Admin Law January13, 2014 lecture Atty.

Elman
The requirements for the validity of rules and regulations as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case
of Tanada Vs Tuvera, the same must always be issued on the basis of law so there must be authority; that
authority is the law itself. Rules and regulations must always be within the scope and purview of the law;
rules must be germane to the objectives and purposes of the law and these rules must be reasonable.
And if intended to applyto the general public, there is the indispensable requirement of publication. The
applicability of Article 2 of the Civil Code. Rules that are intended to have a consequence, affect the
general public need to be published consistent with the requirements of due process. Why? Becausethe
people have the right to know the contents of these rules and regulations before the rights are affected.
So we have mentioned this case of Sec Vs Picop where the issue among others is to determine which rule
to apply whether 1990 or the 1986 rules . If At the time of the filing of the picop, there was no publication
yet of the 1990 circular which impose an assesment of 12million filing fees.What ought to apply is the
1986 circular which has an assessmentof P100T. This is consistent with the due process provision of the
Constitution.
In the caseof gsis vs coa, w/n the heirs of gen. Asuncion who died of a helicopter crash are entitled to the
dead benefits of their father and it was argued by the gsis that there should be a non-payment because of
the absenceof the resolution at the time implementing executive order 79. The SC ruled that even in the
absence of resolution implementing it passed by the gsis board of trustees, EO 79 is already valid and
effective because it has been published in the official gazette.
In the case of Phil. Int'l Trading Corp. Vs COA, the DBM passed a circular that disallows the payment of
allowances to govt employees on top of their salaries. The SC said that in the absence of publication, this
circular does not have any force and effect. There was no publication of this circular either in the OG or
newspaper of gen circulation. The fact that this circular was later on reissued and in fact submitted for
publication does not cure the defect or ratify whatever defect and retoract to the date of the disallowance
issued by the DBM. This is because the requirement of publication is a condition precedent for the
effectivity of the law.
The same principle is seen in the case of PHILSA Int'l placement vs sec of labor, the circular was
promulgated by the POEA but this was not filed with the National Administrative Register. Now the
requirement under EO 292, under Book 7, whenever the circular imposes sanction, there should be the
submission of the circular with the National Administrative Registerof the UP Law Center. So in the
absence of such filing, it cannot be made the basis for the imposition of such sanctions. Hence, the
circular cannot be effective and enforced. So rules imposing a penalty as authorizedby the the law must
be filed with the National Administrative Register.
Now in the case of Honasan vs DOJ Panel, the matter of applicabilit, as contended by Honasan, of OMBDOJ Joint Circular entered into by the DOJand the Office of the Ombudsman in 1995 pertaining to the
dimunition of the responsibilities of prosecutors of both offices specifically the conduct of preliminary
investigations of cases involving public officers. Under this rule, whenever resolution is prepared by the
DOJ prosecutor, the resolution must be submitted to the ombudsman for approval.more so if the offense
was committed in relation to office. Honasan claims that the Doj Panel tasked to conduct prelim
investigation lacked jurisdiction to conduct the same contending that under the joint circular between the
ombudsman and the doj, there must first be approval from the office of the ombudsman. The SC ruled
that the joint circular is not applicable because it is purely internal. This has nothing to do with the public

