ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Definition of administrative law For purpose of our study, we shall adopt the definition made by Dean Roscoe Pound [ American Administrative law], in a narrower sense and as commonly used today, implies that the branch of modern law under which the executive department of the government, acting in a quasi-legislative or quasijudicial capacity, interferes with the conduct of the individual for the purpose of promoting the well being of the community. Such conflicts arise from laws regulating public utility corporations, business affected with a public interest, professions, trades and calling, rates and prices, laws for the protection of public health and safety and the promotion of the public convenience and advantage.

Similarly with the same perspective, the former Dean of the college of law of the University of the Philippines, as pointed out by H. De Leon in his book Administrative Law define Administrative law as branch of modern law under which the executive department of government acting in a quasilegislative 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 a public interest, professions, trades and callings, rates and prices, laws for the protection of the public health and safety, and the promotion of the public convenience and advantage.

The forgoing concerned demonstrates the reason or purpose of administrative law which is basically the protection of private rights. Thus, the subject matter of administrative law is the nature and mode of powers exercised by the administrative bodies and officers. It has for is basic function the effective and efficient operation of the government machinery. That is why, the Supreme Court in Matienzo vs. Abellara, 162 SCRA 2) has pronounce the doctrine that laws conferring powers on administrative agencies must be liberally construct to enable them to discharge their assigned duties in accordance with the legislative purpose. In this connection it must be remembered that the origin of the Administrative law is legislation of the legislative department of the government and follows from the increase function of government because of the complexities of the modern society .

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DISTINGUISHED FROM CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Constitutional law may be regarded as the framework of governmental organization; Constitutional law lays down the general rules of government which are fundamental and without which no governmental organization can hope to stand on its feet;

Administrative law, the details which give such skeleton structure the characteristics of a finished whole. Administrative law , on the other hand, lays down secondary rules which limit and qualify or expand and amplify, the general precepts of governmental organization as laid down by constitutional law, so that they may be better understood and applied to the needs of the layman citizens.

Constitutional law treats of the relations of the government with the individual. Constitutional law lays stress upon rights; administrative law emphasis duties.

Administrative law Administrative law treats them from the standpoint of the powers of the government. Administrative law complements constitutional law insofar as it determines the rules of the law relative to the activity of administrative authorities. It also supplements constitutional law insofar as it regulates the administrative organization of the government.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DISTINGUISHED FROM INTERNATIONAL LAW

Administrative law lays down the rules which shall guide the officers of the administrative in their action as agents of the government;

International law cannot be regarded as binding upon the officers of any government considered in their relation to their own government except insofar as it has been adopted into the administrative law of the state;

KINDS

OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Administrative law is of four kinds:

(1) Statutes setting up administrative authorities either by creating boards and commission or administrative offices or by confiding the powers and duties to existing boards, commissions, or officers, to amplify, apply, execute, and supervise the operation of, and determine controversies arising under particular laws in the enactment of which the legislature decided for matters of convenience or for quicker or more efficient administration to withhold the controversies, at least in the first instance, from the courts of law;

(2) Rules, regulations, or order of such Administrative authorities enactment and promulgated in pursuance of the purposes for which they were created or endowed; (3) The determinations, decisions, and order of such administrative authorities made in the settlement of controversies arising in their particular fields; and (4) The body of doctrines and decisions dealing with the creation, operation, and effect of determinations and regulations of such administrative authorities.

SCOPE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

From its various definitions and kinds, administrative law includes in its scope:
(1) The body of statutes which sets up administrative agencies and endows tem with powers and duties; (2) The body of rules, regulations, and orders issued by administrative agencies; (3) The body of determinations, decisions, and orders of such administrative authorities made in the settlement of controversies arising in their respective fields; and (4) The body of doctrines and decisions dealing with the creation, operation, and effect of determinations and regulations of such administrative agencies.

CRITICISMS AGAINST ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

Regulatory bodies, sometimes collectively referred to as the fourth branch of government or government in miniature, have been attacked as a government by discretion. While viewing the administrative process with the sympathetic outlook of one who appreciated the local need for it, Mr. Justice Frankfurter was nonetheless aware that the exercise of such discretion opened the door to its potential abuse and arbitrariness.

The recognized weakness of and criticisms against administrative action may be summed up as follow:

(1) Tendency towards arbitrariness; (2) Lack of legal knowledge and aptitude in sound judicial technique; (3) Susceptibility to political bias or pressure, often brought about by uncertainty of tenure and lack of sufficient safeguards for independence; (4) A disregards for the safeguards that insure a full and fair hearing; (5) Absence of standard rules of procedure suitable to the activities of each agency; and (6) A dangerous combination of legislative, executive and judicial functions.

IN

THE

PHILIPPINES

In the Philippines, administrative regulation of private activities was originally undertaken through the regular departments of the executive branch. Even today, certain departments, bureaus and offices pass upon private rights by rule or decision. As examples of these, we have the Bureau of Customs, Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Office of the Insurance Commissioner in the Ministry of Finance; the Bureau of Posts and Land Transportation Commission in the Ministry of Public Works and Communications; the National Labor Relations Commission, Bureau of Labor Relations, Overseas Employment Development Board, Bureau of Women and Minors and the Office of Apprenticeship in the Ministry of Labor.

In the Department of Natural Resource we have the Bureau of Forestry, and the Bureau of Lands. In the Ministry of Education and Culture, we have the Board of Medical Education, Textboard Board, State Scholarships Council and Bureau of Higher Education.

As in other modern states, as increasing use is made of regulatory agencies specially created to carry out the legislative policy regulating specified activities. They are given powers to promulgate rules and regulations implementing statutes and to adjudicate controversies arising from them. Example are: the Oil Industry Commission, National Housing Authority, Price Control Council, Board of Censors for Motion Pictures, Civil Aeronautics Administration, Parents Office, Securities and Exchange Commission, Philippine Coconut Authority, the National Economic Development Authority, Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration, and the Professional Regulation Commission.

