General Principles
General Principles
General Principles
ASSIGNMENT # 1
December 14, 2016
Atty. Mavil Majarucon – Sia (Election Officer of Bacolod City)
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Define Administrative Law
That branch of modern law under which the executive department of the government acting in a quasi-
legislative or quasi-judicial capacity, interferes with the conduct of the individual for the purpose of
promoting the well-being of the community, as under laws regulating public corporations, business
affected with public interest, professions, trade and calling, rates and prices, laws for the protection of
the public health and safety and the promotion of the public convenience and advantage.
Notes:
Admin Law is that part of the public law which fixes the organization and determines the competence of
administrative authorities and indicates to the individual remedies for the violation of his rights.
(Goodnow)
In a narrower sense and as commonly used today, this is the branch of modern law under which the
executive department of the gov’t, acting in a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity, interferes with
the conduct of the individual for the purposes of promoting the well-being of the community.
It is part of Political Law. It is a branch of law that deals with Operation and Organization of the State
and defines the relationship of the State and its inhabitants.
Notes:
Make the government machinery work well and in an orderly manner.
DISTINGUISH
Administrative Law vs. Constitutional Law
Notes:
Administrative law complements constitutional law insofar as it determines the rules of law
relative to the activity of the admin authorities.
It supplements constitutional law insofar as it regulates the admin org of the government.
Note:
If the relation is between the administrative agencies and the individuals affected by the exercise
of their rule-making or adjudicatory activities, this is covered by admin law.
Admin Law talks about EXTERNAL matters.
1. Creation
GR: The creation of Public office is primarily a legislative functions.
XPN:
a. Constitutional Provisions (Eugenio vs CSC, GR 115863)
b. Authority of Law (DOTC vs Mabalot, GR 138300)
Power of the President to create Public Office - The Chief Executive power to create Ad
Hoc investigating Committee is valid under the faithful execution clause. Having been
constitutionality granted full control of the Executive Department, which respondents belong.
The legality of investigation is sustained. However, Petitioners contend that EO 1 violated the
equal protection clause because it does not apply to all members of the same class such intent
of focusing only in previous administration as the sole subject of PTC. It must be cover all
administrations previous to that former Pres. Arroyo.
The Basis is there is a valid delegation of Congress or the inherent duty to faithfully execute the
laws under Art 7(17) of the 1987 Constitution.
Eugenio vs CSC
2. Reorganization
Reorganization is the process of restructuring the bureaucracy’s organizational and functional
set up, to make it more viable in terms of economy, efficiency, effectiveness and to make it
more responsive to the needs of its public clientele as authorized by law.
Experimentation is frequent in the field of administration, and particular admin agencies are
sometimes:
a) Abolished and new ones created embodying the fruits of experience;
b) Reorganized or their functions transferred to other agencies.
Congress has at various times vested powers in the President to reorganize executive agencies
and redistribute functions and the transfers made under such are held by the SC to be within
the authority of President.
See Cases:
Sinon vs CSC
Pursuant to AC of 1987 Sec. 39, states that: The President shall have continuing authority to re-
organize the administrative structure of the Office of the Pres. And he may take the ff actions:
“Transfer agency under the Office of the President to any other department or agency as well as
transfer agencies to the Office of the President from other departments or agencies.”
Power to control
Alter, Modify, and substitute his judgment
Power to supervise
No Alter, Modify, and substitute his judgment
Dario vs Mison
a. In good faith
b. Promote bureaucracy
Domingo vs DBP
Reorganizations in this jurisdiction have been regarded as valid provided they are pursued in
good faith. As a general rule, a reorganization is carried out in "good faith" if it is for the purpose
of economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient. In that event, no dismissal (in case of
dismissal) or separation actually occurs because the position itself ceases to exist. And in that
case, security of tenure would not be a Chinese wall.
Clearly, from our pronouncements in Dario, reorganization is a recognized valid ground for
separation of civil service employees, subject only to the condition that it be done in good faith.
