUB O RDI N ATE LEGI SL ATI O N OF

I N TERN ATI O N AL HARDW O O D j usti c e , e qui ty and substa nti al me ri ts of the c ase CIR has the pw oe r to de te rmi ne the Mi n w age for an I ndi vi dual ee i n c onne c ti on wi th an i ndustri al di spute w hi c h sai d c ourt mi ght tak e c ogni zanc e of. I t i nc l ude s i n the De c i si on or Aw ard any matte r or de te rmi nati on w hi c h may be de e me d ne c e ssary or e xpe di e nt for the purp ose of se ttl i ng the di spute or of pre ve nti ng furthe r I ndustri al or Agri c ul tural di spute . Thi s i s not a vi ol ati on of the EPC be c the c ourt has to Ac t ac c ordi ng to j usti c e and e qui ty and substanti al me ri ts of the c ase . PACU VS SEC Se c of Educ has the pow e r to pre sc ri be rul e s F IX IN G MI NI MUM STAN DA RDS of ade quate and e ffi ci e nt i nstruc ti on to be obse rve d by al l PRI VATE SC HO O L S AN D C O LL EGES and i t i s not und ue de l e gati on of le gi sl ati ve pow e rs. Thi s i s pursua nt to the Pol i c e powe r of the Govt to c orre c t a gre at e vi l w hi c h the publ i c may envi si on of Pri vate sc hl s to be di pl oma mi l l s and mone y mak i ng de vi ce s. Pri or pe rmi t to ope rate a sc hool is ne e de d be fore a Sc hl c an ope rate . CERVAN T ES VS AUDITOR GEN Q uarte r al l ow anc e s w as DI SAL L O W ED si nc e it w as c onsi de re d an Addi ti onal c ompe nsati o n. Thi s i s for the purpose of Promoti n g si mpl i c i ty, e c onomy and e ffi c ie nc y. P VS JOL IFE t o M o ne t ary St ab ilit y M aint ain

IMPOSITION OF FINES AND PENALTIES

RC PI VS N TC N TC has no j uri s to i mpose a Fi ne on publ i c se rvi ce s re nde ri ng de fi c ie nt se rvi ce to c ustome rs. The powe rs of Admi age nc i e s are li mi te d to those e xpre ssl y Grante d or ne c e s sari l y i mpl i e d from those grante d i n the L e gi sl ati on c re ati ng suc h body. Any orde r be yond i ts j uri s i s Voi d and I ne ffe c ti ve .

Page

26 of 49

Transac ti o n i n GO L D wi l l be de c i de d by the MB . I t nee ds approval of the PRES, but afte r approval , the rul e s and re gul ati ons may be promul gate d by the Board.

OTH ER REL ATED IM PORTAN T JURIS:

AN D

I t i s not ne c e ssary to mak e F i ndi ngs of F ac t i n the De ci si on i f i ts ful l ac c ord w i th the re port of i ts he ari ng e xami ne r w hi c h c ontai ns a F ul l Di sc ussi on of the Evi de nc e and the fi ndi ngs of fac ts base d the re on ( IN DI AS) Di r of Pate nts i s authori ze d to DESI GN ATE any Rank i ng offi c i al to he ar proc e e di ngs in the Re gi strati on of Trade mark s, RSN : matte r of prac ti c al admi ni str ati ve proc e dure . I t i s suffi c i e nt that the j udgme n t and di sc re ti on fi nal l y e xe rc i se d are those of the O ffi c e r authori ze d by l aw ( AMERI C AN TAB AC C O ) As a matte r of Admi proc e dure , De pt SEC may uti l i ze O THER O FF IC I AL S to i nve sti gate and re port the F ac t from w hi c h a De c i si on may be use d ( DO H VS C O MPO SAN O ) W he re a B O ARD ( B O D ) i s c onsti tute d to he ar c ase s the y shoul d de li be rate C ol l e c ti ve l y as suc h and that the i r vi e w s and i de as shoul d be e xc hange d and de te rmi ne d be fore re adi ng a c onc l usi on. I ndi vi dual axn re nde rs nuga tory the c re ati on of sai d B oard ( AROCH A VS VIVO ) PUB L IC se rvi ce C ommi ssi on i s N O T A CO URT O F REC O RD and i ts func ti on is l i mi te d and admi ni str ati ve i n nature . I t nee d not state i n i ts de c i si on i ts fi ndi ngs of fac ts and l aw ( SERRAN O VS PSC )

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

RUL ES IN H EARIN G ADM IN ISTRATIV E CASES: s 1 01 5 , chap 3 BK 7 1 . To EX PEDI ATE proc e e di ngs i nvol ve

DEC I SI ON of the De pt of L abor N EED N O T CO N TAI N State me tn of F ac ts or C onc l usi ons of l aw . RSN : proc e e di ngs be fore the N L RC are SUMMARY and N O N L I TI GO US in nature w i thout re gard to L e gal TEc hi ni c al i tie s ( VAL L ADO L I D VS I NC I ON G) PROCEDURE ADM I CASES ON APPE AL IN

Page 1 . unl e ss othe rw i se provi de d by l aw or EO APPEAL from a Fi nal De c i si on of the Age nc y may be tak e n to the HEAD DEPT 2 . appe al pe rfe c te d wi thi n 15 days AF TER re c ei pt of c opy of the De c i si on c ompl ai ne d of by the party, by FI LI N G w i th the Age nc y w hi c h adj udi c ate d the c ase a N O TI C E OF APPEAL , se rvi ng c opie s the re of upon the Pre vai l i ng party and the Appe l l ate age nc y, and Payi ng the re qui re d fee s. 3 . i f MR i s de nie d MO VAN T shal l have the ri ght to pe rfe c t hi s appe al duri ng the REMAI N EDER of the PD of APPEAL ( di pa to na aame nd ng fre sh pd???!!) re c k one d from Re ce i pt RESO L UTI O N O F DEN I AL, of the

27 of 49

1 . Ri ght to a HEARI N G, w hi c h i nc l ude s the ri ght to Pre se nt one s c ase and submi t e vi de nc e in support the re of 2 . tri bunal must c onsi de r the Evi de nc e pre se nte d 3 . de c i si on must have some basi s to Sup port i tse l f 4 . evi de nc e Substa ntai l must be

5 . de c i si on must be base d on the Evi d pre se nte d at the he ari ng, or at le ast c ontai ne d i n the Re c ord and Di sc l ose d to the parti e s affe c te d 6 . tri bunal or body or any of i ts J udge s must ac t on i ts OW N I NDEPEN DEN T c onsi de rati on of the l aw and the Fac ts of the c ontrove rsy and NO T SI MI PL Y ac c e pt the Vi e w of a SUB O RDI N ATE 7 . board, or body shoul d, i n al l CO N TRO VER SI AL Q UESTI O N, re nde r i ts de c i si on i n suc h a manne r as w oul d al l ow the parti e s to k now vari ous issue s i nvol ve d and the re ason for the De c i si on re nde re d ( AN G TIB AY) AUTEN C I O VS MAN AR A:

if the De c i si on is REVE RSED ON REC O N SI DERATI O N , the Aggri e ve d party shal l have 1 5 days from Re ce i pt of the Re sol uti on of Re ve rsal w i thi n w hi c h to Pe rfe c t hi s APPEAL ! 4 . age nc y shal l , upon Pe rfe c ti on of the appe al , TRAN SMI T the REC O RDS of the C ase to the Appe l l ate age nc y.

EFFE CT OF APPE AL :

PERFE CTIN G

AN

Appe al shal l STAY the DEC I SI ON appe al e d from UN L ESS 1 . othe rw i se provi de d y l aw or 2. the Appe l l ate Age nc y di re c ts EX EC UTI O N PEN DI N G APPEAL , as i t may de e m Just, c onsi de ri ng the nature and c i rc umstanc e s of the c ase . PRO C EDURE O F F URTHER APPEAL F O RM THE AGEN C Y TO THE SC : S 25 ( 1 -7_ C hapt 4 Bk 7 CARDIN AL REQUIREM EN TS OF DUE PROCESS IN ADM I PROC:

I n ADMI N C ASES, a Fai r and Re asonabl e opportu ni ty to e xpl ai n one s si de suffi c e s to me e t the re qui re me nts of Due Proc e ss. F ormal or Tri al Type i s not al w ays ne c e ssary. F or the purpose of Asc e rtai ni ng the Truth, an I N VESTI GATI O N wi l l be c onduc te d, duri ng w hi c h TEC HI NI C AL RUL ES appl i c abl e to J udi c i al Proc ne e d not alw ays be adhe re d. Thi s i s so be c ADMI B ODI ES e nj oy w i de di sc re ti on and i t i s suffi c i e nt that the Substa nti ve DP re qui re me nt of F ai rne ss and Re asonabl e ne ss be obse rve d ( MAN UEL VS VIL L EN A)

Page I n ADMI C ASES, the Re qui re me nt of N oti ce and he ari ng doe s not c onnote ful l Adve rsari al proc e e di ng the Standar d of DP that must be me t in Admi ni str ati ve Tri bunal s all ow s a c e rtai n de gree of l ati tude as l ong as F ai rne ss i s not i gnore d. ( AI R MAN I L A VS B AL ATB AT) Pe rson c an onl y be PEN AL I Z ED for a C harge w hi c h he w as suffi c i e nty i nforme d and onl y afte r he w as gi ve n an opport uni ty to be he ard and pre se nt e vi de nc e to prove the c ontrary. He must be gi ve n an O pportu ni ty to re fute the c harge s by adduc i ng e vi de nc e on Spe c i fi c C harge s, NO T i n a me re Admi c ase w hi c h i nvol ve s a Matte r di ffe re nt from the Al l e ge d c ul pabi l i ty of the c ompl ai nt ( B ARREDO FUEN TES) 1 99 8: I : i s the Pol i c e C ommi ssi on boun d by the fi ndi ngs of the Ci ty F i sc al ? I s X s prote stati on of l ac k of obse rvanc e of DP we l l groun de d R: pol i c e C ommi ssi on i s not boun d by the fi ndi ngs of the Ci ty F i sc al, MAN GUB AT: Pol i c e C omm is not prohi bi te d from mak i ng i ts ow n fi ndi ngs on the basi s of i ts ow n e val uati on of the re c ords. The prote stati on of L ac k of DP i s not w el l groun de d, si nc e the he ari ng be fore the MUn B oard and the C i ty F i sc al orde re d X the c hanc e to be he ard. The re i s N O DEN I AL of DP i f the de c i si on w as re nde re d on the basi s of evi d c ontai ne d i n the re c or and di sc l ose d to the parti e s affe c te d. 1 98 7: Aug 8 , 8 7 duri ng the he i ght of the fi ghti ng at C han 4, the mi l i tary c l ose d the radi o stati on X X, . Re ports w e re c orre c t and fac tual .

