Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Chenery
Corp., 332 US 194
MANTRUSTE
APPEALS
SYSTEMS
vs
SAGE
GR
COURT
OF
Padua vs Ranada
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
Viola vs Alunan
ARNAULT vs EUSTAQUIO BALAGTAS
US vs Ang Tang Ho, GR No. 17122
vs.
NO.
Section
of
PD
1344,
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
Order
No.
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
vs
First
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
goods
were
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
Crisostomo
(1996)
vs.
CA,
258
SCRA
134
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
(G.R.
No.
Facts:
- This is Petition for validity of the
petitioner's removal from service as Asst.
Commissioner of the BIR, questioning the
creation of Memorandum Order no. 164 5
Administrative Order No. 101 which found
him guilty6 of grave misconduct in the
administrative charge and imposed upon
him the penalty of dismissal from office.
Likewise, petitioner seeks to assail the
legality of Executive Order No. 1327
- In his petition, petitioner challenged the
authority of the President to dismiss him
from office. He argued that in so far as
presidential appointees who are Career
Executive Service Officers are concerned,
the President exercises only the power of
control not the power to remove. He claimed
that there is yet no law enacted by Congress
which authorizes the reorganization by the
Executive
Department
of
executive
agencies, particularly the Bureau of Internal
revenue. He said that the reorganization
sought to be effected by the Executive
Department on the basis of E.O. No. 132 is
tainted with bad faith in apparent violation of
Section 2 of R.A. 66568
Issue:
5
Decision:
YES. Petitioner is a presidential appointee
who belongs to career service of the Civil
Service. Being a presidential appointee, he
comes under the direct disciplining authority
of the President. This is in line with the well
settled principle that the power to remove is
inherent in the power to appoint conferred to
the President by Section 16, Article VII of the
Constitution. Thus, it is ineluctably clear that
Memorandum Order No. 164, which created
a
committee
to
investigate
the
administrative charge against petitioner, was
issued pursuant to the power of removal of
the President.
- Under its Preamble, E.O. No. 132 lays down
the legal basis of its issuance, namely: a)
Section 48 and 62 of R.A. No. 7645, b)
Section 63 of E.O. No. 127, and c) Section
20, Book III of E.O. No. 292. Section 48 & 62
of R.A. 7645 clearly mentions the acts of
"scaling down, phasing out and abolition" of
offices only and does not cover the creation
of offices or transfer of functions.
- The foregoing provision evidently shows
that the President is authorized to effect
organizational
changes
including
the
creation of offices in the department or
agency concerned.
- While the President's power to reorganize
can not be denied, this does not mean
however that the reorganization itself is
properly made in accordance with law. Wellsettled is the rule that reorganization is
regarded as valid provided it is pursued in
good faith.9
9
Thus, in Dario vs. Mison, this court has had the occasion to
clarify that:"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 or
separation actually occurs because the position itself ceases
to exist. And in that case the security of tenure would not be
a Chinese Wall. Be that as it may, if the abolition which is
nothing else but a separation or removal, is done for political
reasons or purposely to defeat security of tenure, or
otherwise not in good faith, no valid abolition takes place and
whatever abolition is done is void ab initio. There is an invalid
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
DISPOSITIVE PORTION10
10
11
12
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
14
15
16
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
FACTS: .
- Though some cases describe the public
prosecutor's power to conduct a preliminary
investigation as quasi-judicial in nature, this
is true only to the extent that, like quasijudicial bodies18, the prosecutor is an officer
of the executive department exercising
powers akin to those of a court, and the
similarity ends at this point.
- The alleged circumstances of the case at
bar make up the elements of abuse of
confidence, deceit or fraudulent means, and
damage under Art. 315 of the Revised Penal
Code on estafa and/or qualified estafa. They
give rise to the presumption or reasonable
belief that the offense of estafa has been
committed; and, thus, the filing of an
Information against petitioners Bernyl and
Katherene is warranted.