Remember these was ask in the bar, what are the types of quasi-judicial or administrative bodies or agencies. The answer are the following. 1) Administrative agencies created to carry on governmental functions (BIR, BoC, CSC, LRA) 2) Administrative agencies created to perform business services for the public (Philippines Postal Authority: PNR, NFA, NHA) 3) Administrative agencies created to regulate businesses affected with public interest (NTC, LTFRB, Insurance Commission, ERB, HLURB, Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences) 4) administrative agencies created to regulate private businesses and individuals under police power (SEC, Dangerous Drug Board, CID, PRC) 5) Administrative agencies that adjudicate and decide industrial controversies (NLRC, POEA) 6) Administrative agencies that grant privileges (GSIS, SSS, PAO, Phil Veterans Adm. 7) administrative agencies making the government a private party (COA, Social Security System Adjudication Office)

It must be noted also De Leon in his writing on Administrative Law, advances the different types of administrative agencies. They are as follows: (1) Those created to function in situations wherein the government is offering some gratuity, grant, or special privilege.
Examples are: Philippine Veterans Administrative (PVA), GSIS, SSS, Public Attorneys Office, Philippine Medical Care Commission (PMCC), etc. (2) Those set up to function in situations where in the government is seeking to carry on certain functions of government. Examples are: Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), Bureau of Customs, Bureau of Immigration, Land Registration Authority and most administrative agencies;

(3) Those set up to function in situations wherein the government is performing some business service for the public. Examples are: Philippine Postal Corporation, Philippine National Railways, Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage Authority, Government Telephone System, National Electrification Administration, National Food Authority, National Housing Authority, etc.; (4) Those set up to function in situations wherein the government is seeking to regulate businesses affected with public interest. Examples are: Insurance Commission, Bureau of Air Transportation; Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB), Energy Regulatory Board, Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences, National Telecommunications Commission, Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), etc.;

CREATION, ESTABLISHEMENT AND ABOLITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

Repeatedly it is assorted, administrative agencies or bodies whether individual or institutional- are created directly, by constitutional provisions, (2) by the legislature in legislative enactments, or (3) by authority of law.

The civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit are administrative agencies created under the Constitution. The Bureau of Customs, Bureau of Internal Revenue, National Labor Relations Commissions, Professional Regulations Board, Court of Agrarian Relations, Philippine Patent Office, Securities & Exchange Commission, the Board of Transportation, Social Security Commission, Central Bank on the Philippines, and the National Grains authority, are example of agencies created by law. Under the various government reorganizations acts, the President and the Government Survey and Reorganization Commission had been authorized and had in fact created administrative offices and agencies in the course of reorganization of the executive branch of the government, like the defunct Board of Tax Appeals and Regional Offices of the Department of Labor.

At these point it must be pointed out that the law concern also the org. of the

administrative

government. We have to have a clear understanding on

the concept of an entity, otherwise known as the Republic of the Philippines, which is not synonymous of the term National Government.

Under Sec. 2, Administrative code Republic of the Philippines refers

to the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of government are exercised throughout the Philippines Island, including, save as the contrary appears from the context, the various arms through which political authority is made effective in said Islands, whether pertaining to the central Government or to the provincial or municipal branches or other form of local government.

Whereas, the National Government refers to the central

government consisting of the three branches or department of the government.

CASES TO BE READ:
(1) BACANI vs. NACOCO- November 29, 1956 (100 P
468).

(2) MACTAN CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY vs. MARCOS- (September 11, 1996)
(3) MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY vs. CITY OF PARANAQUE- (July 20, 2006) (4) CENTRAL BANK vs. CA, ABLANZA - April 22, 1975 (63 SCRA 431)

-Under Section two(2) of the Administrative Code of the Philippines refers to the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of government are exercised throughout the Philippine Island, including, save as the

contrary appears from the context, the various arms through

which political authority is made effective in said Islands, whether pertaining to the Central Government or to the provincial or municipal branches or other form of local government.

-National

Government

refers

to

the

central

government

consisting

of

the

three

branches

or

departments of the government.

BACANI vs. NACOCO- (29 November, 1956)

FACTS: A case of the National Coconut Corporation (NAPOCO) who requested for copies of the Stenographic notes, and paid

accordingly the charges as a result of its securence of the said

stenographic notes. Thereafter, after examination of the records, the Commission on Audit (COA) this allowed such payment. The stenographer Bacani stop or enjoined the embarrassment of such payment to him.

ISSUE:

Whether
Corporation

or

not

the

National

Coconut
of

(NACOCO) falls

within the scope

Government of the Republic of the Philippines in other to be exempt of such payment of charges for under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the Government should be

exempted from payment of the foregoing charges.

RULING: The National Coconut Corporation (NACOCO) possesses a corporate personality separate and distinct from the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. It is not with in the scope of the term Government of the Republic of the Philippines, thus it is not exempted form the payment of charges for the stenographic notes under Rule 131 of the Revise Penal Code.

The term the of Government of the Republic of the Philippines under Section 2 of the Administrative Code of

the Philippines means only to the government entity through

which the functions of government are exercised as attribute of sovereign, and in this are included those are through which such political authority is made effective whether they be provincial, municipal or other form of local government. These are what we call municipal corporation.

MACTAN CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY VS. MARCOS- (11 SEPTEMBER , 1996)
FACTS:

The Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority Marcos was created under Republic Act 6958, for the purpose of principally undertake the economical, efficient and effective control, management and supervisions of Mactan International Airport in Cebu City. Under Section 1 of the said law the Mactan International Airport Authority is exempt from

the real taxes impost by National Government or any political

subdivision, agencies and instrumentalities.

The treasuree of Cebu City demanded payment or realty Taxes of Parcel of Land belonging to Mactan International Airport Authority. It objected embooking tax exemption under Republic Act 6958, and claim that the

Mactan Cebu national Airport Authority is an instrumentality of the

government performing governmental function. The Cebu City however insisted that the Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority is a Government Owned and Controlled Corporation performing proprietary functions whose tax exemption withdrawn by the local Government Code of the Philippines.