28 of 49

O c t 6, 8 7- afte r normal c y had re turne d and the Govt had ful l c ontrol of the si tuati on, the N TC W I THO UT NO TI C E and he ari ng but me re l y ont e h basi s of the re port of the mi li tary, C AN C EL L ED the franc hi se of the stati on X X. R: for the ac ti on tak e n on Aug 2 8, 19 87 The c l osi ng dow n of radi o stati on duri ng the FI GHTI N G I S PERMI S SI B L E. W i th re spe c t to N EW S MEDI A, WARTIM E CEN SORSH IP has bee n uphe l d on the ground that: w he n a nati on i s at w ar many thi ngs that mi ght be sai d i n the ti me of pe ac e are suc h a hi ndra nc e to i ts e fforts that the i r utte ranc e w i ll not be e ndure d so l ong as me n fi ght and that no C O URT c oul d re gard the m as prote c te d by any C onsti tuti o nal ri ght The se c uri ty of the c ommu ni ty l i fe may be prote c te d agai nst i nc i te me nts to ac ts of vi ol e nc e and the ove rthrow by forc e of orde rl y govt. W i th gre ate r re ason the n may C EN SO RSHI P i n ti me s of e me rge nc y be j usti fi e d i n c ase of B roadc ast me di a si nc e the i r fre e dom i s some w hat l esse r i n sc ope . The i mpac t of VI B RAN T SPEEC H is forc e ful and i mme di ate . Unl i k e re ade rs i n PRI N TED W O RK Radi o Audi e nc e has l e sse r opport uni ty to c ogi tate , anal yze and re j e c t the utte ranc e 2 . O c T t 7 - re: C anc el l ati on of F ranc hi se wi thout pri or noti c e and he ari ng i s voi d! He l d in B RO ADC ASTI N G: EASTERN

Ang Ti bay must be obse rve d i n c l osi ng a radi o stati on be c Radi o B roadc asts are a form of C ON STI TUTI O N AL L Y PRO TEC TED EX PRESSI O N ! Re sponde n t in Admi I nve sti gati on c an W AI VE hi s ri ght to F ormal i nve sti gati on!

Page The i nve sti gati ng body c an base i ts re port and re c omme ndati o n on the basi s of the Affi davi ts of the Parti e s on Re c ord ( HUERTAS) N ATURE OF DUE PROCESS IN ADM I PROC: a. b. c. Is si mpl y the O PPO RTUN I TY to be he ard; an oppor tuni t y to e xpl ai n one s si de or an O pport uni ty to see k a Re c onsi de rati on of Ac ti on or Rul i ng C ompl ai ne d of.

29 of 49

suc h proc are N O T C RI MI N AL IN N ATURE. Stri c t rul e s of e vi d and proc e dure w i ll not appl y i n Admi Proc l i ke Se i zure and F orfei ture proc . W hat i s I MPT i s hta the parti e s are afforde d the opport uni ty to be he ard and the De c i si on of the admi authori t y i s base d on Subst anti al Evi d. DUE PRO C ESS MUST IN C L UDE: ( Z AMB AL ES C HRO MI TE MI NI N G C0) 1 . ri ght to a HEARI N G i nc l ude s ri ght of a Party to pre se nt hi s ow n c ase and submi t e vi d te ndi ng to establ i sh the ri ght w hi c h he asse rts but the Tri bunal must c onsi de r the e vi d pre se nte d. DP i nc l ude s the ff: a. ri ght to Ac tual or C onstruc ti ve noti c e of the i nsti tuti on of the Proc w hi c h may affe c t the Re sponde n ts le gal ri ghts Re al opportu ni ty to be he ard pe rsonal l y or w i th the Assi stanc e of C ounse l , to pre se nt W i tne sse s and Evi d i n one s favor and to de fe nd one s ri ght Tri bunal ve ste d w i th c ompe te nt j uri s and so c onsti tute d to afford a pe rson c harge d Admi ni str ati ve l y a rEasonbl e guara nte e of HO N ESTY as we l l as I MPARTI AL I TY and F i ndi ng by sai d tri bunal w hi c h is suppo rte d by Subs tanti al Evi d submi tte d for c onsi de ri ng duri ng the he ari ng or c ontai ne d i n the re c ord or made k now n to the parti e s affe c te d ( PADI L L A VS N L RC )

F ormal tri al type he ari ng i s N O T at all ti me s and i n all i nstanc e s e sse nti al . The Re qui re me nts are sati sfi e d w he re the parti e s are afforde d F ai r and Re asonabl e opport uni ty to e xpl ai n the i r si de of the c ontrove rsy at hand. W hat i s F RO W N ED upon i s the absol ute l ac k of noti c e and he ari ng. The opport uni ty to be he ard doe s not onl y re fe r to the ri ght to pre se nt Ve rbal argume n ts i n c ourt duri ng a F ormal he ari ng. The re is DP w he n a party i s abl e to PRESEN T EVI DEN C E i n the form of PL EADI N G ( STAYFAST PH IL CORP VS N L RC) 1 99 3: forfe i ture proc , shi p c aptai n and re si de nt age nt e xe c ute d a Sw orn state me nt admi tte d that c ontra ban d c argo w e re found aboar d the ve sse l . Shi ppi ng li ne obje c te d c onte ndi n g that duri ng the i r e xe c uti on, the C aptai n and Shi ppi ng Age nt W ERE NO T ASSI STED by C ounse l i n vi ol ati on of DP. R: Admi ssi on of the State me nts of the C aptai n and Shi ppi ng Age nt as e vi d DI D not vi ol ate DP e ve n i f the y W ERE NO T ASSI STED B Y CO UN SEL . He l d that Assi stanc e of C ounse l i s NO T I N DI SPEN SAB L E to DP i n FO RF EI TURE proc si nc e

b.

c.

d.

2 . EVI D must be Substa nti al

Page

30 of 49

Me ans REL EVAN T EVI D as a re asonabl e mi nd mi ght ac c e pt as ade quate to supp ort a c onc l usi on. Rul e s of Evi d c ontrol l i ng. shal l not be

the same vi ew si nc e bei ng huma n, he w oul d not admi t that he w as mi stak e n i n hi s vie w of the c ase ( Z AMB AL ES C HRO I MTE MI NI N G C O ) RI GHT TO C O UN SEL i n Admi c ase s is NO T AL W AYS I MPERATI VE be c suc h i nqui ri e s are c onduc te d to me rel y DETERMI N E w he the r the re are fac ts that MERI T DI SC I PLI N ARY MEASU RE agai nst e rri ng publ i c offi c e rs and ee s wi th the purpo se of MAI N TAI N I N G DI GN I TY in the Govt Se rvi ce ( REMO L O N A VS C SC ) N OTICE AN D REQUIRED: H EARIN G WH EN

3 . de c i si on must be re ndre d on the Evi d pre se nte d at the he ari ng or atl e ast C ontai ne d i n the Re c ord and Di sc l ose d to the parti e s affe c te d. RSN : l aw i s both a Grant and L i mi tati on upon pow e r 4 . j udge must ac t on i ts OW N i nde pe nde nt c onsi de rati on of the l aw and fac ts of the c ontrove rsy and re nde r i ts de c i si on i n suc h manne r that the parti e s c an k now the vari ous i ssue s i nvol ve d and the re ason for the de c i si on re nde re d. 5 . fi ndi ngs of Fac ts of admi age nc y wi l l NO T BE DI STURB ED! EXCEP TION : a. i f the y are not suppo rte d by e vi d b. w he re the fi ndi ngs are I NI TI TATED by F raud, i mposi ti on or C O LL USI O N c . w he re the proc e dure s are I RREGUL A R d. w he n pal pabl e errors are c ommi tte d e . w he n Grave abuse of di sc re ti on or c apri c i ousne ss is mani fe st ( AMERI C AN I N TERF ASHI O N C O RP) 6 . i n orde r that the REVI EW of the De c i si on of the SUB O RDI N ATE offi c e r mi ght not turn out to be a farc e , the REVI EW I N G O FF I C ER must pe rforc e be othe r than that the O ffi c e r w hose de c i si on is unde r re vie w , othe rwi se , the re w oul d be no re al re vi ew of the c ase . De c i si on of the Re vi ew i ng offi c e r w oul d be a bi ase d vi ew of the c ase ; i ne vi tabl y, ti w oul d be

1 . i f i t wi l l de pri ve the exe rc i se of one s prope rty w i thout DP 2 . i f i t prote c ts the ri ghts of i ndi vi dual s e spe c i all y in De portati on c ase s 3 . w he n i t wi l l affe c t and pre j udi c e C O MEPN SATI O N C L AI MS of e e s on te c hni c al boun ds B AUSTI STA VS W C C: B austi sta c l ai ms for c l ai m agai nst PN R Di sabi l i ty

C ase w as di smi sse d for REPEAT ED AB SEN C E of hi s c ounse l to appe ar thi s w as affi rme d by W ork me n s C ompe nsati o n C ommi ssi on. O n appe al , SC re ve rse d: THERE W AS N EED TO HEAR the e vi d of the c ompl ai na nt e ve n assumi n g that hi s C ounse l re pe ate dl y fai l e d to appe ar duri ng the he ari ngs i n the proc e e di ng. Thi s i s i n c onsona nc e w i th the j uri s that Te c hi ni c al rule s of Evi d are N O T OB SERVED i n admi proc . C O N STI TUTES REASO N AB L E N O TI C E I N ADMI PRO C : 1 . ac tual se rvi c e to the party hi mse l f PERSO N AL L Y of the N oti c e of He ari ng at hi s

Page l ast k now n add REGI STE RED ai l or 2 . to hi s c ounse l IN QUISITORIAL ADM I AGEN CIES: POWER OF or by

31 of 49

re nde re d the de c i si on w e re not the one s w ho re ce i ve d the e vi d, in vi ol ati on of the HE W HO DEC I DES MUST HEAR RUL E. R: X i s not c orre c t Admi DP doe s not re qui re that the Ac tual Tak i ng of Te sti moy or the PRESEN T ATI O N of e vi d be fore the SAME offi c e r w ho w il l de c i de the c ase. AM ERICAN TOBACCO OF PATEN TS: VS DIR

It is one of the DETERMI N ATI VE PO W ERS of an Admi body w hi c h e nabl e s i t to e xe rc i se Q UASI JUD authori ty. I t al l ow s Admi body to a. i nspe c t re c ords and pre mi se s and b. i nve sti gate the ac ti vi ti e s of pe rsons, e nti te s c omi ng unde r i ts j uri s or c . to re qui re di sc l osure of i nformati o n by me ans of ac c ounts, re c ords, re ports, te sti of W , produc ti o n of doc s or othe rw i se L IM ITS IN TH E IN VESTIGA TORY an Ad mi b od y: EXERCISE POWERS of of

So l ong as the Ac tual de c i si on on the me ri ts of the c ase i s made by the O FF IC ER authori ze d by l aw to de c i de, the PO W ER TO HO L D HEARI N G on the basi s of w hi c h the de c i si on wi l l be made c an be DEL EGATED and i s not offe nsi ve to DP. b. on the ground that the re w as vi ol ati on of DP be c the C ompl ai nants, the Prose c utors and He ari ng O ffi c rs w ere SUB O RDI N ATES of the B ID C O MM w ho re nde re d the De portati on de c i si on. R: he w as not de ni e d DP The fi ndi n gs of SUB O RDI N ATES are NO T C O N CL USI VE upont e h C omm w ho have the di sc re ti on to Ac c e pt or Re je c t the m, W HAT is i mporta nt i s that X w as not de pri ve d of hi s ri ght to Pre se nt hi s ow n c ase and to submi t e vi d i n suppor t the re of, the dc i si n is supporte d by Subs tant ai l Evi d and the C omm ac te d on THEI R OWN I N DEPEN DEN T c onsi de rati on of the l aw and F ac ts of the c ase , and di d not si mpl y ac ce pt the vi ew s of the i r Subordi n ate s i n arri vi ng at a de c i si on. HEARI N G I S NO T REQ UI RED : 1 . w he re the hol de r of passpor t i s Fac i ng C ri m c harge i n our c ourts and l e ft the c ountry to e vade C ri m prose c uti on. Se c of F ore i gn Affai rs c an re vok e the passpor t AL READY I SSUED to a passpor t hol de r.