- Considering the allegations, issues and
arguments adduced, SC dismissed the
instant petition for being the wrong remedy
under the Revised Rules of Court, as well as
for petitioner Bernyl and Katherene's failure
to sufficiently show that the challenged
Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals were rendered in grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
NO
1. The controlling fact is that the CESB was
created in PD No. 1 on September 1, 1974 . It
cannot be disputed, therefore, that as the
CESB was created by law, it can only be
abolished by the legislature. This follows an
unbroken stream of rulings that the creation
and abolition of public offices is primarily a
legislative function
NOTES:
Section 17, Chapter 3, Subtitle A. Title I,
Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987
as the source of its power to abolish the
CESB. Section 17 provides:
Sec. 17. Organizational Structure. Each
office of the Commission shall be headed by
a Director with at least one Assistant
Director, and may have such divisions as are
necessary independent constitutional body,
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
of
Career
of
Systems
Human
and
Resource
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
Blaquera vs Alcala
Facts: On Feb. 21, 1992, then Pres. Aquino
issued
AO
268
which
granted
each official and
employee
of
the
government
the
productivity
incentive benefits in a maximum amount
equivalent to 30% of the employees one
month basic salary but which amount not be
less than P2, 000.00. Said AO provided that
the productivity incentive benefits shall be
granted only for the year 1991. Accordingly,
all heads of agencies, including government
boards of government-owned or controlled
corporations and financial institutions, are
strictly
prohibited
from
granting
productivity incentive benefits for the year
1992 and future years pending the result of
a comprehensive study being undertaken by
the
Office
of
the
Pres.
The
petitioners,
who
are officials and
employees
of
several
government
departments
and
agencies,
were
paid incentive benefits for the year 1992.
The Pres. issued subject AOs to regulate the
Then, on Jan. 19, 1993, then Pres. Ramos
grant of productivity incentive benefits and
issued AO 29 authorizing the grant of
to prevent discontent, dissatisfaction and
productivity incentive benefits for the year
demoralization
among
government
1992 in the maximum amount of P1, 000.00
personnel
by
committing
limited
resources
of
and reiterating the prohibition under Sec. 7
government
for
the
equal
payment
of AO 268, enjoining the grant of
of
incentives
and
awards.
The
Pres.
was only
productivity incentive benefits without prior
exercising
his
power
of
control
by
approval of the President. Sec. 4 of AO 29
modifying
the
acts
of
the
heads
of
the
directed all departments, offices and
government
agencies
who
agencies which authorized payment of
granted incentive benefits
to
their
productivity incentive bonus for the year
employees
without
1992 in excess of P1, 000.00 to immediately
appropriate clearance from the Office of the
cause the refund of the excess. In
Pres., thereby resulting in the uneven
compliance therewith, the heads of the
distribution
of
government
resources.
departments or agencies of the government
concerned caused the deduction from
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
Lumiqued vs Exevea
FACTS:
Arsenio P. Lumiqued was the Regional
Director of the Department of Agrarian
Reform - Cordillera Autonomous Region
(DAR-CAR) until President Fidel V. Ramos
dismissed him from that position pursuant to
Administrative Order No. 52 dated May 12,
1993.
The following three complaints were filed by
DAR-CAR Regional Cashier and private
respondent Jeannette Obar-Zamudio with the
Board of Discipline of the DAR:
-charged
with
malversation
through
falsification of official documents. From May
to September 1989, Lumiqued allegedly
committed at least 93 counts of falsification
by padding gasoline receipts.
-private respondent accused Lumiqued with
violation of Commission on Audit (COA) rules
and regulations, alleging that during the
months of April, May, July, August,
September and October 1989, he made
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
ISSUES:
1. WON the administrative investigation
conducted by the DOJ is valid.
2. WON the right to counsel by Lumiques
was violated.