ISSUE:

Is the City of Cebu has a power to impost taxes owned the properties of the Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority.

RULING:

The City of Cebu has the Authority to impost taxes owned of the Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority. The mantel of exemption of tax under Section 14 of the Charter of the Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority, Republic Act 6958 has been withdrawn .

Moreover, the term Republic of the Philippines, is not synonymous with Government of the Republic of the Philippines which under the Administrative Code of the Philippines, Republic of

the Philippines is defines as corporate government entity through

which the functions of government are exercised throughout the Philippines, including, save as the contrary appears from the context, the various arms though which political authority is made affective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous regions, the provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions or other forms of local government. These autonomous regions, provincial, city municipal or barangay subdivisions are the political subdivisions.

 National Government refers to the entity machinery of the central government, as distinguished from the different forms of local

governments. The National Government then is composed of the

great departments: the executive, the legislative and the judicial.

An agency of the Government refers to any of the various units of the Government, including a department, bureau, office, instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled corporation. It may also refer to a local government or a distinct unit therein.

An instrumentality refers to any agency of the

National

Government,

not

integrated

within

the

department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate

powers, administering special funds, and enjoying

operational autonomy, usually through a charter. This tem includes regulatory agencies, chartered institutions and government-owned and controlled corporations.

CREATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

You well remember that this creation of

administrative agencies was discuss by as partially. I pointed individual out or that administrative are agencies, created whether by

institutional

directly

constitutional provisions, (2) by the legislature in legislative enactments, or (3) by authority of law. I even sighted to you the different offices of government under the existing system of governance.

DEGREE OF CONTROL OF THE

LEGISLATURE OVER ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
Dean Nepthaly Gonzales, a noted constitutional and

administrative law professor explained that, thus:

The legislative power over the administrative agencies is very broad. It is the legislative branch that promulgates the general policy; creates the agency to administer it if none is

already in existence for the purpose; prescribes the mode of

appointment, the term of office and the compensation; fixes its authority and procedure; determines the size 0f its personnel and staff; exercises continuing surveillance over its activities; and may investigate its operations for remedial or corrective legislation. Moreover, the legislature is more and more in favor of enacting statutes in broad and general wording and leaving

details thereof to administrative agencies to fill by rules,

orders, regulations, and the like.

REORGANIZATION AND ABOLITION

Administrative agencies are sometimes abolished and new ones created embodying the fruits of experience, or old agencies are reorganized, or their functions transferred to other agencies. The powers of departments, boards, and administrative agencies are subject to expansion, contraction, or abolition at the will of the

legislative and executive branches of the government. Thus a new

agency may be created to centralize authority which has been scattered among several agencies, the powers of an independent commission may be placed in a division of another agency, or reorganization may create an independent agency in regard to previously subordinate functions.

Congress has at various times vested powers in the President to reorganize executive agencies and redistribute functions, and particular transfers under such statutes have been held to be within

the authority of the President. Any doubt as to the authority of the

President under power given him by Congress to transfer the functions of one agency to another by executive order and the question of the compliance with the conditions of the exercise of authority, and the validity of the performance of those functions by authority, and the validity of the performance of those functions by the transferee, is determined by congressional approval and ratification in subsequently recognizing the validity of the transfer by making appropriations for the purpose of carrying out the transferred functions.

With respect to administrative agencies created by the Constitution, they cannot be abolished by statute. But with respect to those created by legislative enactments, or authority of the same, the legislature may validity abolish and reorganize them.

ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND THE PRINCIPLES OF

SEPARATION AND NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS AND DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION OR EXHAUSTED OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES A study of administrative law may be divided into three

broad segments, namely: (1) the transfer of power from the

legislature to administrative agencies; (2) the exercise of such delegated powers by these agencies; and (3) a review of such administrative actions by the court.

The most common of these limitations are those imposed by the constitutional principle of separation of powers, with its concomitant principle of non-delegability of powers. Similarly,

prohibits the delegation of Executive power.

The theory of separation of powers prohibits the delegation of legislative and executive power, the vesting of judicial officer with

non-judicial functions, as well as the investing of non-judicial officers

with non judicial powers. According to judge Cooley, a well-known american

constitutional law and administrative law authority, in his oft-qouted language, thus

One

of

the

settled

maxims

in

constitutional law is, that the power conferred upon the legislature to make laws cannot be delegated by that department to any other body or authority. Where the sovereign power of the state has located the authority. There it must remain; and by that constitutional agency alone the laws must be made until the Constitution itself is changed. The power to whose judgment, wisdom, and patriotism this high prerogative has been intrusted cannot relieve itself of the responsibility by choosing other agencies upon which the power shall be devolve, nor can it substitute the judgment, wisdom, and patriotism of any other body for those to which alone the people have seen fit to confide this sovereign trust.

As stated earlier that the transfer of power from the legislature to administrative agencies care must be observe that said transfer of powers thus not violate constitutional inhibitions. The most common of this inhibitions, bar

limitations are those imposed by the principles of separation of powers, with its
concomitant principle of non-deligability of power. Now, it is only proper to us, what is this principle called as separation of powers. To ask the questioned is to answered it, separation of powers, as a principle of democratic, republican and constitutional government is easily understood by its working and its operation. It is not a lifeless principle but one of being active and moving dynamically at the very heart of our regime a destruction of government and constitution is likely to occur. of constitutionalism. Slight, tender and satell action resulting to create imbalances

SEPARATION OF POWER
Let us have this simple illustration:
SEPARATIO N SEPARATION

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

INDEPENDENT, CO-EQUAL, AND SUPREME WITHIN ITS OWN CIRCLE. NO ENTERFERENCE, NO INTRUTION NOR CONSCENTRATION OF POWERS IN ONE DEPARTMENT

ANOTHER SIMPLE ILLUSTRATION FROM THE LECTURE OF MR. JUSTICE

LAUREL WHICH MIGHT HELP US IN DEEPLY UNDERSTANDING THE FOREGOING PRINCIPLE;

Executiv e

Legislative

Judicial

THE CONSTITUTION
The smaller circles, inside the bigger circles which is the constitution, represent the three (3) branches of our government namely Executive, Legislative and Judicial, within its own circle, the three (3) circles are supreme and cannot be interfered with any other circle. Outside and within the 3 circles it is co-equal and independent from each other. The three(3) circles shall not, at all times overstep the bigger circle which is the constitution.

Corollary to this principle of Separation of powers, illustrated above is another principle know constitutional law administrative law as the non-delegation of powers. Simply when the powers are separated to the three (3) branches of government the next rule that be observe is the nondelegation of power to any other agencies of the government except permitted by the constitution itself.

As explained by Mr. Justice Malcolm, and Justice Laurel, Justices of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, thus
No department of the government (be it legislative, executive or judicial) except when authorized by the Constitution, can abdicate authority or escape responsibility by delegating any of its power to another body. Any attempt at such

delegation of power is void under the maxim

of potestas delegata non potest delegari.

NON-DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER

While the rule of non-delegation is applicable to all the three
departments of the government, the doctrine has found greater and persistent application to the prohibition against the delegation of legislative power. Congress may not escape its duties and responsibility by delegating its powers to any other body or authority. Any attempt to abdicate the legislative power is unconstitutional and void. The classic statement of the rule is that of Locke, namely:

The legislative neither must nor can transfer the power of making laws to anybody else, or place it anywhere but where the people have.

Of course, the supreme essential power of the legislature which it may not delegate is the power to make law, at least purely

substantive law, the legislature may not delegate to administrative

agencies the determination of what the law shall be, to whom it may be applied, or what acts are necessary to effectuate the law. The essential of legislative function are the determination of the legislative policy and its formulation and promulgations as a defined and binding rule of conduct, that is, he determination of the legislative policy and legislative approval of a rule of conduct to carry that policy into execution.

EXCEPTIONS TO NON-DELEGATION
The rule which forbids the delegation of power is not rigid and

inflexible. To borrow the words of Justice Cordozzo,

it is not a doctrinaire concept to be made use of with pedantic rigor. There must be sensible approximation. There must be elasticity of adjustments in response to the practical necessities of government which cannot foresee today the developments of tomorrow in its nearly infinite variety.

The rule of non-delegation therefore admits of exceptions.

DELEGATION OF POWERS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

It is a rule sanctioned by immemorial practice that delegation of legislative power to local authorities does not transgress the principle of non-delegation.
It is a cardinal principle of our system of government, that local affairs shall be managed by local authorities, and general affairs by the central authority; and hence, while the rule is also fundamental that he power to make laws cannot be delegated, the creation of municipalities exercising local self-government has never been held to trench upon that rule. Such legislation is not regarded as a transfer of general legislative power but rather as the grant of authority to prescribe local regulations, according to immemorial practice, subject of course to the interposition of the superior in cases of necessity.

On the same principles, Congress is empowered to delegate legislative power to such agencies in the territories it may select. A territory stands in the same relation to

Congress as a municipality or city to the state government.

DELEGATION OF POWER TO FILL UP DETAILS

Matters of detail may be left by the legislature to be filled by rules and regulations to be adopted or promulgated by executive officers and administrative boards. In other words, it is still true albeit with a wider degree of latitude- that the legislature may only make a general provisions to fill up the details. So, therefore, the Courts recognizing the necessary of delegation in order that the exertion of legislative power does not become a futility have drawn a theoretical distinction between legislative power and a subsidiary power to fill up the details or to find facts to carry the legislatively declared policies into effect. The Supreme

Court of the United States has consistently recognized that Congress may
declare its will, and after fixing a primary standard, devolve upon administrative officers the power to fill up the details by prescribing administrative rules and

regulations.

DELEGATION OF POWERS TO ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES

With the modern complexities of modern life, the multiplication
of the subjects of government regulation and the increased difficulty of administering the laws. It was found that neither the legislature nor the courts were equipped to administer them. The legislature is not always in session. Its members can agree only on general policies but not on matters of detail. Even if they could agree on details, there is the danger that too detailed control and regulation on the

part of the statute creating administrative bodies may hamper their

efficiency and render them impotent in the face of everchanging conditions.

The legislature, therefore, neither has the time nor the

competence to possibly foresee every contingency involved in the

particular problem it is seeking to control. Reluctantly at first, and later with persistency and determination, the legislature begun until it became customary for it to delegate to each newly created instrumentality of the

executive department the power to make the regulations necessary to

carry the statute into effect. Likewise, to enable the said administrative agencies to achieve their functions efficiently and effectively, the legislature has granted to them the power to adjudicate on cases arising

within the scope of their activities.

Advantages of Delegation of Power to Administrative Agencies: Some of the advantages of delegation of power to executive and administrative agencies are: (1) It relieves the legislature of a great burden of work in respect to which it has no special competence, and thus, enables it more largely to direct its attention to matters of general import; (2) it entrusts the drafting of detailed provision, which are usually of a highly technical character, to the agencies most familiar with the conditions to be met and which will have the responsibility for their enforcement; (3) It permits a great flexibility in adopting the regulations to the different classes of individuals or interests affected; and

(4) It makes possible the prompt modification of a provision as soon as experience

demonstrates that it is unsatisfactory.

DELEGATION OF POWER TO THE PEOPLE AT LARGE

While a representative democracy embodies a government where the powers of government are not exercised directly by the people but through their chosen representatives and, therefore, the people in their sovereign capacity have voluntarily delegated the power to enact laws to the legislature, no objection may be raised where the people have expressly reserved to themselves in the Constitution the power of decision with respect to certain matters. Under Article XVI of the New Constitution, the people have reserved to themselves the finality of decision with respect to the approval of any change in the fundamental law. Any amendment to, or revision of, said Constitution shall be valid when ratifies by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not later than three months after the approval of such amendment or revision.