No less than the Constitution itself in Section 16 of the Transitory Provisions, together with
Sections 33 and 34 of Executive Order No. 81 and Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6656, support
this conclusion with the declaration that all those not so appointed in the implementation of said
reorganization shall be deemed separated from the service with the concomitant recognition of
their entitlement to appropriate separation benefits and/or retirement plans of the reorganized
government agency.
The facts of this case, particularly the evaluation process adopted by DBP, bear out the
existence of good faith in the course of reorganization.
Blaquera vs CSC
Dismissal due to a bona fide reorganization must still comply with due process requirement
(Notice and Hearing)
Evidence of Bad Faith:
1. Significant increase in number of position in new staffing
2. Office is abolished but another performing same function is created
3. Where old is replaced with less qualified
4. ?
5. Where removal violates order of separation
3. Abolition
Constitutionally created admin agencies cannot be abolished by statute, while admin agencies
created by statute or through the authority of a statute may be validly abolished and reorganized
by the legislature.
See Cases:
Canonizado vs Aguirre
Eugenio vs CSC
The CESB is created by law. It can only be abolished by the legislature. The creation and
abolition of public offices is primarily a legislative function, except for Constitutional offices. The
power to restructure granted to the CSC is limited to offices under it. The law that created the
CESB intended said office to be an autonomous entity although it is administratively attached to
the CSC.
Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the President, subject to the policy in the Executive
Office and in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency, shall have the continuing
authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the President. For this
purpose, he may transfer the functions of other Departments or Agencies to the Office of the
President. The reorganization may involve the reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices,
or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions.
The reorganization was done in good faith. The questioned Executive Orders have not abolished
the National Tobacco Administration but merely mandated its reorganization through the
streamlining or reduction of its personnel.
The Constitution, expressly grants the President control of all executive departments, bureaus,
agencies and offices which may justify an executive action to inactivate the functions of a
particular office or to carry out reorganization measures under a broad authority of law. Also
the General Appropriations Act of FY 1998 has decreed that the President may direct changes
in the organization and key positions in any department, bureau or agency pursuant to the
Constitution.
In the present case, there were no abolition nor is transfer of offices, the assailed action just a
mere reorganization under the general provisions of the law consisting mainly of streamlining
the NTA in the interest of simplicity, economy and efficiency. It is an act well within the
authority of President.
4. Deactivation
Making the office dormant or inactive.
In essence, separation of powers means that legislation belongs to Congress, execution to the executive,
settlement of legal controversies to the judiciary. Each is prevented from invading the domain of others.
(Bernas, Commentary 656, 2003 ed.)
The theory is that “a power definitely assigned by the Constitution to one department can neither be
surrendered nor delegated by that department, nor vested by statute in another department or agency.
Question:
May a regular court prohibit a committee (Senate) to require a person from attending a hearing in aid of
legislation?
Blending of Powers
Assigned or shared by several departments.
Example:
Power of Appointment
General Appropriation Law
Amnesty
Legislative neither must nor can transfer the power of making laws to anybody else, or place it
anywhere but where the people have, that is, to legislators.
* Note: Strictly speaking there are only two instances of permissible delegation that is nos. 1&2,
exceptions no. 3-7 are exceptions in a broader sense.
Even if there is no expressed provision, delegation can be sustained if the exercise of power is pursuant
to the implementation of the purpose for which it is created.
These two tests have apparently been merged into one as held in Vigan Electric Light Co. Inc., vs. Public
Service Commission & Pelaez vs. Auditor General: For a valid delegation, it is essential that the law
delegating powers must both be:
a) Complete in itself – it must set forth the policy to be executed by the
delegate; and
b) Fix a standard – the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or
determinable – to which the delegate must conform.
Assignment:
Phil Assoc of Service Exploration vs Torres
Land Bank vs CA
CIR vs CA
Ople vs Torres
Gonzales vs Lnd Bank
Manila Jocket Club vs CA
PLDT vs NTC
Nestle vs CA
Vincent Perez vs LPG Refillers Assoc of the Phils