HELD:
1. Yes. While it is true that under the
Administrative Code of 1987, the DOJ shall
"administer the criminal justice system in
accordance with the accepted processes
thereof consisting in the investigation of the
crimes, prosecution of offenders and
administration of the correctional system,"
conducting criminal investigations is not its
sole function. By its power to "perform such
other functions as may be provided by law,"
prosecutors may be called upon to conduct
administrative investigations. Accordingly,
the investigating committee created by
Department Order No. 145 was duty-bound
to conduct the administrative investigation
in accordance with the rules therefor.
Moreover, the committee's findings pinning
culpability for the charges of dishonesty and
grave misconduct upon Lumiqued were not,
as shown above, fraught with procedural
mischief
2. No. under existing laws, a party in an
administrative inquiry may or may not be
assisted by counsel, irrespective of the
nature of the charges and of the
respondent's capacity to represent himself,
and no duty rests on such a body to furnish
the person being investigated with counsel.
In an administrative proceeding such as the
one that transpired below, a respondent
(such as Lumiqued) has the option of
engaging the services of counsel or not.
Excerpts from the transcript of stenographic
notes of the hearings attended by Lumiqued
clearly show that he was confident of his
capacity and so opted to represent himself .
Thus, the right to counsel is not imperative
in administrative investigations because
such inquiries are conducted merely to
determine whether there are facts that merit
disciplinary measures against erring public
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
BANDA V. ERMITA
G.R. No. 166620
April 20, 2010
FACTS:
Sometime in 1987, The National
Printing Office (NPO) was formed during the
term of former President Aquino by virtue of
Executive Order No. 285 which provided,
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
19
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
water within
Philippines.
the
territorial
jurisdiction
of
the
Decision:
PAGCOR has acted beyond the limits of its authority
when it passed on or shared its franchise to SAGE
A legislative franchise is a special privilege granted
by the state to corporations. It is a privilege of public
concern which cannot be exercised at will and
pleasure, but should be reserved for public control
and administration, either by the government directly,
or by public agents, under such conditions and
regulations as the government may impose on them
in the interest of the public. It is Congress that
prescribes the conditions on which the grant of the
franchise may be made. Thus the manner of granting
the franchise, to whom it may be granted, the mode
of conducting the business, the charter and the
quality of the service to be rendered and the duty of
the grantee to the public in exercising the franchise
are almost always defined in clear and unequivocal
language.
While PAGCOR is allowed under its charter to enter
into operators and/or management contracts, it is
not allowed under the same charter to relinquish
or share its franchise, much less grant a veritable
franchise to another entity such as SAGE.
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
which provides:
No court or administrative agency shall issue any restraining
order or injunction against the Trust in connection with the
acquisition, sale or disposition of assets transferred to it . . .
Nor shall such order or injunction be issued against any
purchaser of assets sold by the Trust to prevent such purchaser
from taking possession of any assets purchased by him.
23
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
VS
FACTS:
Owners of subject property in Pulilan , Bulacan,
Spouses Ignacio, and CGA entered into a Contract
to Sell for the said subdivision lot with stipulations
on downpayment, installment terms and period.
CGA paid the downpayment and religiously paid its
monthly installments until it was discovered that
subject property had flaws and defects in its title;
that said lot was a property under litigation. CGA
filed an action before the RTC against Ignacio for
fraudulent concealment of property under litigation.
Ignacio moved to have the action dismissed
contending that the HLURB has jurisdiction over
their claims.
ISSUE:
Whether HLURB
complaint
has
jurisdiction
over
the
HELD:
Yes. HLURB had its beginning when pursuant to
PD No. 957 NHA was created intended to closely
supervise and regulate the real estate subdivision
and condominium businesses in order to curb the
growing number of swindling and fraudulent
manipulations perpetrated by unscrupulous
subdivision and condominium sellers and
operators. By virtue of succeeding executive
orders, NHAs jurisdiction expanded until its
functions were transferred to the Human
Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC) until
it was eventually renamed HLURB.
HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction over complaints
arising from contracts between the subdivision
developer and the lot buyer or those aimed at
compelling the subdivision developer to comply
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
fiscal
autonomy
to
government
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
Issue:
WON EO 102 is void on the ground that it was
issued in excess of the president's authority.
