Admin Law Flashcards
Define Quasi-legislative power.
This is the exercise of delegated legislative power, involving no discretion as to what the law shall be, but merely the authority to fix the details in the execution or enforcement of a policy set out in the law itself.
the Supreme Court said that quasi-legislative power is the power to make rules and regulations xxx
Is the contention that Administrative Order No. 308 (prescribing a National Computerized Identification Reference System) merely implements the Administrative Code of 1987 valid?
An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of Government. It cannot be argued that Administrative Order No. 308 (prescribing a National Computerized Identification Reference System) merely implements the Administrative Code of 1987. Such a national computerized identification reference system requires a delicate adjustment of various contending State policies, the primacy of national security, the extent of privacy against dossiergathering by the Government, and the choice of policies. It deals with a subject which should be covered by a law, not just an administrative order [Ople v. Torres, 293 SCR A 141].
Kinds of Administrative Rules or Regulations
a) Supplementary or detailed legislation. They are rules and regulations “to fix the details” in the execution and enforcement of a policy set out in the law, e.g., Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code.
Interpretative legislation. They are rules and regulations construing or interpreting the provisions of a statute to be enforced and they are binding on all concerned until they are changed, e.g., BIR Circulars, CB circulars, etc..
- They have the effect of law and are entitled to great respect; they have in their favor the presumption of legality [Gonzalez v. Land Bank, 183 SCRA 520].
- The erroneous application of the law by public officers does not bar a subsequent correct application of the law [Manila Jockey Club v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103533, December 15, 1998].
c) Contingent legislation. They are rules and regulations made by an administrative authority on the existence of certain facts or things upon which the enforcement of the law depends. See: Cruz v. Youngberg, 56 Phil 234.
Requisites for validity of Rules and Regulation
a) Issued under authority of law.
b) Within the scope and purview of the law.
c) Reasonable
d) Publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation
EXCEPTION: Interpretative rules and regulations, or those merely internal in nature, or the so-called letters of instruction may be simply posted in conspicuous places in the agency itself.
[Tanada v. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446],
Rule on the Validity of DAR Adm. Circular No. 9, which allowed the opening of a trust account in behalf of the landowner as compensation for the property taken
Within the scope and purview of the law
In Land Bank v. Court of Appeals, 249 SCRA 149, the Court nullified DAR Adm. Circular No. 9, which allowed the opening of a trust account in behalf of the landowner as compensation for the property taken, because Sec. 16 (e), R.A. 6657, is specific that the deposit must be made in “cash” or in “Land Bank bonds”. The implementing regulation cannot outweigh the clear provision of the law.
Is the rule authorizing the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to promulgate a manual without the approval of the Secretary of Justice valid?
Within the scope and purview of the law
R.A. 8171 empowers the Secretary of Justice, in conjunction with the Secretary of Health and the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, to issue the necessary implementing rules and regulations. The rules, however, authorized the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to prepare a manual setting forth the details of the proceedings prior to, during and after the administration of the lethal injection on the convict. Because the rule did not provide for the approval of the said manual by the Secretary of Justice, considering that the Bureau of Corrections is merely a constituent unit of the Department of Justice and it is the Secretary of Justice who is granted rule-making authority under the law, the rule authorizing the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to promulgate said manual is invalid being an abdication of responsibility by the Secretary of Justice [Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, October 12, 1998].
Is a rule that provided that the death penalty shall not be inflicted upon a woman within three years next following the date of the sentence or while she is pregnant was declared valid?
Within the scope and purview of the law
In the same case, Sec. 17 of the rules and regulations implementing R.A. 8171 which provided that the death penalty shall not be inflicted upon a woman within three years next following the date of the sentence or while she is pregnant was declared invalid, the same being an impermissible contravention of Sec. 83 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that the death penalty shall not be inflicted upon a woman while she is pregnant or within one year after delivery.
Will the reissuance of the CCC and its submission for publication cure the defect of non-publication
Publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation, as provided in Executive Order No. 200
in Caltex (Philippines) Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 292 SCRA 273. Likewise, in Philippine International Trading Corporation v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 132593, June 25, 1999, it was held that the DBM Corporate Compensation Circular (DBM-CCC) No. 10, which completely disallows payment of allowances and other additional compensation to government officials and employees starting November 1, 1989, is not a mere interpretative or internal regulation, and must go through the requisite publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation. The reissuance of the CCC and its submission for publication per letter to the National Printing Office on March 9, 1999, will not cure the defect precisely because publication is a condition precedent to its effectivity.
Will the publication of DOLE Department Order No. 16-91 and POEA Memorandum Circulars Nos. 30 and 37 in the official gazette make it valid?
Publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation, as provided in Executive Order No. 200
EXCEPTION:
In Philippine Association of Service Exporters v. Torres, 212 SCRA 298, DOLE Department Order No. 16-91 and POEA Memorandum Circulars Nos. 30 and 37, while recognized as valid exercise of police power as delegated to the executive department, were declared legally invalid, defective and unenforceable for lack of proper publication and filing in the Office of the National Administrative Register (as required by Art. 5, Labor Code of the Philippines).
Rule on the validity of the cancellation of the petitioner’s license to recruit workers for overseas work because the Revised Rules of Penalties had not been filed with the University of the Philippines Law Center as required by the Administrative Code of 1987
Publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation, as provided in Executive Order No. 200
However,
In Transaction Overseas Corporation v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 109583, September 5, 1997, on the question of the validity of the cancellation of the petitioner’s license to recruit workers for overseas work because the Revised Rules of Penalties had not been filed with the University of the Philippines Law Center as required by the Administrative Code of 1987, the Supreme Court said that the Revised Rules of Penalties did not prescribe additional rules governing overseas employment but merely detailed the administrative sanctions for prohibited acts. Besides, the cancellation of the license was made under authority of Art. 35 of the Labor Code, not pursuant to the Revised Rules of Penalties.
Administrative rules with penal sanctions; additional requisites
a) The law must itself declare as punishable the violation of the administrative rule or regulation. See People v. Maceren, 79 SCRA 450.
b) The law should define or fix the penalty for the violation of the administrative rule or regulation.
Is notice and hearing required for Revenue Memo Circular No. 37-93 which provided a new tax rate upon the cigarettes to be valid?
When an administrative rule substantially adds to or increases the burden of those concerned, an administrative agency must accord those directly affected a chance to be heard before its issuance. In this case, prior to the issuance of Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 37-93, the cigarettes manufactured by the respondent were in the category of locally-manufactured cigarettes not bearing a foreign brand. Had it not been for Revenue Memo Circular No. 37-93, the enactment of R.A. 7654 would not have resulted in a new tax rate upon the cigarettes manufactured by the respondent. The BIR did not simply interpret the law; it exercised quasi-legislative authority, and the requirements of notice, hearing and publication should not have been ignored. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals
does prescribing rates require notice and hearing?
In Philippine Consumers Foundation v. Secretary, DECS, 153 SCRA 622, it was held that the function of prescribing rates by an administrative agency may be either a legislative or an adjudicative function. If it were a legislative function, the grant of prior notice and hearing to the affected parties is not a requirement of due process. As regards rates prescribed by an administrative agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial function, prior notice and hearing are essential to the validity of such rates. Where the rules and the rates are meant to apply to all enterprises of a given kind throughout the country, they may partake of a legislative character. But if they apply exclusively to a particular party, based upon a finding of fact, then its function is quasi-judicial in character.
Is a provisional increase of electrical charges allowed without hearing?
In Maceda v. Energy Regulatory Board, 192 SCRA 363, the Supreme Court declared that while under Executive Order No. 172, a hearing is indispensable, it does not preclude the Board from ordering, ex parte, a provisional increase subject to its final disposition of whether or not to make it permanent, to reduce or increase it further, or to deny the application. Sec. 3 (e) is akin to a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary attachment issued by the court, which are given ex parte, and which are subject to the resolution of the main case.
Is writ of prohibition the proper remedy to assail Implementing Rules and Regulations?
A petition for prohibition is not the proper remedy to assail Implementing Rules and Regulations issued in the exercise of quasilegislative functions. Prohibition is an extraordinary writ directed against any board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, ordering said entity or person to desist from further proceedings when the said proceedings are without or in excess of jurisdiction, or is accompanied by grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Thus, prohibition lies against the exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, not against legislative or quasi-legislative functions
When does an administrative body have the power of contempt.
Power to punish contempt must be expressly granted to the administrative body; and when so granted, may be exercised only when administrative body is actually performing quasi-judicial functions. See Guevara v. Commission on Elections,
Quasi-judicial or adjudicatory power
Proceedings partake of the character of judicial proceedings. Administrative body is normally granted the authority to promulgate its own rules of procedure, provided they do not increase, diminish or modify substantive rights, and subject to disapproval by the Supreme Court [Sec. 5(5), Art VIII, Constitution], The requisites of procedural due process must be complied with.
Requisites of Administrative due process
The requisites of administrative due process, as enumerated in Ang Tibay v. CIR, 40 O.G. 7th Supp. 129 are:
i) Right to a hearing;
ii) Tribunal must consider evidence presented;
iii) Decision must have something to support itself;
iv) Evidence must be substantial;
v) Decision must be based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties;
vi) The Board or its judges must act on its or their independent consideration of the facts and the law of the case, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision.
vii) Decision must be rendered in such a manner that the parties to the controversy can know the various issues involved and the reasons for the decision rendered.