It is for these reasons that the principles of separation and non-delegation of powers are intertwined with the first and

the third segment in the study of administrative law.

The emergence of administrative agencies has brought about a constantly growing tendency toward the delegation of

greater powers by the legislature and toward the approval of

the practice by the courts. The rigidity of the theory of the separation of governmental powers has, to a large extent,

been relaxed by permitting the delegation of greater power by

the legislature and vesting a large amount of discretion in administrative and executive official;

Not only in execution of the laws, but also in the promulgation of certain rules and regulations calculated to promote public interest. As pointed out by Mr. Justice Cardozzo of the U.S. Supreme Court:
In the complex life of today, the
business of government could not go on without the delegation, in greater or less degree of the power to adapt the rule to the swiftly moving facts.

RULE OF NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS

No department of the government (be it legislative, executive or judicial) except when authorized by the Constitution, can abdicate authority or escape responsibility by delegating any of its power to another body. Any attempt at such delegation of power is void under the maxim of

potestas deleagta non potest delegari.

The rule against delegation of legislative power is fixed and unalterable, not depending upon the existence of an emergency. An unconstitutional delegation of power is not brought within the limits of permissible delegation by

the establishment of procedural safeguards, the right of judicial review, or by the

assumption that the officer acts and will act for the public good.

RULE NOT ABSOLUTE:-

The rule precluding the delegation of power by the legislature

does not embrace every power the legislature may properly exercise. Any power not legislative in character which the legislature may exercise, it may delegate. What the rule precludes is the delegation of those powers which are strictly or inherently and exclusively legislative and the legislatures abdication of its own power and the conferring of such power upon an administrative agency to be exercised in its uncontrolled

discretion.

ORIGIN OF THE RULE

The doctrine of non-delegation of powers is wholly judge-made. Mr. Justice Laurel, writing the opinion of the Supreme Court in People vs. Vera, gave the following account of the origin of the principle, as follows:
The principle is said to have originated with the glossators, was introduced into English law through a misreading of Bracton, there developed as a principle of agency, was established by Lord Coke in he English public law in decisions forbidding the delegation of judicial power, and found its way into America as an enlightened principle of free government. It has become an accepted corollary of the principle of separation of power.

START HERE!

Laws enacted by the legislative prescribing the powers and functions of administrative agencies must respect constitutional limitations. Since administrative bodies are usually vested with rule-

making and adjudicatory powers which are akin to legislative and

judicial powers, it is important to determine whether the transfer of such powers from the legislature to administrative agencies does not violate constitutional inhibitions. These constitutional inhibitions are as follows: 1. SEPARATION OF POWERS 2. NON-DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER

Based on the principle of potestas delegata non potest delegari, the doctrine of non-delegation rests on

he ethical principle that a delegated power constitutes not

only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate by the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through he intervening mind of another.

The rule precluding the delegation of power by the legislature does not embrace every power the legislature

may properly exercise. Any power not legislative in character

which the legislature may exercise, it may delegate. What the rule precludes is the delegation of those powers which are strictly or inherently and exclusively legislative and the legislatures abdication of its own power and the conferring of such power upon an administrative agency to be exercised in its uncontrolled discretion.

Instances of permissible delegation of power, namely: (1) when permitted by the Constitution itself;

(2) Delegation of legislative power to local

governments. (3) Delegation of the power to fill in details; (4)Delegation of rule- making and adjudicatory powers to administrative bodies, provided

ascertainable standards are set;

(5) Delegation of power to ascertain facts; contingencies or events upon which the

applicability or non-applicability of a law is

made to depend; (6) Delegation of powers to the people at large, when such has been reserved in the Constitution; (7) Delegation of power to the Executive in the field of foreign or international relations.

TEST OF VALIDITY OF DELEGATION OF POWERS

Two tests have been resorted to by the courts in delegation of
power cases. They are (1) The completeness or incompleteness of the statute; and (2) The absence or sufficiency of standard. However, these two tests have apparently been merged into one, for as held in the cases of Vigan Electric Light Co., Inc. vs. Public Service Commission, and Pelaez vs. Auditor General, for a valid delegation, that is, one that does not transgress the principle of separation of powers, it is essential that the law delegating powers must be: 1) complete in itself, that is, it must set forth the policy to be executed by the delegated and 2) fix a standard- limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable to which the delegate must conform.

VIGAN ELECTRIC LIGHT CO., INC. VS. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

G.R. No. L-19850, prom. Jan. 30, 1964

This is an action to annual an order issued by respondent Public Service Commission ordering the reduction of the rates for its electric

services therefore charged by petitioner, on the ground among others, that

such order had been issued without notice and hearing and that, accordingly, petitioner had been denied due process. In defense, respondent maintain that rate fixing is a legislative function that may be constitutionally exercised without previous notice or hearing; and that the rule that notice and hearing is essential refers to a proceeding involving the exercise of judicial functions.

HELD:
Consistently with the principle of separation of powers, which underlie our constitutional system, legislative powers may not be delegated except to local

governments, and only as to matters purely of local concern. However, congress may
delegate to administrative agencies of the government power to supplies the details in the enforcement or execution of a policy laid down by a law which is c0mplete in itself. Such law is not deemed complete unless it lays down a standard or pattern sufficiently fixed or determinate, or, at least, determinable without requiring another legislation, to guide the administrative body concerned in the performance of its duty to implement or enforce said policy. Otherwise, there would be no reasonable means to ascertain whether or not said body has acted within the scope of its authority, and, as consequence, the power of legislation would eventually be exercised by a branch of the Government other than that in which it is lodged by the Constitution, in violation, not only of the allocation of powers therein made, but, also, of the principle of separation of powers.

Hence, Congress has not delegated, legislative powers to respondent.

Moreover, although the rule-making power and the power to fix rates-when
such rules and/or rates are meant to apply to all enterprises of a given kind throughout the Philippines- may partake of a legislative, character, such is not the nature of the order complained of. Indeed, the same applied exclusively to

petitioner herein. What is more, it is predicated on a finding of fact that

petitioner is making a profit of more than 12% of its invested capital, which is denied by petitioner. In making such finding of facts, respondent performed a function partaking of a quasi-judicial character, the valid exercise of which

demands previous notice and hearing.

PELAEZ VS. AUDITOR GENERAL

G.R. L-23825, DEC. 24, 1965

Purporting to act pursuant to Section 68 of the Revised Administrative

Code, the President issued Executive Orders creating 33 municipalities. Petitioner, Vice-President and taxpayer, instituted the present action.

ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND THE PRINCIPLES OF SEPARATION AND NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS

Petitioner alleges that said executive orders are null and void

upon the ground, among others, that Section 68 constitutes an undue

delegation of power.

HELD
The authority to create municipal corporations is essentially legislative in nature: As the Supreme Court of Washington has put it municipal corporations are

purely the creatures of the statute. The Cardona vs. Binangonan case cannot be
relied upon to support the contrary view for what was transfer of territory from a municipality to another.

True it is, Congress may delegate to another branch of the Government the power to fill in the details in the execution, enforcement or administration of a law. However, for a valid delegation, that is, one that does not transgress the principle of separation of powers, it is essential that the law delegating powers must be: (1) complete in its self, that is, it must set forth the policy to be executed by the delegate and (2) fix a standard-limits of which are sufficiently determine or determinable-to which the delegate must conform.

Without a statutory declaration of policy, the delegate would, in effect,

make or formulate such policy, which is the essence of every law. Without the aforementioned standard, there would be no means to determine whether the delegate has acted within or beyond the scope of his authority. Section 68 of the Revised Administrative Code fails to meet these wellsettled requirements. There is no enunciation of policy. Neither is there sufficient standard. True it is, the last clause of the section provides that the President x x x x x may change the seat of he government within any subdivision to such place therein as the public welfare may require . It is however apparent that the phrase as the public welfare may require qualifies, not the clauses preceding the ones just quoted, but only the place to which the seat of the government may be transferred.

Even granting, that the aforementioned phrase qualifies all other clauses of Section 68, he conclusion would be the same. Reliance to the cases of Calalang vs. Williams and People vs. Rosenthal, wherein the

Supreme Court had upheld public welfare and public interest as

sufficient standards for a valid delegation of powers, is futile. Both cases involved grants to administrative officers of powers related to the exercise of their administrative function, calling for the determination of questions

of fact. Such is not the nature of the powers dealt with in Section 68. to
repeat, the creation of municipalities is one which is essentially and eminently legislative character.

ABSENCE OR SUFFICIENCY OF STANDARD TEST

Even if a statute delegates authority, if it lays down a policy and a definite standard by which the executive or administrative officer or board may be guided in the exercise of his discretionary authority, there is no undue delegation of legislative power. On the other hand, if the statute furnishes no standard and grants an officer or bard uncontrolled and unlimited discretion, such a statute is an unconstitutional delegation of power. In order for a delegation of legislative power to the President (or any administrative body or officer) to be lawful least three criteria must be met:

(1) The policy must be clearly declared in the language or the statute,
and not left to the discretion of the grantee or delegate the recipient of the delegated power, who acts as the agent of the Congress;

(2) The statute must pronounce standards to guide the executive behavior of the President (or whomever else Congress might select as its subordinate administrator); Court something to determine, in exercising judicial review, whether the subordinate administrative action was ultra vires in relation to the statute; and (3) Formal findings by the President(or the subordinate agency would be a condition precedent to a valid exercise of his delegated authority, assuming that the statute satisfied the above policy and standards criteria; or in other words, the president must specify in his order the facts and circumstances that

justified the action that he purported to take under the statute delegating to him
his authority to act.

Standard Defined:-

A standard is the criterion laid down by the legislature by which the policy and purpose of the law may be carried out. A standard

defines the legislative policy, marks its limits, and maps out its
boundaries. It indicates the circumstances under which legislative command is to be effected. They are indeed guideposts to be followed by the delegate in exercising the granting discretion.

LEGISLATIVE STANDARDS CONSIDERED ADEQUATE IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN THE PHILIPPINES
In the United States:-

(1) Just and reasonable;53

(2) Unreasonable obstruction to navigation;54 (3) Public interest;55 (4) Reciprocally unequal and unreasonable;56 (5) Public convenience;57 (6) National security or defense;58 (7) Unfair methods of competition;59

(8) Tea of an inferior quality;60

(9) Films as are in the judgment and discretion of the Board of Censors character; 61 of a moral., educational or amusing, and harmless

In the Philippines: (1) Public Welfare;62

(2) Necessary in the interest of law and order;63

(3) Public interest;64 (4) Justice and equity and substantial merits of the case; 65 (5) Simplicity, economy and efficiency;66 (6) Adequate and sufficient instruction;67 (7) In order to protect the international reserves. . . .to monetary stability in the Philippines. . . To promote a rising level of production, employment and real income in the Philippines;68 (8) All educational institutions to observe daily flag ceremony, which shall be simple and dignified and shall include the playing or singing of the Philippine National Anthem;69

Public Interest as a Standard:-

PEOPLE VS. ROSENTHAL

68 PHIL. 28
Act No. 2581, otherwise known as the Blue Sky Law,

requires every person, partnership or corporation to

obtain a certificate or permit from

Public Convenience and Interest as a Standard: -

CALALANG VS. WILLIAMS 70 PHIL. 726

Facts:
Commonwealth Act No. 548 authorizes the Director of Public Works, with the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communication, to promulgate rules and regulations for the regulation and control of the use and traffic on national roads. The Director of Public Works, with the approval of the Secretary of Public works and communication, and upon the recommendation of the National

Commission issued, an order closing to animal-drawn vehicles certain

portions of Rizal Avenue and Rosario Street, both in the City of Manila. Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of said order as having been issued pursuant to an undue delegation of power.

Fair and Equitable as a standard:

YAKUS VS. UNITED STATES

321 U.S. 414, 64 S. CT. 660, 88 L. ED. 834

Facts:
The Emergency Price Control Act provides for the establishment of the Office of Price Administrator under the direction of a price Administrator appointed by the President and sets up a comprehensive scheme for the promulgation by the Administrator of regulations or orders fixing such maximum prices of commodities and rents as will effectuate the purpose of the Act. Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of this law as an undue delegation of legislative power.

HELD:
This challenged statute is not an undue delegation of power. The law establishes a defined policy and requires that the prices fixed by the Administrator should further that policy and conform to the standards

prescribed by the Act. It directs that the prices fixed shall effectuate the declared policy of the Act which is to stabilize commodity prices as t prevent

wartime inflation and its enunciated, disruptive causes or effects. In addition,

the prices established must be fair and equitable, and in fixing them the Administrator is directed to give due consideration, so far as practicable, to prevailing price during the designated base period (Oct. 1-15, 1941), with

prescribed administrative adjustments to compensate for enumerated

disturbing factors affecting prices. The law is for a limited duration. It provides for its termination on June 30, 1943, unless sooner terminated by Presidential proclamation or concurrent resolution of Congress.

GIL BALBUNA VS. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

G.R. NO. L-14283, PROM. NOVEMBER 29, 1960

Facts:
Petitioners, members of the religious sect Jehovahs Witness , challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1265, by virtue of which the Secretary of Education issued Department Order No. 8, prescribing compulsory flag ceremony in all schools as an undue delegation of legislative power. Section 1 of the act requires all educational institutions to observe daily flag ceremony, which shall

be simple and dignified and shall include the playing or singing of the
Philippine national anthem. Section 2 thereof authorize the Secretary of Education to issue rules and regulations for the proper conduct of the flag ceremony.

HELD:
The requirements constitute an adequate standard to wit, simplicity
and dignity of the flag ceremony and the singing of the national anthemespecially when contrasted with other standards heretofore upheld by the courts such as public interest, public welfare, interest of law and order, justice and equity and the substantial merits of the case, or adequate and efficient instruction. That the legislature did not specify he details of the flag ceremony is no objection to the validity of the statute, for all that is required of it is the laying down of standard and policy that will limit the discretion of the regulatory agency. To require the statute to establish in detail the manner

of exercise of the delegated power would be to destroy the administrative

flexibility that the delegation is intended to achieve.

SUBLEGATION IN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

Subdelegation Defined
By subdelegation is meant the transmission of authority from the heads of agencies to subordinates. Sound principles of organization demand that those at the top be able to concentrate their attention upon the larger and more important questions of policy and practice, and that their time be freed,

so far as possible, from the consideration of the smaller and

less important matters of detail.

HELD:

There is here no undue delegation of power. The authority delegated to the Director of Public Works is not to determine what public policy demands or what the law shall be but merely the ascertainment of the facts and circumstances upon which the application of the law is to be predicated. Under the law in question, the promulgation of rules and regulations on the use of national roads and the determination of when and how long a national road should be closed to traffic, is to be made with a view of the condition of the road or the traffic thereon and the

requirements of public convenience and interest. Definite

standards are therefore provided in the law.

EXTENT OF PERMISSIBLE SUBDELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

The extent of permission subdelegation depends primarily upon the intent of

the legislature.
it is a general principle of law, expressed in the maxim delegatus potestas non potest delegare, that a delegation power may not be further delegated by the person

to whom such power is delegated. Apart from statute, whether administrative officer in
whom certain powers are vested or upon whom certain duties are imposed may deputize others to exercise such powers or perform such duties usually depend upon whether the particular act or duty sought to be delegated is ministerial, on the one

hand, or, on the other, discretionary or quasi-judicial. Merely ministerial functions may
be delegated to assistants whose employment is authorized, but there is no authority to delegate acts discretionary or quasi-judicial in nature. Authority from the legislature is necessary to the power of a commission to appoint a general deputy who may

exercise quasi-judicial powers.

However, the rule that requires an officer to exercise his own

judgment and discretion in making an order does not preclude him from
utilizing, as a matter of practical administrative procedure, the aid of subordinates directed by him to investigate and report the facts and their recommendation in relation to the advisability of the order. Also,

administrative authorities having power to determine certain questions

after a hearing may make use of subordinates to hold the hearing, and make their determinations upon the report of the subordinates, without violating the principles as to fairness of hearing or delegation of powers.

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

Under
jurisdiction,

the
the

concept
court will

of

primary
not take

cognizance of a controversy involving a

question requiring the prior determination of an administrative body of officer. Even if such an action is filed in court.

THE PURPOSE OF THE DOCTRINE ARE AS FOLLOWS:

a. To give the administrative agency the opportunity to decide the controversy by itself correctly and so as to enable the said administrative tribunal to correct its error.
b. To prevent unnecessary and premature resort to courts so as to declog court dockets

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION(BOC) VS. DELA ROSA
MAY 31, 1991 (197 SCRA 854)

In 1961, William Gatchalian and his companions were admitted as Filipino citizens. In 1962, the Secretary of Justice set aside all decisions purporting to have been rendered by the BOC on appeal or on review motu proprio of decisions of the Board of Special Inquiry. The same memo directed BOC to review all cases whereby entry was allowed on the grant that the entrant was a Philippine citizen. Among those was that of Gatchalian and others. Decisions of the Board of Special Inquiry were

reversed. Gatchalian was covered by the warrant of exclusion. A TRO

was issued restraining petitioners from continuing with the deportaton proceedings against Gatchalian.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC judges have no jurisdiction
over BOC and the subject matter of the case.

Held:
The court is not empowered to look into this question: whether or not a person is an alleged alien. This is within the competence of the BOI.