Held: No. EO 102 is valid.
Executive Order No. 102 is well within the
constitutional power of the President to issue. The
President did not usurp any legislative prerogative
in issuing Executive Order No. 102. It is an
exercise of the President's constitutional power of
control over the executive department, supported
by the provisions of the Administrative Code,
recognized by other statutes, and consistently
affirmed by this Court.
The HSRA cannot be nullified based solely on
petitioners' bare allegations that it violates the
general principles expressed in the non selfexecuting provisions they cite herein. There are two
reasons for denying a cause of action to an alleged
infringement of broad constitutional principles:
basic considerations of due process and the
limitations of judicial power.
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
La Bugal-BLaan v. Ramos
G.R. No. 127882. December 1, 2004. J.
Panganiban
Facts:
The Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus before
the Court challenges the constitutionality of (1)
Republic Act 7942 (The Philippine Mining Act of
1995); (2) its Implementing Rules and Regulations
(DENR Administrative Order [DAO] 96-40); and (3)
the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement
(FTAA) dated 30 March 1995, executed by the
government with Western Mining Corporation
(Philippines), Inc. (WMCP).
Issue:
WON the court can decide on the controversy on
the ground that it is a justiciable question.
Held: Yes, it is a justiciable question.
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
ISSUE:
Whether the issue as the President can terminate a
treaty without Congressional approval is a nonjusticiable political question.
HELD:
Yes, because it involves the authority of the
President in the conduct of our country's foreign
relations and the extent to which the Senate or the
Congress is authorized to negate the action of the
President. The question of the efficacy of
ratifications by state legislatures, in the light of
previous rejection or attempted withdrawal, should
be regarded as a political question pertaining to the
political departments, with the ultimate authority in
the Congress in the exercise of its control over the
promulgation of the adoption of the Amendment.
The controversy is a non-justiciable political
dispute that should be left for resolution by the
Executive and Legislative Branches of the
Government and might be answered in different
ways for different amendments which must surely
be controlled by political standards, rather than
standards easily characterized as "judicially
manageable". In light of the absence of any
constitutional provision governing the termination
of a treaty, and the fact that different termination
procedures may be appropriate for different
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction over
the case notwithstanding Olaguer's appointment as
fiscal agent of the PCGG.
Olaguer vs RTC, G.R. No. 81385. February 21,
1989
FACTS:
HELD:
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
May 5, 1989
ISSUE:
Whether the absence of designated limits in fixing
the length of service of a term of imprisonment (as
in Sec 32 of RA 4670) constitutes an exercise of
undue delegation of powers?
HELD:
Yes. The court held that It is not for the courts to
fix the term of imprisonment where no points of
reference have been provided by the legislature.
What valid delegation presupposes and
sanctions is an exercise of discretion to fix the
length of service of a term of imprisonment
which must be encompassed within specific or
designated limits provided by law, the absence
of which designated limits well constitute such
exercise as an undue delegation, if not-an
outright intrusion into or assumption, of legislative
power.
Section 32 of Republic Act No. 4670 provides for
an indeterminable period of imprisonment, with
neither a minimum nor a maximum duration having
been set by the legislative authority. The courts are
thus given a wide latitude of discretion to fix the
term of imprisonment, without even the benefit of
any sufficient standard, such that the duration
thereof may range, in the words of respondent
judge, from one minute to the life span of the
accused. Irremissibly, this cannot be allowed. It
vests in the courts a power and a duty essentially
legislative in nature and which, as applied to this
case, does violence to the rules on separation of
powers as well as the non-delegability of legislative
powers.
This
time,
the
preumption
of
constitutionality has to yield.
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
Held:
No. The Secretary of DOJ did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in issuing the DO 182.
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
FACTS:
HELD:
CEFERINO
PADUA, petitioner, vs.
HON.
