1. SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ET AL. V. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (NTC) G.R.

151908, August 12, 2003 QUASI-LEGISLATIVE & QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS; RULE ON EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION;WHEN APPLICABLE Facts:

The NTC issued Billing Circular 13-6-2000 which promulgated rules and regulations on the billing of telecommunications services. Petitioners filed with the RTC a petition to declare the circular as unconstitutional. A motion to dismiss was filed by the NTC on the ground of petitioners to exhaust administrative remedies. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss but on certiorari, the CA reversed RTC. Issue:

Whether or not the Billing circular 13-6-2000 issued by NTC unconstitutional. Held:

Administrative bodies had (a) quasi-legislative or rule-making powers and (b) quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory powers. Quasilegislative or rule-making power is the power to make rules and regulations which results in delegated legislation that is within the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of powers. To be valid, such rules and regulations must conform to, and be consistent with, the provisions of enabling statute. Quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by law itself in enforcing and administering the same law. In carrying out their quasi-judicial functions, the administrative officers or bodies are required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from them for their official action and exercise of discretion in a judicial. The

determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by an administrative body contravenes the law or the constitution is within the judicial power as defined by the Constitution which is the duty of the Courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there have been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. The NTC circular was issued pursuant to its quasi-legislative or rule-making power. Hence, the action must be filed directly with the regular courts without requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies. Where the act of administrative agency was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial function, exhaustion of administrative remedy is required, before going to court. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies only where the administrative agency exercises its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function. Thus, in cases involving specialized disputes, the same must be referred to an administrative agency of special competence pursuant to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. This doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies where the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, has been placed within the special competence of an administrative body. In such case, the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view.

Ople vs Torres et.al.; G.R. No. 127685, July23, 1998 FACTS: Administrative Order No. 308 entitled Adoption ot a National Computerized Identification Reference System was issued by President Fidel V. Ramos and was published in four newspapers of general circulation. It aims to establish a decentralized Identification Reference System among the key basic services and social security providers. There shall be a Population Reference Number (PRN) for each individual and all basic and social security transactions shall be regulated by the PRN with the use of Biometrics Technology. The funding shall be sourced from the respective budgets of the concerned agencies like GSIS, SSS, NSO and others. Petitioner Bias Ople assailed the Administrative Order and prayed for its nullification on two important constitutional grounds: one, it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate, and two, it impermissibly intrudes on our citizens protected zone of privacy. The petitioner claims that AO No. 308 is not a mere administrative order but a law and hence, beyond the power of the President to issue. On the other hand, the respondents maintain that the President has merely exercised his

administrative power in implementing the legislative policy of the Administrative Code of 1987 and that A.O. No. 308 is not a law for it confers no right,imposes no duty, affords no protection and creates no office. On the right of privacy, claims that A.O. No. 308 will infringe on the peoples right to be let alone while respondents deny such allegation.

ISSUES: Whether or not A.O. No. 308 encroaches on the law-making power of the legislative department; whether or not A.O. No. 308 infringes the peoples right of privacy. HELD:A.O. No. 308 involves a subject that is not appropriate to be covered by an administrative order. An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of government, It must be in harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy. It cannot be simplistically argued that A.O. No. 308 merely implements the Administrative Code of 1987 for the former establishes for the first time a National Computerized Identification Reference System. Nor is it correct to argue that A.O. 308 is not a law for it confers no right, imposes no.duty, affords no protection, and creates no office. Under the assailed administrative order, a citizen cannot transact business with government agencies delivering basic services to the people without the contemplated identification card. Thus, without the ID, a citizen will have difficulty exercising his rights and enjoying his privileges. Given this reality, the contention that A.O. No. 308 gives no right and imposes no duty cannot stand. Regarding the right of privacy, it is a right recognized and enshrined in the several provisions of our Constitution, and in our laws. Hence, it is the burden of government to show, that A.O. No. 308 is justified by some compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn. To note, what is not arguable is the broadness, the vagueness, the overbreadth of A.O. No 308 which if implemented will put our peoples right to privacy in clear and present danger. It is noteworthy that A.O. No. 308 does riot state what specific biological characteristics and what particular biometrics technology shall be used to identify people who will seek its coverage; it does not state whether encoding of data is limited to biological information alone for identification purposes; and it does not state in clear and categorical

terms how theses information gathered shall be handled. The A. 0. speaks of computer linkage which will give other governmental agencies access to the information. Yet, there are no controls to guard against leakage of information. The possibilities of abuse and misuse of the PRN, biometric and computer technology cannot be downplayed.