I t doe s NO T EX ERI C SE J UD func ti on. I ts pow e r is L I MI TED to I N VESTI GATI N G F AC TS and MAK I N G fi ndi ngs in re spe c t the re to. I ts powe rs i s onl y to DETERMI N E w he the r the PAPE RS c ompl y wi th the re qui re me nts of the l aw . W HAT C O MPRI SES DP I N ADMI PRO C : 1 . substa nti ve DP re qui re s the of the l aw i n the ri ghts of l i be rty, li fe or IN TRI N SI C val i di ty IN TERF ERI N G wi th the pe rson to hi s prop

2 . PRO C EDURAL DP C onsi st of 2 basi c ri ghts of N O TI C E and HEARI N G as w el l as the GUAR AN TEES of be i ng he ard by an I mparti al and C ompe te nt tri bunal . 1 99 4: De portati on c ase ; I: a. that X w as de ni e d DP be c the BI D C O MM w ho

Page Thi s i s not w hi msi c al for othe rw i se , i t w il l de fe at the C ri m l aw s of hi s c ountry. 2 . c ourts have N O J URI S to re vie w PUREL Y ADMI PRAC TI C E of I MMI GRATI O N authori ti e s for re asons of prac ti c al i ty and e xpe di e nc y of not granti ng F ormal He ari ngs i n suc h c ase i .e . i n c ase of Exte nsi on of Stay of Al i e ns. The DP i s NO T vi ol ate d be c A DAY I N CO URT I S N O T A MATTER O F RI GHT IN ADMI PRO C ( DE B I SC HO P VS GAL AN G) 3 . he ari ng i s not e sse nti al to the val i di ty of Ge n rul e s or re g promul gate d to gove rn F UTURE c onduc t of a c l ass or pe rsons or e nte rpri se s UN L ESS the l aw provi de s othe rw i se . ( AB EL L A VS C SC ) O VERRI DI N G c onsi de rati on i s Safe ty and C omfort of the ri di ng publ i c form the dange rs pose d by the DI L API DATED taxi s and l i ke w i se thi s i s an Exe rc i se of PP ( taxi c ab O PERATO R S) 4 . ordi nary re qui re me nt of DP must YI EL D to the N EC ESSI TI ES OF PRO TEC TI N G Vi tal publ i c i nte re st thru the Exe rci se of PO L I C E PO W ER thus, an Ex Parte Ce ase and De si st orde r to stop the c onti nous di sc harge of Pol l uti ve Effl ue nts i no the ri ve rs and othe r i nl and w ate rs C AN N O T be made to w ai t uni t protrac te d l i ti gati on has run i ts c ourse ( PO LL UTI O N ADJ UDIC ATI O N B O ARD ) 5 . PRI O R noti c e and he ari ng NOT REQ UI RED si nc e SUSPEN SI O N not bei ng a PEN AL TY but onl y a PREL I MI N ARY STEP i n a Admi i nve sti gati on ( L ASTI MO SA VS VASQ UEZ ) 6 . i n the pe rformanc e of i ts Exe c uti ve or Le gi sl ati ve func ti ons, suc h as I SSUI N G rul e s and re gul ati ons ,

32 of 49

an Admi body nee d not c ompl y w i th the re qui re me nts of nO ti c e and he ari ng ( PHI L C O MM SATEL L I TE C O MM ) 7 . TRB s authori ty to Grant Provi si onal Tol l Rate Adj ust me nt doe s not re qui re the c onduc t of a he ari ng ( PADUA) ARROCH A VS VIVO:

W he re the re i s a vali d and good e xpl anati on as to the C O RREC TI O N of date of the De c i si on, the same must not be i nval i date d ( be c the CO MM w e re not abl e to c ol le c ti ve l y me e t i n 1 day or to Re c ti fy a c le ri c al e rror e tc ) I t i s a basi c te ne t of DP that the DEC I SI ON of a Gvot Age nc y must state the F ac ts and the L aw on w hi c h the De c i si on i s base d. The CO A de c i si on me rel y state d C onc l usi ons of l aw . F ac ts and c i rc umstanc e s, as we l l as the w hy s, w hat s and how s of the Di sal l ow anc e , we re pate ntl y mi ssi ng, i nac c urate or i nc ompl e te . C O A c annot j ust pe rform i ts C onsti tuti o na F unc ti on of di sal l ow i ng e xpe ndi ture s of Govt funds at shee r di sc re ti on. The re has to be F AC TUAL B AI SS w hy the e xpe ndi ture i s al le ge d to be F raudul e ntl y or w hy w as the re mi sre p. L i abi l i ty de pe nds upon the W rong c ommi tte d and N O T sol e l y by re ason of be ni g the He ad of Govt age nc y ( AL B ERT VS GAN GAN ) FEL ICIAN O Pate nts O ffi ce has no j uri s to e nte rtai n c ase s and i sue s pe rtai ni ng to J ud func ti on ( Pe ti ti on for i nte rve nti on c l ai mi ng that the IN VEN TO R had assi gne d to hi m a Ri ght to C of Sal e of a ce rtai n i nve nti on l i ke Me tal de te c tor) Rsn: i t l ac k s the me ans to mak e a J udi c i al de te rmi nati on of the Pri vate ri ghts of parti e s.

Page B OI ahs the Exc l usi ve authori ty to try and he ar c ase s agai nst Al i e n. EX C EPT J ud i nte rve nti on maybe re sorte d to i n c ase s w he re the C l ai m of C i ti ze nshi p i s Subs tanti al and Re asona bl e i n orde r ot bel i e ve that the c l ai m i s c orre c t. B OI i s not w i th the RTC be c the B OI may be appe al e d to the DEL A RO SA) C ARI N O VS C HR: C HR i s N O T A CO URT O R Q UASI J UDIC I AL AGEN C Y. At most, i t may: 1 . i nve sti gate 2 . re ce i ve evi d and 3 . mak e fi ndi ngs of Fac ts as to Human ri ghts vi ol ati ons i nvol vi ng Ci vi l and pO l i ti c al ri ghts but it C AN N O T TRY AN D DEC I DE C ASES how e ve r i t may a. ADO PT i ts O W N RUL ES and b. C an C ITE FO R CO N TEMPT to e nforc e the same c . I t may Grant I MMUN I TY from Prose c uti on to any pe rson w hose te sti mony i s ne c e ssary to de te rmi ne the truth d. May al so REQ UEST the Assi stanc e of any De pt, B ure au offi c e or age nc y i nt eh pe rformanc e of i ts func ti ons. The re is NO C ON F LI C T j uri sdi c ti on be t the Grant di sc i pl i nary pow e rs ove r of of of Equal rank al l de ci si on of re vie we d and RTC . ( B OI VS

33 of 49

It shal l i ssue the I mple me nti ng gui de l i ne s and proc e dure s to be adopte d by the PL EB i n the c onduc t of hi ts he ari ng and i t may Assi gn N APO L C O M he ari ng offi c e rs to ac t as L e gal c onsul ta nts of PL EB . The PN P C HI EF and PL EB have C O N C URREN T JURI S to Di smi ss pol i c e me n! HL URB has the JURI S to he ar c ompl ai nts for SPEC I FI C PERF O RMAN C E of the : a. sal e b. annul me n t or c . mortga ge of CO N DO uni t and not re gul ar c ourt de c i si on of HL URB appe al abl e to O FC O F PRES w i thi n 1 5 days from re c e i pt of de c i si on. Spe c i al L aw s provi di ng for the Re me dy of Appe al tot e h O F C E of the PRES must pre vai l ove r the HL URB Rul e s of Proc e dure . C O MM OF ON THE L AN D

C O SL AP ( SETTL EEMN T PRO B L EMS)

Are tri bunal s of L I MI TED J URI S and as suc h, c oul d w ie l d onl y suc h as are Spe c i fi c al l y grante d to the m by Enabl i n g statute s. L aw doe s not ve st j uri s on the C O SL AP ove r nay l and di spute or probl e m. C O SL AP may onl y re sol ve L and Di spute s ar li mi te d onl y to those i nvol vi ng: a. publ i c l ands or b. l ands of publ i c domai n or c . those c ove re d w i th Spe c i fi c L i ce nse from the Govt suc h as 1 . pasture and Le ase Agre e 2 . ti mbe r C onc e ssi ons or 3 . Re se rvati on rant I t has N O J URI S to orde r the Re i nstate me nt of a Ti tle ove r pi e c e of l and!

a. PN P b. PL EB ( pe opl e s l aw e nforc e me nt board) c . N APO L C O M ( nati onal pol i c e c ommi ssi on) N APO L C O M Exe rc i se s Appe l l ate j ursi thru the Re gi onal Appe l l ate boards ove r the de c i si ons of both PL EB and the Mayors.

Page PO L L UTIO N B O ARD AN D ADJ UDIC ATO RY

34 of 49

I s the age nc y of the govt w i th the taxk of de te rmi ni ng w he the r the e ffl ue nts of a parti c ul ar i ndustri al de ve l opme nt c ompl y w i th or vi ol ate appl i c abl e AN TI PO L L UTIO N STATUTO RY and Re gul atory provi si ons. ( ESTRAD A VS C A) De c i si on of C SC ( GO C C wi th O RI GI N AL C HARTER ) appe al abl e to C A Use d to be HI GC ( I nsuranc e and Guarnty the n wi th SEC NO W HL URB Home C orp) it is

HI GC now HL URB exe rc i se s L I MI TED J URI S ove r HO MEO W N ER S DI SPUTE: that ari se from I N TRA C O RPO RATE REL ATI O N S: a. be t and among of the Assoc me mbe rs

b. be t any and or al l of the m and the Assoc of w hi c h the y are me mbe rs c . be t the Assoc and the State i nsofar as the c ontrove rsy c onc e rns i ts Ri ght to exi st as a C O RPO RATE EN TI TY. L EVI STRAU SS PHI L : Appl i c ati o n for the Admi ni str ati ve c anc e ll ati on of Re gi ste re d trade mark s on any groun d e nume rate d unde r RA 1 66 k now n as TRADE MARK L AW fal l s unde r the j uri s of BPTTT How e ve r, an axn for: a. i nfri nge me nt or b. unfai r c ompe ti ti on c . as w el l as re me dy of I nj unc ti on and Re l ie f for dama ge s i s wi th the RTC !

ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL PROC ARISING FROM THE SAME FACTS

C O SAN VS DI R OF PATEN TS: B i o fi le d wi th the Pate nt ofc an appl i c ati on for a Pate nt of 2 l uggage s. C o San groun d that obj e c te d on the it vi ol ate s 2

Page provi si ons of Pate nt O bj e c ti on w as de ni e d. l aw . C ri m c ase SUBIDO) (

35 of 49
VS

VIL L AN OS

C o san appe al e d wi th SC sayi ng that the Di r of Pate nts erre d i n not c onsi de ri ng the C onc l usi ve F i ndi ngs of fac t fo the C A name l y C o San w as the PRI O R USER of the de si gn i n que sti on and that he w as Ac qui tte d of Unfai r c ompe ti ti on. R: AC Q UI TTAL of a pe rson i n C RI M C ASE doe s not bi nd the Di r of Pate nts. Ac qui tt al w as not base d on C anc e l l ati on of Pate nts but the O PI NI O N that the X had de c e i ve d or de fraude d C ompl ai na nt. PN R VS DOM IN GO: EE c harge d w i th Q ual i fie d The ft ac qui tte d PN R all e ge d that the X had be e n di smi sse d form the Se rvi ce w i th pre j udi c e to Re i nstate me nt. C ourt orde re d hi s Re i nstate me nt w i th F ul l bac k w age s and be ne fi ts. R: TC i n the C RI M C ASE has no authori t y in the eve nt of Ac qui tt al to the X-e e to orde r payme nt of bac k sal ari e s. Rsn: Ac qui ttal i n C ri m c Ase doe s not c arry w i th i t Re li e f from Admi n li ab. ADM I PROC may PROCEED IN DEPEN DEN TL Y of CRIM CASES! ! De c i si on i n C RI M C ASE e ve n i f F IN AL , by i tse l f al one , c annot se rve as a basi s for the de c i si on i n Admi c ase i nvol vi ng the same fac ts. Rsn: matte rs that are MATERI AL in Admi c ase ARE NOT N EC ESSA RI L Y re le vant to C RI M C ASE. F i ndi ngs i n C ri m c ase s c annot be c onc l usi ve i n Admi c ase s. The re are DEF EN SES, e xc use s and atte nuati ng c i rc um of val ue i n Admi Proc w hi c h are N O T ADMI SSI B L E i n the Tri al of the on not the

X c l ai ms that she must be c l e are d wi th Admi c ase s be c the C ri m c ase fil e d agai nst he r w as al re ady di smi sse d: R: no, di smi ssal i n C ri m c ase doe s not fore c l ose Admi ac ti on i nvol vi ng the same fac ts. C ri m proof be yond re asonabl e doub t Admi proc Subs tan ti al evi d

JUDICIAL REVIEW ADMI DECISION:

OF

Pe rfe c ti on of appe al wi thi n the REgl e me ntary pd i s MAN DATO RY AN D J URI SDI C TI O N AL 15 days from re c e i pt of de c i si on.

Page Rul e s and re g of Admi bodi e s have the F O RC E and EF EC T of l aw i f THEY BEC O ME F IN AL !!! L IM ITS IN TH E EXERCISE OF ADM IN ISTRATIV E DISCRETION : 1 . B oard or O ffi c i al has gone be yond hi s Statu tory authori t y 2 . e xe rc i se d UN C O N STI TUTIO N AL pow e rs 3 . c l e arl y and arbi trari l y and w i thout re gard to duty, exe rc i se d Grave abuse of di sc re ti on or 4 . de c i si on i s Vi ti ate d by F raud, I mposi ti on or mi stak e ( ITO GO N SUYO C MI N ES VS O FC O F THE PRES) QUAN TUM OF PROOF DIN ADM I PROC: SUBSTAN TIAL EVID: Suc h re l e vant e vi d as a REasoa nbl e mi nd mi ght ac c e pt as ade qua te to supp ort a c onc l usi on. H OW TO GAUGE t he EXISTEN CE OF SUBSTAN TIAL EVID I t i s sati sfi e d w he re the re i s a REASO N AB L E groun d to be l ie ve that the PETI TIO N ER i s gui l ty of MI SC O N DUC T, e ve n if the Evi d mi ght NOT BE O VERW HEL MI N G ( ADVI N C UL A VS DI C EN ) Admi Age nc y i s not boun d by the Te c hi ni c al rul e s of Evi d gove rni ng c ourt proc e e di ngs. Te c hni c al rule s of e vi d, are i n fac t, L i be ral l y appl i e d to Admi Age nc i e s. Subs tanti al e vi d in Admi de c i si ons doe s not apl y to the Adj udi c a ti on of a Cl ai m of Pri vate ow ne rshi p of prop vi s-a vi s the Govt ( BO RJ A) Subs tanti al e vi d doe s not exc use admi age nc i e s from tak i ng i nto ac c ount C ounte rvai l i ng evi d N EEDE BURDEN Pro c: OF PROOF w hi c h fai rl y de trac ts Evi d suppor ti ng a ( B AYL ON )

36 of 49
form the Fi ndi ng

F i ndi ngs of F ac ts of Q uasi -J ud B odi e s are ge ne ral l y bi ndi n g on the c ourts, espe c i al l y if SUPPO RT ED by SUB STAN TI AL EVI ( CUERDO VS COA ) Thi s i s be c of the Spe c i al k now l e dge and e xpe rti se gai ne d by the se Tri bunal s from handl i ng the Spe c i fi c Matte rs fal l i ng unde r the i r J uri s. W he re the fi ndi ngs of C A are at vari anc e w i th those of Admi Age nc y suc h as the DAR, The SC must Re vi e w the re c ords! De c i si ons and O rde rs of Admi age nc i e s upon the i r FI N ALI TY, have the forc e and effe c t of a F IN AL JUDGMEN T w i th the purvi e w of the Do ct rine of RES JUDICAT A ( YSMAEL VS DEP EX EC SEC ) in Ad mi thru

The C O MPL AI N AN T Subs tanti al Evi d.

I n the abse nc e of c ontrary e vi d, w hat wi l l PREV AI L is the PRESU MPTI O N OF REGUL A RI TY i n the Pe rformanc e of Duty ( L I MB O N A) EFFE CT IS TH E COM PL AIN AN T FAIL S TO SH OW in a Sat is f act o ry manne r t he Fact s upo n which he Bas es his claims : Effe c t wi l l be that the RESP is unde r no obl i gati on to prove hi s de fe nse . I t i s e nough for the RESP to de ny c ompl i c i ty i nt eh c ompl ai nt for he i s N O T unde r obl i gati on to prove hi s N EGATI VE ave rme nt, muc h l e ss di sprove w hat has not be e n prove n by the C ompl ai na nt ( REYES VS MAN GI N O )

Page DOCTRIN E OF EXH AUSTION OF ADM IN ISTRATIV E REM EDIES: Me ans that B EF O RE a party c an be al l ow e d to RESO RT to the c ourts, it is a PREC O N DI TI ON that he shoul d EX HAUST all the Admi Re dre ss avai l abl e to hi m unde r the l aw . He nc e , i f a REMEDY wi thi n the Admi Mac hi ne ry c an sti l l be re sorte d to by Gi vi ng the Admi O ffi c e r c onc e rne d, eve ry opport uni ty to de c i de on a matte r that c ome s wi thi n i s j uri s, the n suc h re me dy shoul d be e xhauste d fi rst be fore the c ourt s J udi c i al Pow e r c an be sough t ( MI GUEL VS VDA DE REYES) BASIS OF TH E PRIN CIPL E: Re sts on the PRESU MPTI O N that the Admi age nc y , if afforde d a C ompl e te c hanc e to pass upon the matte r, w i ll de c i de the same c orre c tl y ( DEL O S SAN TO S VS L I MB AGA) REASON FOR TH E USE OF TH IS DOCTRIN E: 1 . Is the SEPA RATI O N OF PO W ERS, w hi c h e nj oi ns upon the J udi c i ary a be c omi ng pol i c y of N O N -IN TERF EREN C E w i thi nt e h matte rs c omi ng pri mari l y ( al be i t not e xc l usi vel y ) w i thi n the c ompe te nc e of othe r De pt. The ory is that the ADMI AUTHO RI TI ES are i n a be tte r posi ti on to re sol ve que sti ons addre sse d to the i r parti c ul ar e xpe rti se and that Errors c ommi tte d by SUB O RDI N ATES i n the i r Re sol uti on may be re c ti fie d by the i r SUPE RI O RS i f gi ve n a c hanc e to do so ( SUN VI L L E TI MB ER PRO DUC TS) 2 . anothe r re ason i s TO PRO VI DE FO R AN O RDERL Y proc e dure w hi c h favors a PREL I MI N ARY ADMI N I STRATI VE SHI F TIN G proc e ss, parti c ul arl y w i th re spe c t to matte rs pe c ul i arl y wi thi n the c ompe te nc e of the Admi authori t y. ( SAN TI AGO VS REAL EZ A C RUZ )

37 of 49

EFFE CT IF TH E LITIGAN T f ails t o EXH AUST Ad mi re med ie s BEFORE g o ing t o co urt : C ase i s susc e pti bl e for DI SMI SSAL for L AC K OF C O A!! B ec the c ase is not YET RI PE for J udi c i al de te rmi nati on. The re fore , F AIL URE of the party to Exhaus t Admi Re me die s DO ES N O T AF F EC T the j uri s of the c ourt ove r the SUB J MATTER OF THE C ase, i t me re l y IMPL I ES Abse nc e of C ause of ac ti on! ( B AL MON TE VS MARC EL O ) DOCTRIN E s ho uld STRICTL Y APPL IED be

Rsn: to pre ve nt unne c e ssary and pre mature re sort to the c ourt. Thus, i n Ge ne ral, a MR must fi rst be fi l e d be fore a Spe c i al Ci vi l Ac ti on for C e rti orari may be avai l e d of. ( SUN SHI N E TRAN SPO RT) REASON S WH Y AVAIL M EN T TO ADM IN ISTRATIV E EXH AUSTION IS N ECESSARY: 1 . e ntai l s l esse r expe nse s 2 . provi de s for a Spe e di e r di sposi ti on of c ontrove rsi e s and 3 . gi ve the Admi age nc y e ve ry opport uni ty to c orre c t i ts e rrors ( C ARAL E) AIM of t he L ITIGAN T whe n he rais e s t he DEFEN SE OF NON EXH AUSTION of ADmi re me d ie s : I t attac k s the Ex is t e nce o f COA o n t he p art of t he Filing o f Act io n o r Pe t it io n, i t i s NO T to rai se the Q UESTI O N of J URI SDI CI TO N ! TH RUST OF TH E RUL E ON EXH AUSTION OF ADM I REM EDIES I s that c ourts must al l ow the Admi age nc i e s to c arry out the i r func ti ons and di sc harge the i r re sponsi bi l i ti e s wi thi n the Spe c i al i ze d are as of thei r re spe c ti ve c ompe te nc e .

Page F urthe rmore , re asons of l aw , C omi ty and C onve ni e nc e PREVEN T the c ourts form e nte rtai ni ng c ase s prope r for de te rmi nati on by Admi age nc ie s ( C AB AL L ES)

38 of 49
re me dy

spe e dy and ade quate ( Q UASHA VS SEC ) 1 0.

w he n the re are C i rc umstanc e s i ndi c ati ng the URGEN C Y of J UDI C I AL I N TERVEN TI O N w he n the i ssue of N on- exhausti o n of Admi re me di e s has bee n re nde re d MOO T and Ac ade mi c fai l ure of a Hi gh Govt offi c i al form w hom re li e f i s sough t to ac t on the matte r i f the C ourt and the Parti e s agre e NO T TO RESO RT to the re me dy due to SPEC I AL si tuati on and re ason ( by agre e !) ( ALZ ATE) w he n the PRI N C I PAL C O A is one for DAMAGES w hi c h i s wi thi n the j rui s fo a TC be c i t c al l s for the appl i c ati on and i nte rpre tati on of the N C C PRO C In Q UO W ARR AN TO publ i c

1 1.

EXCEP TION S TO TH E DOCTRIN E OF EXH AUSTION OF ADM IN ISTRATIV E REM EDIES: 1 . the re i s vi ol ati on of DP 2 . I ssue i nvol ve d i s PUREL Y a L EGAL Q UESTI O N and i t c annot be re s ol ve d admi ni str ati ve l y 3 . admi axn is pate ntl y i l le gal amoun ti ng to L ac k or Exc e ss o j uri s 4 . e stoppe l on the part of the Admi age nc y c onc e rne d 5 . i f i ts appl i c ati on w oul d c ause I rre para bl e damage and i nj ury 6 . REsp i s a DEPT SEC w hose ac ts as an AL TER EGO of the PRES be ars the Impl i e d and Assume d appro val of the l atte r. Si mpl y put, w he re the rule on Q UAL IF I ED PO LI TI C AL AGEN C Y appl i e s!! 7 . w oul d amount to a N UL LI FI C ATI O N of a cl ai m 8 . subj matte r i s a PRI VATE L AN D c ase proc ee di ng 9 . rul e doe s not provi de a pl ai n, spe e dy and ade quate re me dy or w he n it is O ppre ssi ve and Unre asona bl e l i ke w he n the AMO UN T to be spe nt on APPEAL i s bi gge r than the amoun t Be i ng C ol le c te d ( DI EGO VS C A) nb: than an Extre mel y li mi te d ti me to appe al i. e. the onse t of X mas se ason wi th j ust 6 days to fi le a PETI TI ON i s not a pl ai n,

1 2.

1 3.

1 4.

1 5. 1 6. 1 7.

w he n strong i nte re st i s i nvol ve d

w he n a c ase i s fi le d by a NO N -L AW YER, w ho c l ai ms that PO VERTY de ni e s hi m the Se rvi ce s of a l aw ye r ( SAB EL L O VS DEC S)

JAL AN DON I VS DRIL ON : W he n a c Ase is appe al e d to the DO J from a RESO L UTI O N of the I nve sti gati ng Prose c utor i t i s part of EX HAUSTI O N O F ADMI REMEDY! B ec i n Admi MEAN S SUPERVISION Mans O VERSSEI N G or the PO W ER or AUTHO RI TY of an offi ce r to se e that l aw SUPE RVI SI O N

CON TROL Me ans the Pow e r of an offi c e r to AL TER OR MO DI F Y or N ULL F Y or SET

Page SUB O RDI N ATE OF FI C ERS pe rform the i r duti e s. If the l atte r F AI L S OR N EGL EC T to ful fi l l the m, the FO RMER may tak e suc h ac ti on or ste p as pre sc ri be d by l aw to mak e the m PERF O RM SUC H DUTI ES ASI DE w hat a Subordi nate O ffi ce r had done in the Pe rformanc e of hi s duti e s and to SUB STI TUTE the j udgme nt of the FO RMER for that of the L ATTER.

39 of 49

The prac ti c e of DEDUC TI N G TI ME for purpose of fi l i ng MR ( for is c onsi de rati on and approval ) i s si ll part of the Pri nc i pl e of Exhausti o n of Admi re me di e s. Thi s i s i n C O N SO N AN C E w i th the Pri nc i pl e of Admi re me di e s. Thi s i s part of DP. Thi s wi l l AL L O W the Admi Age nc y to REC TI F Y i tse l f!! CN HODGES IL OIL O VS CITY OF

REVI EW as an AC T OF SUPER VI SI O N and C O N TRO L by the J usti ce Se c ove r the F i sc al s fi nds basi s i n the Doc tri ne of Exhaus ti on of Admi re me di e s w hi c h HO L DS the mi stak e s, abuse s or ne gl i ge nc e c ommi tte d i n the I NI TI AL STEPS of the Admi ac ti vi ty or by an Admi age nc y shoul d be C O RREC TED by hi ghe r admi autho ri ti e s and NOT di re c tl y by the c ourts. As a rule , onl y Afte r Admi re me di e s are e xhauste d may J UD re c ourse be all ow e d! DOCTRIN E mus t be DEFEN SE : OF EXH AUSTION IN VOKED as a

Rul e on Exhausti on of Admi Re me di e s APPL I ES onl y w he re the re i s an EX PRES S L EGAL PRO VI SI O N re qui ri ng suc h Admi ste p as a C O N DI TI ON PREC EDEN T to tak i ng Ac ti on i n C ourt. PRIN CIPL E OF PRIM ARY JURISDICTION / PREL IM IN ARY RESORT: Me ans that w he re a C L AI M i s ori gi nal l y c ogni za bl e i n the c ourts, and c ome s i nto pl ay w he ne ve r e nforc e me nt of the c l ai m re qui re s the Re sol uti on of i ssue s w hi c h, unde r a REGUL ATO RY SC HEME, have be e n pl ac e d w i thi n the Spe c i al C ompe te nc e of an Admi body, i n suc h c ase , the JUDICIAL PROCESS IS SUSPEN DED p e nd ing REFERRAL o f such is s ues t o the Admi body for i ts Re vi ew ! ( IN DUSTRI AL EN TERPRI S E) OBJECTI VE of t he PRIN CIPL E OF PREL IM IN ARY JURIS / PREL IM IN ARY RESORT O bj e c ti ve i s to GUI DE a C ourt i n de te rmi ni ng w he the r i t shoul d REF RAI N from Exe rc i si ng i ts j uri s uni tl Afte r an Admi Age nc y has de te rmi ne d some que sti on or some aspe c t of some que sti on ari si ng in the Proc e e di ng be fore the C ourt ( SMART VS N TC ) H ON ASAN II: W he re C O N C URREN T authori t y i s ve ste d w i th both the DO J and O MB UDSMAN w ho wi l l e xe rc i se Pri mary J uri s?

a. at the e arl ie st possi bl e ti me , b. e ve n B EF O RE fi li ng of an AN SW ER to the C ompl i ant or Ple adi ng asse rti ng a C l ai m, by MTD , othe rw i se , suc h Grou nd for Di smi ssal w oul d be W AVI ED ( C AL UB VS C A) i t i s DI SC RETI O N ARY upon a TC to pe rmi t an AGG RI EVED PARTY to i nsti tute a C ourt ac ti on W I THO UT fi rst Re sorti ng to an Admi Re me dy for the purpose ; w he re the re i s AL READY e xi sts a J USTIC I AB L E C O N TRO VERSY be t REAL PARTI ES asse rti ng Adve rse Le gal i nte re st, w hi c h i s RI PE FO R JUDI CI AL DETERMI N ATI O N , the re c ourse to the c ourt w oul d not be pre mature ( HO SK YN S VS N ATO N AL C I TY B AN K OF NY) M ULL ER VS PH IPPS

Page

40 of 49

Doc tri ne shoul d REST RAI N the DOJ from exe rc i si ng i ts I nve sti gati ng Authori ty i f the c ase wi l l li k el y be c ogni za bl e by the SAn di gan bay an. I n suc h c ase s, the OF C O F O MB UDSMAN shoul d be the prope r age nc y to c onduc t the PI ove r suc h an offe nse , i t be i ng ve ste d wi th the Spe c i al i ze d C ompe te nc e and undou bte dl y PRO B I L TY to c onduc t the i nve sti gati on. The PRI MARY J URI S of the O FC O F O MB UDSMAN to c onduc t PI of an offe nse w i thi n the Exc l usi ve O ri g J Uri s of Sandi gan ope rate s as a MAN DATE on the O fc of O mbuds mn, espe c i al l y w he n the pe rson unde r i nve sti gati on i s a me mbe r of C ongre ss!

F: c ase for vi ol ati on of Trade mark . RTC di smi sse d the c ase of i nj unc ti on w i th dama ge s, he nc e pe tnr appe al e d to C A w hi c h re ve rse d the TC de c i si on. Q : c an TC proc ee d wi th the he ari ng of the IN J UN C TI O N C ASE de spi te the pe nde nc y o the Admi c ase for C anc e l l ati on of Trade mark R: no. To do so w oul d be to undul y e xpand the me ani ng of the rul e on Pri mary J uri s. I f w hat i s to be rul e d upon are Q O F L AW w hi c h doe s not re qui re the Expe rti se of Admi bodi e s, it is the REGUL AR C O URTS w hi c h must he ar the c ase .

C ase s: IN DUSTRIAL EN TERPRISE IN C ( IEI ) VS CA: I EI w as gi ve n the De ve l op c oal bl oc k s. ri ght to DAR s PRIM ARY JURIS to de t e rmine and ad jud icat e AGRARIAN REFORM mat t e rs includ ing t he Det e rminat io n of JUST COM PEN SATI ON Re fe rs to ADMI proc I n ac c orda nc e wi th the pri nc i pl e that Pri mary J uri s i s ve ste d w i th the DAR to de te rmi ne i n a PREL I MI N ARY MAN N ER the JUST CO MPEN SATI O N for the l ands tak e n unde r RTC s Orig inal Juris ove r all Pe t it io ns fo r DETERM IN ATI ON OF JUST COM PEN SATIO N

L ate r the MI N OF EN ERGY e nte re d i nto a MO A w i th Mari ndu que Mi ni ng w hi c h shoul d de ve l op the are a. I EI obj e c te d, fi le d a c ase i n REg c ourt w hi c h sustai ne d hi m. C A re ve rse d the de c i si on of the TC sayi ng that the l atte r has N O j uri s to he ar the c ase . R: DO C TRI N E OF PRI MARY Re sort appl i e s i n thi s c ase be c the De ve l opme nt of C oal Are a i s W I THI N THE Te c hni c al Expe rti se of the B oard of Ene rgy De ve l opme nt offi ce to de te rmi ne . TC doe s not have the c ompe te nc e to de c i de matte rs c onc e rni ng EX PL O RATI O N , De ve l opme nt and Extrac ti on of Mi ne ral re sourc e s li k e C oal ! CON RAD AN D CO VS CA

Re fe rs J udi c i al Proc

to

Page the Agrari an Re form Program, B UT suc h de te rmi nati on is SUB J to C hal le nge Be fore the C ourts The RESO L UTI O N of J ust C ompe nsati on c ase s for the tak i ng of l ands unde r Agrari an Re form is , afte r al l , ESSEN TI AL L Y a JUDI CI AL FUN C TIO N ( L AN D B AN K VS N ATI VI DAD) RATION AL E OF TH E DOCTRIN E OF PRIM ARY RESORT Si nc e que sti ons pre se nte d re qui re TEC HIN I C AL DETERMI N ATI O N of Admi age nc i e s, w hi c h pre c l ude s PRI O R j udi c i al de te rmi nati on, C O URTS must stand ASI DE be c the y DO N O T HAVE THE EX PERTI SE of TEC HI NI C AL MATTERS ( VI LL AF L O R VS C A) Doc tri ne of PRI MARY RESO RT wi l l not appl y w he n the issue pose d i s one for DEC L ARATO RY REL I EF Re g c ourts woul d be i n the be tte r posi ti on to i nte rpre t the de l i ne ati on of ri ghts of al l parti e s ! PRI MARY I N APPL I C AB L E: RESO RT IS

41 of 49

L EGAL STAN DIN G STAN DI:

L OCUS

Pe rsonal and Substan ti al i nte re st i n the c ase, suc h that the PARTY has sustai ne d or w i ll sustai n DI REC T I NJ URY as a rEsul t of the GO VERN MEN TAL AC T that i s be i ng c hal l e nge d al l e gi ng more than a Ge ne ral i ze d Gri e vanc e ( LA BUGAL L AAN TRIBAL ASSOC) M EAN IN G OF IN TEREST Me ans MATERI AL I N TEREST, an i nte re st i n I SSUE and to be Affe c te d by the De c re e . Must be an I N TERST of the Party Pl ai nti ff that i s PERSO N AL and not base d on a De si re to Vi ndi c ate the C onsti tuti onal ri ght of some 3 r d or Unrel ate d party. Rul e re fe rs to a REAL PRESEN T substanti al i nte re st or

VS from a me re Expe c tanc y or F uture , or C onti nge nt, Subordi nate or C onse que nti al IN TEREST ( DAGADAG VS TON GN AWA) RATI O N AL E FO R REQ UI RI N G A PARTY W HO C HAL L EN GES THE C O N STI TUTIO N AL TI Y OF A STATUTE TO AL L EGE L O C US STAN DI I s to assure that c onc re te adve rse ne ss w hi c h sharpe ns the pre se ntati on of i ssue s upon w hi c h the c ourt so l arge l y dpe nds for il l umi nati on of di ffi c ul t c onsti tuti onal que sti ons ( F ARI N AS VS EX EC SEC ) C ASES: L OZ ADA VS CO MEL EC Taxpaye r has no pe rsonal i ty to sue C O MEL EC to c ompe l the l atte r to hol d a Spe c i al Ele c ti on for the I nte ri m B atasang Pambans a. Rsn: 1 . now he re i n the pe ti ti on i t al l e ge d that Tax mone y i s

W he n the SO L E I SSUE i s a. one of l aw or b. i nte rpre tati on of l aw Pri mary j uri s wi l l not l ie to transfe r proc form a c ourt of l aw to an Admi age nc y, si nc e i t i s C onsti tuti o nal l y the Assi gne d func ti on of the c ourts to i nte rpre t l aw s!

PERSONALITIES AND LEGAL STANDING TO SUE IN ADMI CASES

Page be i ng il le gal l y spe nt and the re fore it doe s not i nvol ve e xpe ndi ture of publ i c funds I T is onl y w he re the I LL EGAL EX PEN DI TURE of PUBL I C F UN DS may the so c al le d TAX PAYER sui t be al l owe d. 2 . pe tnrs do not have substa nti al i nte re st i nt e h c ase nor w i ll the y suffe r Di re c t i nj ury as a re sul t of i ts e nforc e me nt 3 . c onc re te i nj ury must be Show n not an abstrac t one or a Ge ne ral i ze d Gri e vanc e ! O PO SA VS F AC TO RAN doc tri ne of IN TERGEN E RATI O N AL RESPO N SI B I L I TY Ti mbe r L i ce nse agre e me nt. Al l ow e d to Sue i n a nature of C l ass sui t Eve ry Ge ne rati on has re sponsi l bi ty to the ne xt to pre se rve the rhyth m and harmo ny for the ful l e nj oyme nt of a B al anc e d and He al thful e c ol ogy. J O YA VS PC GG 3 5 pe tnrs 8 2 MATER PAI N TI N GS and Anti que Si l ve rw are s i n 7 1 c artons C onsi gnme nt C ontrac t w i th C hri sti e s sol d at $ 13 .3 M J oya and co have PERSO N AL I TY to fi le a c ase , NO

42 of 49

REQ FOR TAXPAYER S SUIT: 1 . que sti on must be rai se d by the PRO PER PARTY 2 . the re must be an Ac tual C ontrove rsy 3 . que sti on must be rai se d at the Earl ie st possi bl e opport uni ty and 4 . de c i si on on the C onsti tuti o nal or Le gal Q ue sti on must be ne c e ssary to the De te rmi nati on of the c ase. I n orde r that a TAX PAYER may have a STAN DI N G to c hal l e nge the L EGAL I TY of an O ffi ci al Ac t of the Govt, the Ac t be i ng que sti one d must i nvol ve DI SB URSEMEN T of publ i c funds upon the the ory that the Expe ndi tu re of publ i c funds for an Unc onsti tuti o nal ac t is MI SAPPL I C ATI O N of suc h funds, w hi c h may be e nj oi ne d at the i nstanc e of a Taxpaye r! K IL O SB AYAN VS GUI N GO N A: To pre ve nt the ON L I N E L O TTERY SYS on vari ous MO RAL and ETHI C AL c onsi de rati ons, the y have L O C US STAN DI , Thi s c ase i s an EXC EPTI O N be c of the TRAN SC EN DEN TAL I MPO RTAN C E of the i ssue s rai se d si nc e i t AF F EC TS the Soc i al , Ec onomi c and Moral w el l be i ng of the pe opl e SC adop te d an AC T OF L IB ERAL I TY i n appl i c ati on i n thi s w i se : a party s standi n g be fore thi s C ourt i s a PRO C EDURAL te c hni c al i ty w hi c h i t may, i n the e xe rc i se of i ts DI SC RETI O N , se t asi de i n vie w of the i mporta nc e of the i ssue s rai se d: ( L AN DMARK EMERGEN C Y PO W ERS C ASES) C O URT brushe d asi de thi s te c hi ni c al i ty be c the TRAN SC EN DEN TAL I MPO RTAN C E to the publ i c of the se c ase s de mands that the y be se ttl e d promp tl y and de fi ni tel y, brushi n g asi de , i f we must, Te c hni c al i ti e s of proc e dure .

The true and le gal ow ne rs of the artw ork s subj matte r of the Auc ti on must fi l e the c ase . The y do not posse ss any c l e ar Le gal ri ght si nc e the se i te ms ARE NO T CL ASSI F I ED AS C UL TURAL TREASUR ES O F THE N ATI O N. I t c annot be c onsi de re d as TAX PAYER S SUI T Thi s c an onl y PRO SPE R i f GO VERN MEN T AL AC TS be i ng que sti one d i nvol ve DI SB URSEMEN T of Publ i c F unds by an O ffi ce r of the State for the PURPO S E OF ADMI NI STERI N G an UN C O N STI TUTIO N AL AC T!

Page I nsofar as Taxpaye rs are c onc e rne d, thi s C ourt had de c l are d that i t i s not de voi d of di sc re ti on as to w/ n i t shoul d be e nte rtai ne d ( TAN VS MAC APA GAL ) O r that i t enj oys an O pe n Di sc re ti on to e nte rtai n the same or not ( SAN I DAD VS CO MEL EC T) I n li ne w i th the LI B ERAL PO L I C Y of the c ourt on L O C US STAN DI , a. ordi nary taxpa ye rs b. me mbe rs of C ongre ss c . e ve n assoc i ati on of Pl ante rs, and d. non- profi t c i vi c org we re allo we d to Init iat e and p ros e cut e act io ns be fore the c ourt to que sti on the C onsti or Val i di ty of the L aw , ac ts, de c i si ons, rul i ng or orde rs of vari ous Govt age nc i e s or I nstrume ntal i ti e s. Amon g we re: 1 . RA 38 26 it al l ow s Re ti re me nt Gratui ti e s and c ommut ati on of Vac ati on and Si c k l e ave to Se nators and House Re p and to El e c ti ve offi c i al s of B oth house s of c ongre ss ( PHI L CO N SA) 2 . EO 2 84 C , aqui no al l owe d me mbe rs of C abi ne t, the i r unde r Se c and Assts Se c to hol d othe r govt offi c e s or posi ti ons ( CI VI L L IB ERTI ES) 3 . AUTO MATI C appro pri ati on of dEbt se rvi c e i n the GAA ( GUI N GO N A VS C ARAGUE) 4 . RA 7 05 6 on the hol di ng of De sync hroni ze d el ec ti osn ( O SMEN A) 5 . PD 18 69 ( c harte r of PAGC O R) on the ground that it is c ontrary to moral s, publ i c pol i c y and orde r ( B ASC O VS PAGC O R) 6 . RA 69 75 e stabl i shi ng the PN P ( C ARPI O VS EX EC SEC ) O THER C ASES w he re w e have fol l ow e d a LI B ERAL PO LI C Y 6. 5. 4. 2.

43 of 49

re gardi ng LO C US STAN DI i nc l ude those attac k i ng the Val i di ty or L e gal i ty of: 1. an O rde r al l ow i ng an I MPO RTAI O N of ri ce i n the l i ght of the prohi bi ti o n i mpose d by RA 35 42 ( IL OI L O PAL AY) PD 99 1 and 1 03 3 i nsofar as the y propose d ame ndme nts to the C onsti and PD 1 03 1 i nsofar as it di re c te d the C O MEL EC to supe rvi se , c ontrol , hol d and c onduc t the REF EREN DUM PL EB I SCI TE on O c 16 , 1 97 9 ( SAN I DAD VS C O MEL EC ) bi ddi n g for the sal e of the 3 , 1 79 sq m of l and at Ropon ggi ( L AUREL VS GARC I A) approv al W I THO UT he ari ng by the B oard of IN VESTMEN T of the ame nde d appl i c ati on of the B ataan Pe trol e um C he mi c al C orp to transfe r the si te of i ts pl ant from B ataan to B atngas and the val i di ty fo suc h transfe r and the shi ft to Fe e dstoc k from N APTHA onl y and or L i qui e fie d pe trol e um gas ( GARC I A VS B O ARD OF I N VESTMEN T) de c i si ons, orde rs, rul i ng and re so of EX EC SEC , Se c of F i nanc e , BI R C O MM, B OC and F isc al I nc e nti ve Re vi e w B oard EX EMPTI N G N APO C O R from I ndi re c t tax and duti e s ( MAC EDA VS MAC AR AI G) orde r of ERB on the groun d that the he ari ngs c onduc te d on the 2 N D PRO VI SI O N AL I NC REA SE i n oi l pri c e s di d not al l ow the pe tnr Subs tanti al C ross

3.