SANTIAGO RANADA, PRESIDING JUDGE OF
MAKATI, RTC, BRANCH 137 et al
FACTS:
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
is no undue
Congress.
delegation
of
power
by
the
for
the
the
for
ISSUE:
WON the courts have the right to review the
findings of legislative bodies in the exercise of the
prerogative of legislation, or interfere with their
proceedings.
RULING:
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
Facts:
At its special session of 1919, the Philippine
Legislature passed Act No. 2868, entitled "An Act
penalizing the monopoly and holding of, and
speculation in, palay, rice, and corn under
extraordinary
circumstances,
regulating
the
distribution and sale thereof, and authorizing the
Governor-General, with the consent of the Council of
State, to issue the necessary rules and regulations.
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
ISSUE:
Whether or not in hearing the complaint of Yuson and in
ordering the reinstatement of the
Contract to Sell between the parties NHA assumed the
performance of judicial or quasi-judicial functions which
it was not authorized to perform.
DARIO VS MISON
FACTS:
President
Aquino
promulgated
Proclamation No. 3 Declaring a
National Policy to implement the
reforms mandated by the people,
protecting their basic rights, adopting
a
provisional
constitution
and
providing for an orderly transition to a
government under a new Constitution.
The
petitioner
was
Commissioner at the
Customs.
HELD:
No. It is by now commonplace learning that many
administrative
agencies
exercise
and
perform
adjudicatory powers and functions, though to a limited
extent only. Limited delegation of judicial or quasijudicial authority to administrative agencies (e.g., the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the National
Labor Relations Commission) is well recognized in our
jurisdiction,basically because the need for special
competence and experience has been recognized as
essential in the resolution of questions of complex or
specialized character and because of a companion
recognition that the dockets of our regular courts have
remained crowded and clogged.
The Court held that under the law creating NHA it is
empowered to regulate the real estate trade
and business involving ...specific performance of
contractual and statutory obligations filed by
buyers of subdivision lots or condominium units against
the owner, developer, dealer, broker or
salesman..
The Court held that under the "sense-making and
expeditious doctrine of primary jurisdiction . . . the courts
cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a
question which is within the jurisdiction of an
administrative tribunal where the question demands the
exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the
special knowledge, experience, and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and
intricate matters of fact, and a uniformity of ruling is
essential to comply with the purposes of the regulatory
statute administered."
a
Deputy
Bureau of
ISSUE:
HELD:
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
terminated. To
begin
with
the
Commissioners appointing power is
subject to the provisions of EO No. 39.
Under EO No. 39 the Commissioner of
Customs may appoint all Bureau
personnels except those appointed by
the President.
Accordingly with respect to Deputy
Commissioner Dario, Commissioner
Mison
could
not
have
validly
terminated
them,
they
being
Presidential appointees.
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
Issue:
Whether the Secretary of DILG has
jurisdiction and authority over the case
Held:
Jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary
actions against elective local officials is
lodged in two authorities: the Disciplining
Authority and the Investigating Authority.
This is explicit from A.O. No. 23. Pursuant to
these provisions,
the power to investigate may be delegated
to the DILG or a Special Investigating
Committee, as may be constituted by the
Disciplining Authority. This is not undue
delegation, contrary to petitioner Joson's
claim.
The
President
remains
the
Disciplining Authority. What is delegated is
the power to investigate, not the power to
discipline
Moreover, the power of the DILG to
investigate administrative complaints is
based on the alter-ego principle or the
doctrine of qualified political agency. Thus:
Under this doctrine, which recognizes the
establishment of a single executive, all
executive and administrative organizations
are adjuncts of the Executive Department,
the heads of the various executive
departments are assistants and agents of
the Chief Executive, and, except in cases
where the Chief Executive is required by the
Constitution or law to act in person or the
exigencies of the situation demand that he
act personally, the multifarious executive
and administrative functions of the Chief
Executive are performed by and through the
executive departments, and the acts of the
Secretaries of such departments, performed
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon |
Week 2: Chapter 2 Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers