I. HISTORICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Flashcards
“Administrative Law”
Administrative law is the law concerning the POWERS AND PROCEDURES of administrative agencies, including specially the law governing judicial review of administrative actions [K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise 1 (1958), cited in DE LEON].
It has been defined as the “entire system of laws under which the machinery of the State works and by which the State performs all government acts…”
“Administrative Agencies”
Any GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY OTHER than the court and other than a legislative body, which affects the rights of private parties through either adjudication or rule making, and primarily ENFORCEMENT (Davis) Administrative agencies can assume many labels such as commission, board, authority, office. It is not always labeled as an agency.
“Agency” includes any department, bureau, office, commission, authority or officer of the National Government AUTHORIZED BY LAW OR EXECUTIVE ORDER to make rules, issue licenses, grant rights or privileges, and adjudicate cases; research institutions with respect to licensing functions; government corporations with respect to functions regulating private right, privileges, occupation or business; and officials in the exercise of disciplinary power as provided by law. [Sec. 2(1), Book VII, Admin Code.]
Types of administrative agencies
- Statutory agencies – created by law (ex. NLRC, SEC, PAGCOR)
- Constitutional agencies – created by the Constitution. Since they are created by the Congress, they are considered as independent and can only be abolished or modified through a constitutional amendment (ex. CSC, COA, CHR)
- Agency by Executive Orders/Authorities of Law (ex. PCGG)
There are certain factors to be considered in prescribing rules:
(a) Admin agencies are NOT bound by the same technical rules of procedure and evidence followed in regular courts;
(b) Agencies are created to deal with specific problems.
Basic principles when it comes to rule-making power of agencies
- Legislature should only provide minimum guidelines but still in conformity with requirements of PROPER LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION.
- Judicial review is the most effective form of control but generally the courts will not interfere unless there has been a grave abuse of discretion
Powers of administrative agencies
“QQ DEDDES”
- Quasi-legislative (Rule-making)
- Quasi-judicial (Adjudicatory)
- Determinative powers
a. Enabling powers
b. Directing powers
i. Dispensing powers
ii. Examining powers
iii. Summary powers
Can the legislature delegate its discretionary powers?
YES. The legislature may delegate its powers through subordinate legislation limited by the principle delegata potestas non potest delegari (no delegated powers can be further delegated).
The National Assembly delegated its administrative function, which involves discretion, to the Public Service Commission through C.A. No. 454.
Statutes regulating public utilities are an exercise of police power because these are vested with public interest. [Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. v. The Public Service Commission, G.R. No. 47065, 26 June 1940]
Is the promulgation of rules and regulations a law-making power?
Promulgation of rules and regulations in the use of national roads and conduct of traffic is an ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION and not a law-making power.
Law-making power in itself cannot be delegated but executory powers (ex. promulgation of rules) may be delegated.
The authority delegated to the Director and Secretary of Public Works and Communications is merely to enforce legislative policy to promote safe transit on national roads and close them temporarily when need arises for reasons of public interest. [Calalang v. Williams, et al., G.R. No. 47800, 2 December 1940]
Can the SC exercise powers outside of its judicial powers?
NO. The Supreme Court exercises judicial power ONLY. Its members should not and cannot be required to exercise powers unrelated to the administration of its judicial functions.
An exercise of its jurisdiction under the Organic Law contemplates jurisdiction acting as a court and not as a board of arbitrators. A board is not a court. It is improper and illegal for the SC to act on petitioner’s request since they would open themselves up to reviewing their own decisions. [Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Transportation Company, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 37878, 25 November 1932]
Can the President reorganize the different executive departments?
YES. The President has the power to reorganize different executive departments, bureaus, offices, agencies, and instrumentalities of the government, including banking or financial institutions and corporations owned or controlled by it. (R.A. No. 5435)
While not specifically provided for in the Constitution, reorganization is a power traditionally lodged in the President to enable supervision of the LGUs and direction of regional offices of executive departments.
Administrative regions are mere “groupings of contiguous provinces for administrative purposes,. . . [They] are not territorial and political subdivisions like provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays.” -> under direct control of the president
LGUs are not under direct control of the president -> they have political representation. [Chiongbian, et al v. Orbos, et al, G.R. No. 96754, 22 June 1995]
What is the extent of the President’s power of control?
The President’s power of control applies to the acts or decisions of ALL Executive Branch officers. The power of control means the power to revise, or reverse the acts or decisions of a subordinate officer involving the exercise of discretion. [Funa v. Duque III, G.R. No. 191672, 25 November 2014]
Can the unconstitutionality of statutes be attacked collaterally?
A judicial amendment by collateral attack violates the separation of powers
The case was rendered moot after expiration of the Biosafety Permits and for absence of exceptions to the rule. The DAO was merely collaterally challenged but it was overruled by the presumption of constitutionality of statutes. Such must also be attacked directly and not collaterally.
The policy of the courts is to avoid ruling on constitutional questions and to presume that the acts of the political departments are valid, absent a clear and unmistakable showing to the contrary, in deference to the doctrine of separation of powers. This means that the measure had first been carefully studied by the executive department and found to be in accord with the Constitution before it was finally enacted and approved. [International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), G.R. No. 209271, 26 July 2016]