The Bureau of immigration has the exclusive authority to hear and try cases involving alleged aliens, and in the process, determine also their citizenship.

The Primary Jurisdiction of the Bureau of immigration over deportation proceedings admits of an exception, i.e. judicial intervention may be resorted to in cases where the claim of citizenship is so substantial that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the claim is correct. The Bureau of Immigration is not of equal rank as the RTC, hence its decisions may be appealable to, and may be reviewed through a special civil action for certiorari by the RTC.

GO VS. RAMOS 598 SCRA 268

Luis Ramos initiated a deportation proceeding

against Jimmy Go before the Bureau of Deportation and Immigration (now Bureau of Immigration) alleging that the latter is an illegal and undesirable alien. Luis argued that although it appears from Jimmys birth certificate that his parents, Carlos and Rosario Tan, are Filipinos; the document seems to be tampered. He also averred

that jimmy, through stealth, machination and scheming

managed to cover up his true citizenship.

In a Resolution, Associate Commissioner Linda L. Malenab-Hornilla dismissed the complaint for

deportation. However, the Board of Commissioners reversed said dismissal finding Jimmys claim to Philippine citizenship in serious doubt. The Board directed the preparation and filing of the appropriate

deportation charges against Jimmy.

Carlos and Jimmy filed a petition for certiorari and

prohibition with application for injunctive reliefs before

the RTC of Pasig City. In essence, they challenged the jurisdiction of the Board to continue with the

deportation proceedings.

HELD:
There can be no question that the Board has the authority to hear and determine the deportation cases against a deportee and in the process determine also the question of citizenship raised by him. However, this Court, laid down the exception to the primary jurisdiction enjoyed by the deportation board. We stressed that judicial determination is permitted in cases when

the courts themselves believe that there is substantial evidence

supporting the claim of citizenship, so substantial that there are reasonable grounds for the belief that the claim is correct. Moreover, when the evidence submitted by a deportee is

conclusive of his citizenship, the right to immediate review

should also recognized and the courts shall promptly enjoin the deportation proceedings.

GUILLES VS. CA
NOVEMBER 27, 1990

The Director of the Geological Mines Bureau has jurisdiction over an award of a mining claim and NOT the courts. The remedy available from an adverse decision by the Bureau shall be appealed first before the Secretary of the DENR then to the Office of the President.

INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES, INC. VS. CA

APRIL 18, 1990 (184 SCRA 427)

Facts:

IEI filed an action for rescission of the Memorandum of Agreement with damages against

Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation, and

the then Minister of Energy Geronimo Velasco before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 150

ISSUES:
Whether or not the civil court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit for rescission of the Memorandum of Agreement concerning a coal operating contract over coal blocks.

RULING:
No, the Bureau of Energy Development has primary jurisdiction over the matter. IEIs cause of action

was not merely the rescission of a contract but the

reversion or return to it of the operation of the coal blocks. These are matters properly falling within the domain of the BED. The application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, however, does not call for the dismissal of the case below. It needs only to be suspended until after the matters within the competence

of the BED are threshed out and determined.

Under jurisdiction, which is

the courts within

doctrine cannot the

of and

Primary will of not an

determine a controversy involving a question jurisdiction administrative tribunal, especially where the

question demands the exercise of sound

administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine the technical and intricate matters of facts.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative

remedies.

Where the law provides for the remedies against the

action of an administrative board, body or officer, relief to

courts against such action can be sought only after exhausting all the remedies provided for. This is known as the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Basis of the doctrine.

The doctrine rests upon the presumption that the administrative body, board or officer, if given the chance to

correct its mistake or error, may amend its decision on a

given matter and decide it properly. In the Philippines, our Supreme Court has recognized the doctrine by declaring that the administrative remedies afforded by law must first be exhausted before resort can be had to the courts, especially when the administrative remedies are by law exclusive and final.

Purpose of the doctrine

The purpose of the doctrine is to compel parties to an administrative proceeding to avail themselves of all the administrative remedies on

hand. It will save the parties from a long, tedious

litigation in court and expenses therefrom. It will also help prevent clogging of our dockets.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply where the law does not make such remedy a condition precedent to judicial resort.

EXCEPTION TO HE PRINCIPLE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.

1.) When a decision is rendered by a
Department Secretary, the aggrieved party may directly go to court without appealing the decision of

the Department Head to the President.

2.) Where the only question to be settled is a purely legal one and nothing of an administrative nature is to be done or can be done.

3.) Where the action of the administrative officer is clearly and obviously devoid of any color of authority, the aggrieved party may forthwith seek the protection of the judicial department, notwithstanding his failure to appeal from the action of the Department Head.

4.) When the administrative body is in estoppel to

invoke exhaustion of administrative remedies.

5.) If its application will cause great and

irreparable damage.

6.) Where insistence on its observance would result in the nullification of the claim being asserted.

REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

Extent of judicial review of administrative decisions.

It is the rule that in reviewing administrative decisions of the Executive Branch of the Government the findings of facts made therein must be respected, so long as they are supported by substantial evidence, even if not overwhelming or preponderant: that it is not for the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of the

witness, or otherwise substitute its judgment for that of the

administrative agency on the sufficiency of the evidence

that the administrative decisions in matters within the executive jurisdiction can only be set aside on proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of law. These principles negate the power of he reviewing court to re-examine the sufficiency of he evidence in an administrative case as if originally instituted therein, and do not authorize the court to receive additional evidence that was not submitted to the administrative agency concerned.

WHEN MAY COURTS REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION? Courts may review administrative decision?
(1)

To determine the constitutionality of any validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, executive order or regulation; To determine the jurisdiction of any administrative board, commissioner or officer; To determine any other question of law; To determine questions of facts when necessary to determine either (a) a constitutional or jurisdictional issue; (b) the commission of abuse of authority; (c) when the administrative fact-finding body was unduly restricted by an error of law?

(2)

(3) (4)