Page Exami nati o n ( MAC EDA VS ERB ) 7. EO 47 8 w hi c h le vie d a SPEC I AL DUTY of . 95 C EN TS pe r li te r of I mporte d oi l prod uc ts re so of the CO MEL EC c onc e rni ng the Appor ti onme n t, by Di stri c t of the numbe r of El e c ti ve me mbe rs of San ggu ni ans ( DE GUI A) MEMO orde rs issue d by a Mayor affe c ti ng the C hi e f of Pol i ce of Pasay REso of C O MEL EC aardi n a c ontrac t for the Autom ati on of the C ounti n g and C anvassi n g of the B al l ots i n the 2 00 4 El e c ti ons ( IN FO RMATI O N TEC HN O L O GY F O UN DATIO N OF THE PHI L S EO 1 85 autho ri zi ng Se c of L abor to Exe rc i se Admi supe rvi si on ove r the N L RC , i ts Re gi onal branc he s and pe rsonne l

44 of 49

DI SSEN TI N G J . REG AL ADO : 1 . l aw of the c ase pri nc i pl e must be fol l owe d ( STARE DEC I SI S ) 2 . C O LL ATERAL ESTO PPEL l ie s me ani ng AL L REL EVAN T i ssue s fi nal l y adj udge d i n the PRI O R JUDGMEN T shal l be C ON C L USI VE be t the parti e s. 3 . c ase shoul d be de c i de d on the Me ri ts and not on the TEc hi ni c al i ti e s. MAYO R has the Re al and Subs tanti al Evi de nc e in the outc ome of Admi C ase s agai nst MUN EE: B ec : 1 . w he n he orde r the suspe nsi on or di smi ssal of mUn ee on the groun ds he be li e ve s to be prope r but hi s orde r i s re ve rse d or nul l i fi e d by the C SC or the C A, he has the ri ght to c onte st suc h adve rse rul i ng. Hi s ri ght to appe al fl ow s from the fac t that hi s powe r to appoi n t c arri e s w i th i t the pow e r to re move . 2 . the sal arie s of Re sponde nt s be i ng MUn offi c i al s are draw n from Mun funds, he nc e, MAYO R has Re al and Subs tan ti al i nte re st ti n the outc ome of Admi c ase s agai nst the REsp.

8.

9.

1 0.

1 1.

K IL O S B AYAN VS MO RATO Pe ti ti on to de cl are EQ UI PMEN T L EASE AGREEMEN T ( EL A) of l otte ry mac hi ne s i nval i d. R: EL A i s di ff from the C of L e ase Pe ti ti one rs do not show w hat parti c ul ari ze d i nte re st the y have for bri ngi n g thi s sui t. B esi de s, the re is no al l e gati on that publ i c funds are be i ng unl aw ful l y spe nt to j usti fy that the ac ti on must be prose c ute d i nt e h name of the Re al Party i n i nte re st. In AC TI ON S FO R AN N UL MEN T OF C O N TRAC TS, the REAL PARTI ES are those w ho are PRI N C I PAL L Y or Subsi di ari l y pre j udi c e d i n the i r ri ghts and show de tri me nt w hi c h w oul d re sul t to the m.

MO DES OF REVI EW 2 PRIN CIPL ES IN TH E JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADM I CASES: 1 . that be fore the ac ti on i n the c ourts of j usti ce c an be ente rtai ne d, i t must be show n that AL L the Admi re me di e s have be e n Exhaus te d. 2 . that Admi de c i si on sought to be re vie we d c an onl y be REVO K ED or REVERS ED i f the Admi offi c i al or Tri bunal s c ommi tte d GRO S S AN D GRAVE AB USE O F DI SC RETI O N , w hi c h i s EQ UI VAL EN T to a

Page C apri c i ous and W hi msi c al e xe rc i se of j udgme nt or W HERE the pow e r is e xe rc i se d Arbi trary and De spoti c manne r by REASO N OF passi on, pre j udi c e or pe rsonal hosti l i ty AMO UN TI N G to an EVASI O N of Posi ti ve duty e nj oi ne d, or to a VI RTUAL REF USAL to pe rform the duty e nj oi ne d, or to AC T at all i n C ON TEMPL ATI O N of the l aw that the re i s J usti fi c ati on for the c ourts se tti ng asi de the Admi de c i si on re ac he d ( J AO I GC O VS SHUSTE R) c ourts as a rule , REF USE to i nte rfe re w i th proc e e di ngs unde rtak e n by Admi age nc i e s or offi c i al s i n the e xe rc i se of Admi func ti ons. How e ve r, ADMI PRO C may be Re vi ew e d by the c ourts upon show i ng that the B oard or O ffi c i al has GO N E B EYO N D hi s Statu tory authori ty or c l e arl y ac te d arbi trari l y ( OZ AETA VS O IL I NDUSTRY C O MM ) REMEDI ES on Appe al provi de d unde r RO C are appl i c abl e i n Admi c ase s. 1 . C ERTI O RARI W ri ng i ssue d by the Supe ri or C ourt to an I NF ERI O R C O URT, B O DY O R O FF I C ER e xe rci si ng J ud or Q uasi J ud func ti on w he re by the re c ord of a PARTI C UL AR C ASE i s orde re d to be EL EVATED F O R REVI EW and C orre c ti on i n matte rs of l aw ( r65 S 1 ) JUD REVIEW OF TH E DECISION OF AN OFFICIAL OR ADM I AGEN CY PROPER: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. i n c ase of L ACK O F J URI S e rror of l aw grave abuse of di sc re ti on fraud or c ol l usi on i n c ase of Admi De c i si on i s C orrupt, Arbi trary or C apri c i ous

45 of 49

2 . to c ompl y w i th the syste m of C he c k s and B al anc e s w hi c h i s a LI MI TATO N on the Se parati on of Powe rs in orde r to fore stal l arbi trary and unj ust adj udi c ati o n. C ERTI O RARI appl i e s to Admi De c i si on i n the hi ghe st l e ve l e ve n if re nde re d BY AUTHO RI TY OF THE PRES . The sac rame ntal phrase doe s not i nhi bt the c ourt from re ve rsi ng the m w he n W arrante d by a Cl e ar Show i ng of Grave abuse of di sc re ti on ( DE L EO N VS HEI RS OF GREGO RI O REYES) 2 . PRO HI B I TI O N ( r6 5 S 2) PRIN CIPAL PURPOSE WRIT OF PROH IBITION OF

Is to PREVEN T the EN C RO AC HMEN T , e xc e ss, usurp ati on or Assum pti on of J uri s on the part of an I nfe ri or c ourt or Q uasi -J udi c i al tri bun al ( L O N GIN O VS GEN ) 3 . MAN DAMU S r 65 s 3 B L AN CO VS BO ARD O F MEDI C AL EX AMI N ERS F : the re w as a LEAK AGE i n the e xami nati on for physi c i ans, so the Se c of I N te rei or w i thhe l d the re le ase of the re sul ts of the e xami nati on. He w as c ompe l le d by Mandam us to do so, i s i t the prope r re me dy? R: N O . Manda mus W IL L N O T I SSUE to C ontrol or Re vie w the exe rc i se of DI SC RETI O N of a publ i c offi c e r. I t i s the DI SC RETI O N ARY duty of the Se c of Inte ri or to c onfi rm the re port of the Me di c al Exami ne r. N G GI O C LI U VS SEC OF DF A The de te rmi nati on of w he the r an appl i c ati on for Vi sa has a NO N I MMI GRAN T STATU S and hi s EN TRY to the c ountry w oul d be c ontrary to publ i c safe ty i s N O T A SI MPL E MI N I STERI AL F UN C TI O N .

2 PURPOSES OF ADM I REVIEW IN ADM I M ATTERS: 1 . to ke e p the Admi age nc y w i thi n i ts j uri s and prote c t substa nti al ri hts of parti e s affe c te d by the De c i si on

Page I t i nvol ve s the Exe rc i se of DI SC RETI O N he nc e not c ontrol l e d by Manda mus! 4 . DEC L ARATO RY RELI EF R 63 S 1 PURPOSE REL IEF: OF DECL ARA TORY

46 of 49

Hondo oppose d the appl i c ati on. Pate nts O ffi c e rul e d i n favor of Pe tne r. H fil e d be fore RTC of Ri zal a C ase for Annul me nt of the Orde r of the Pate nt O ffi ce . R: RTC c annot i ssue an I nj unc ti on agai nst the Pate nts O ffi c e. I nj unc ti on c an be i ssue d AGAI N ST a c ourt onl y by AN O THER C O URT that is SUPERI O R i n rank . Matte rs de te rmi ni ng w he the r a Co is DUMMY CO RP shoul d be thre she d out i n the Admi Body and NO T i n the PRO HI B I TI O N Proc in Re gul ar C ourt ( MATUGUI N A I N TEGRATED W O O D PRO DUC TS) C O LL EC TO R VS REYES GR: NI RC prohi bi ts C O URTS i n granti n g PRO HI BI TIO N to re strai n the C ol le c ti on of any I nte rnal Re ve nue tax. EX C EPTI ON : L aw authori ze s C TA to SUSPEN D at any stage of the proc w he n the same may J EO PARDI Z E the i nte re st of the Govt or Taxpaye r provi de d that the TAX PAYER e i the r De posi ts the amount c l ai me d or Fi le s a Sure ty bon d of NO T more than DO UB L E the amou nt.

To provi de for adj udi c ati on of l e gal ri ghts, duti e s and status of the Re spe c ti ve parti e s. I t shoul d be fil e d be fore i n c ourt B EFO RE the re i s B re ac h of L aw ! DEC L ARATO RY REL I EF WI L L N O T APPL Y IN ADMI C ASES: 1 . i t doe s not appl y i n c ase s w he re TAX PAYER que sti on hi s li abi l i ty for the PAYMEN T of tax, duty or c harge , c ol l e c ti ble unde r any l aw admi ni ste re d by B OC or B I R ( N ATI O N AL DEN TAL SUPPL Y) 2 . not prope r to de te rmi ne F IL C i ti ze nshi p be c i t i s the Re gul ar C ourts that has j uri s to do so ( AZ AJ AR) 5 . HAB EAS C O RPUS 6 . I NJ UN C TIO N An Extraordi na ry re me dy c al c ul ate d to pre se rve the Statu s Q uo of thi ngs and to Pre ve nt ac tual or thre ate ne d ac ts vi ol ati ve of the rul e s of Equi ty and good c onsc i e nc e as w oul d c onse que ntl y afford an I nj ure d party a C O A re sul ti ng from the fai l ure of the l aw to provi de for an Ade quate or C ompl e te Re li e f. H ON DA Pe tnr c l ai ms Manuf ac ture r motorc yc l e s. KABUSH IKI: that of it is the Hondo

EXTENT REVIEW

OF

JUDICIAL

VI VO VS MO N TESA L aw s C re ati ng Admi age nc i e s and provi de d for J ud Re vi ew may IN DIC ATE THE SC O PE of that re vi ew . W he the r the C ourts may i nqui re i nto Q of L aw , Q of F ac t or B oth, as w el l as of ADMI DI SC RETI O N w i ll DEPEN D on the EN ABL I N G AC T. B asi c thoug h that J UDI C I AL REVI EW of the Admi De c i si on may be all ow e d onl y AF TER j udgme n t has be e n c ompl e te d. RUL ES:

H cl ai ms that he i s NO T the sol e i mporte r of Honda Motorc yc l e s and that he eve n re gi ste re d i n hi s name the trade mark HM, HO N DA and be l ie ve d that he is the le gal ow ne r of the trade mark .

Page 1. Q OF L AW are alw ays REVI EW AB L E by the C ourts of L aw FI N DI N GS OF F AC TS, if base d on SUB STAN TI AL EVI DEN C E, are CO N C L USI VE and BI N DI N G on the c ourts i f the De c i si on of a c ase i s DI SC RETI O N ARY on the part of the Admi Age nc y,

47 of 49

J UDI C I AL REVI EW I S NO T AL L O W ED W he n w hat i s ask e d to be re vie w e d i s an I NQ UI RY i nto L EGI SL TI VE MO TI VATI O N on a gi ve n subj e c t matte r! ( PI SA VS C A) Eve n de c i si ons of Admi age nc i e s w hi c h are de c l are d F IN AL by l aw ARE NO T EX EMPT from the J udi c i al Re vie w w he n so w arrante d, espe c i al l y w he n the re i s N O SUB STAN TI AL basi s for an Admi Age nc y upon w hi c h i t base s i ts de c i si on ( CO SEP VS N L RC ) I t i s unde rstoo d that as to ADMI age nc y e xe rci si ng Q uasi J udi c i al or L e gi sl ati ve pow e r the re is an unde rl yi ng powe r i n the c ourts to sc ruti ni ze the ac ts of suc h age nc i e s on Q of l aw and J uri sdi c ti on e ve n thoug h no ri ght of Re vie w i s gi ve n by the Statu te ( SMC VS SEC O F L AB O R ) O THER de pt or Gov C AN N O T de c i si on of SC ! Age nc y of REVI EW the the

2.

3.

C O URTS c an re vie w if the de c i si on is atte nde d w i th Pre j udi c e , C apri c i ousne ss and Grave Abuse of Di sc re ti on amoun ti ng to L ac k or Exc e ss of J uri s by the Admi Authori ty ( MAX I MO VS C A) 4. Q UESTI O N of JURI SDI C TI ON are al w ays Re vie w abl e as the y go i nto the Q ue sti on of Authori ty and Pow e r to De c i de . Q O F F AC T Q ue sti on ne ce ssari l y i nvi te s C ali brati on of the w hole evi de nc e c onsi de ri ng mai nl y the C REDIB I L TY O F THE WI TN ESSSE S, Exi ste nc e, Re le vanc y of Spe c i fi c surroundi ng c i rc umstanc e s, the i r REL ATI O N to e ac h othe r and to the w hole and the Probabi l i ti e s of the Si tutati on, the Q must be dee me d F AC TUAL for the Appe al s C ourt to re sol ve ( LIM C AL AGUAS) VS

Q O F L AW W he re the e vi d is PUREL Y DOC UMEN TARY, the Authe nti c i ty of w hi c h i s N O T que sti one d and onte the I SSUE is the CO N STRUC TI O N to be pl ac e d the re on, or W he re the c ase is submi t te d upon an Agre e me nt of F ac ts, or W he re the F ac ts are State d i n the J udgme nt and the Issue i s the C orre c tne ss of the C onc l usi on draw n the re on, the Q ue sti on i s one of L AW w hi c h may be re vi e we d by the SC ( J O ACQ UI N VS N AVARRO )

B ec SC i s the Hi ghe st arbi te r of LEGAL Q UESTI O N S. To al l ow re vi ew of i ts de c i si on by the OTHER DEPT of Gvot w oul d upse t the c l assi c patte rn of Se parati o n of Pow e rs and De stroy the bal anc e be t the J udi c i ary and othe r De pt of Govt. As j usti ce s i n the i r Answ e r to the c ompl ai nt for I mpe ac hme nt i n the C omm on J usti c e i n the HO USE: j ust as i t i s c ompl e te l y unac c e ptabl e to fi le c harge s agai nst the i ndi vi dual me mbe rs fo the C ong for the l aw s e nac te d by the m upon the argu me nt that the se l aw s are vi ol ati ve of the C onsti or are B ETRAYAL of publ i c trust or are Unj ust, so too, shoul d i t be Equal l y I MPERMI SSI B L E to mak e the I NDVL me mbe r of the SC ac c ount abl e for the CO URT S DEC I SI ON or RUL I N GS!! Q OF L AW : W he n doubt or di ffe re nc e ari se s as to w hat the L AW i s on c e rtai n State of F ac ts, and w hi c h

Page DO ES not c al l for an Exami nati o n of the PRO B ATI VE VAL UE of the e vi d pre se nte d by the parti e sl i ti gants ( TRAVER SE DEV CO RP) Q OF F AC T: I ssue s i nvol ve d i s w he the r a C e rtai n thi ng e xi sts or w he the r an eve nt has tak e n pl ac e or w hi c h of the 2 ve rsi ons i s c orre c t. Q of F ac t i s, as a GR the c onc e rn sol el y of an Admi body, so l ong as the re i s Subst anti al Evi de nc e of Re c ord to sustai n i ts ac ti on ( IN TER O RI EN T) standar ds or L ac k of Evi de nti ary support and Q ue sti ons of wi sdom, propri e tary or expe ndi e nc y are for the Age nc y and N O T for the c ourts. Thus, Ac ti on by Admi Age nc y may be se t asi de by the J UD DEPT onl y i f the re i s an 1. e rror of l aw 2. abuse of pow e r 3. l ac k of j ursi or grave abuse of di sc re ti on cl e arl y CO N FL I C TI N G wi th the Le tte r and Spi ri t of the l aw

48 of 49

di sc re ti on. I t i s a Si mpl e De fi ni te duty ari si ng unde r c ondi ti ons admi tte d or prove d to exi st and i mpose d by l aw. De fi ne d as one pe rforme d i n re sponse to a duty, w hi c h has be e n PO SI TI VEL Y i mpose d by l aw and i ts pe rformanc e re qui re d at a ti me and i n a manne r to pe rform unde r the c ondi ti ons spe c i fie d NO T be i ng de pe nde nt upon the O ffi ce r s j udgme nt or Di sc re ti on B US CO VS

Q OF DI SC RETI O N : DI SC RETI O N : I s the powe r C HO IC E amon g ac ti ons or pol i c ie s. to mak e a pe rmi ssi ve

Ve ry e sse nc e of a Di sc re ti onary Powe r i s that the PERSO N / S e xe rc i si ng i t may C HO O SE w hi c h of SEVE RAL C O URSES shoul d be fol l ow e d. DI SC RETI O N may be de fi ne d, w he n appl i e d to PUB LI C F UN C TI O N ARI ES as the pow e r or ri ght c onfe rre d upon the m by l aw of ac ti ng offi c i al l y unde r C e rtai n ci rc umsta nc e s, ac c ordi ng to the di c tate s of the i r ow n j udgme n t and c onsc i e nc e and NO T CO N TRO L L ED by the J UDGMEN T OF OTHERS. JUDI CI AL REVI EW OF ADMI DI SC RETI O N SUB STI TUTI O N OF J UDIC I AL DI SC RETI O N OF ADMI NI STRATI VE DI SC RETI O N MIN I STERI AL DUTY Is one re spe c t w hi c h NO TI HIN G le ft in to is to

L AGUN A PSC :

TAYAB AS

He l d: ERRO N EO US appre c i ati on of the si gni fi c anc e of the c ompu ti ng fac ts l ai d be fore the C omm DO ES NO T MEAN that i t had abuse d i ts di sc re ti on. W el l e stabl i she d i s the SC wi l l N O T SUB STI TUTE i ts j udgme nt for that of the C ommi ssi on and that i ts orde rs shoul d be REVE RSED onl y if WI THO UT REASO N AB L E support in the Evi de nc e or Re nde re d agai nst the l aw or i ssue d wi thout Juri s. C ourts may i nqui re i nto val i di ty of Admi ac ti ons w he re the re has be e n fai l ure of the age nc y c onc e rne d to i nte rpre t and appl y the statory provi si ons of the c ase ( BEGO SA) EN F O RC EMEN T O F DEC I SIO N OF ADMI B O DI ES

Q ue sti ons of PO LI C Y or DI SC RETI O N are re vi e w abl e onl y for UN REASO N AB L EN ESS, de parture from statut ory

Page Admi DETERMI N ATI O N are e nforc e abl e onl y i n the manne r provi de d by statute . I f the STATUTE has fai l e d to provi de the re me dy for the i r e nforc e me nt, the y are UN EN F O RC EAB L E. I n the AB SEN C E of a STATUTE, Admi authori ti e s may NO T EN F O RC E the i r ow n de te rmi nati on B UT statute s fre que ntl y i nve st the m w i th the Pow e r of Enforc e me nt k now n as ADMI N I STRATI VE EN F O RC EMEN T. METHO DS of suc h ENF O RC EMETN i nc l ude the ff: 1 . foc usi ng on publ i c opi ni on 2 . re voc ati on , suspe nsi on or re fusal to Re ne w li c e nse s 3 . re fusal to grant c le aranc e doc ume nt s to shi ps 4 . w i thhol di ng or de nyi ng of be ne fi ts 5 . i mposi ng c ondi ti ons, se i zure and sale of de struc ti on of prope rty 6 . e xc l usi on and de portati o n of al i e ns 7 . suspe nsi on or of C e rti fi c ate c onve ni e nc e re voc ati on of Publ i c C O URT K N OW N EN F O RC EMEN T DUL AY: AS

49 of 49
J UDI C I AL

Se ttl e d that de c i si ons and orde rs of Admi age nc i e s pursu ant to the i r Q UASI - JUDI CI AL authori t y have , upon the i r fi nal i ty, the F O RC E and bi ndi ng e ffe c t of a Fi nal j udgme nt wi thi n the purvi e w of RES J UDI C ATA. Thi s rul e FO RB I DS the REO PEN I N G of a matte r onc e J udi c i al l y de te rmi ne d by C ompe te nt authori ty appl i e s as w el l to the J udi c i al and Q uasi J udi c ai l ac ts of Publ i c , Exe c uti ve and Admi offi c e rs and Boards ac ti ng w i thi n the i r j uri s.

8 . i mposi ti on and c ol le c ti on of pe nal ti e s and c harge s by the BI R 9 . i mposi ti on forfe i ture s 1 0. of Admi fi ne s

summar y di strai nt of Pe rsonal prope rty or L e vy of Re al prop for non payme nt of i nte rnal re ve nue taxe s and summar y of nui sanc e s abate me nt

1 1.

EX C EPT as may be provi de d by STATUTE, Admi Bodi e s ge ne ral l y have no pow e r to e nforc e the i r de ci si on or orde r B UT SUC H de c i si on or orde rs may be e nforce d onl y by the