at large, it affects only the prosecutors of both offices on how they should proceed in the conduct of their
investigations. Since it is merely internal, there is no need for publication. In fact, the circular has no
relevance to Honasan, his rights are not affected simply by reason of non publication. Nonetheless, this
circular has been supersede by MOA, March 29,2012. There is no more distinction of whether there
should be prior approval by the office of the ombudsman whenever resolutions are issued. If the act
commited by public officer is office related, it should be the office of the ombudsman, in accordance with
the principle of concurrent jurisdiction but nonetheless it willnot prevent the DOJ with proceeding with
the prelim investigation considering that it is an office-related offense and if the respondent public officer
is high ranking, in relation to RA 6770, the primary jurisdiction is that of the office of the ombudsman.
But in all other cases, the prosecuter's office under the dept. Of Justice already has the jurisdiction since it
does not need the authority of the ombudsman to conduct investigation involving public officers of low
ranking.
Like for example in the case of Ampatuan, you dont need to be a public officer to commit the crime of
murder,so the DOJ already has competence. So if it finds probable cause, there is no need to secure the
approval of the office of the ombudsman but unless if the crime committed is office related like
malversation, then there should be approval. Further, even if the offense committed is office related but
the officer is low ranking, the prosecutor of the DOJ already has full authority. It need not get the
authority from the office of the ombudsman.
Is there a need to have the MOA of March 29, 2012 published either in the OG or newspaper of gen
circulation? No. It is purely, again, internal to the prosecutors of offices.
So what need not published? Those that are internal in nature, those issued by superiors to their
personnels and not the public and letters of instructions.
In the case of Republic vsExprexx Telecom, Bayantel in the matter of applicability of the rules issued by
the National Telecommunications Commission. So the issue is which rule ought to apply either the 1978
rules or the 1993 rules, primarily because of the lack of publication of the 1993 revised rules. It is the
1978 rules which ought to apply in the matter of the application filed by Bayantel. The SC ruled that even
if at the time of the filing of Bayantel the 1993 rules were already submitted to the UP Law Center,
nonetheless it is not an operative act that would give force and effect to the implementing rules. But it
should be published either in OG or newspaper of gen circulation.
In the case of Sec Vs GMA Network, on the basis of the law, RA 3531, the Secis authorized to collect
filing fees in cases pertaining to the amendments to the articles of incorporation extending the corporate
existence of the corporation. The SC ruled that this memorandum circular issued under the authority of
RA 3531 imposing a filing fee of 1/3 of the 1/10 of the authorized capital stock but 20% thereo. Clearly,
it will prejudice the public and so there is a need for publication. The SC ruled that the Circular is not
valid and effective because of non-publication. In the absence of such publication, there is violation of
due process. So the application of GMA should not be covered by the circular imposing such filing fee.
An important concept in our study of administrative law is due process provios. Now, waht are the
requirements of administrative due process?
1. There must be an impartial tribunal
2. There must be due notice and hearing or opportunity to be heard. What does this mean? Notonly the
opportunity to file controverting evidence but also the opportunity to know the claims and evidences of
the other party
3. The procedure conducted must always be consistent with essentials of fair hearing and trial; and lastly

4. Such proceedings should be conducted to give opportunity for a court to determine whther the
applicable rule of law and procedure were observed.
In the case of Fabella vs CA, in the matter of charges against public school teachers who participated in
strike activities. W/n there has been compliance with the due process requirement. Was there an impartial
tribunal? If you recall, RA 4670 (Magna Carta of Public School Teachers) and the impt provision is
section 9 which creates the investigating committee, its composition: the district superintendent as
chairman and members are the DepEd Supervisor and Rep of Teacher's Association whether local,
provincial or national. In this case there was a trial conducted against the teachers by this investigating
committee but what was lacking was the representation coming from the Teacher's Association. The SC
ruled that there was no compliance with what was required under the law . What gives validity to the due
process requirement was precisely the conduct of hearing by the investigating committee composed not
only of officers from the DepEd but also the representative from Teacher's Association. Hence it cannot
be said that there was a fair trial. The proceedings were rendered null andvoid.
In Emin vs De Leon, Emin issued to public school teachers for a fee, false certificate ofeligibility. His
anomaly was discovered and he was charged before the CSC. He filed his counter-affidivat, he
participated in the proceedings but then the CSC issued a resolution and Emin was dismissed for grave
dishonesty. He complained that in the first place it should have been the investigating committee under
the magna carta that conducted the proceedings. Is his contention correct?He is correct but he is alrreday
estopped through his active participation. Section 9 of magna carta law does not confer exclusive
jurisdiction, it is exercising primary jurisdiction. Emin never raised this matter of authority and he canot
subsequently raise it when the case has alreday been decided against him. There was opportunity given to
him to be heard, his full participation, not only by filing the counter-affidavit but also the filing of a
motion for recon.
The same concept applies in Alcala vs School principal Villar. villar also raised the issue of lack of
authority of the office of the ombudsman, after his case was already dismissed. But he was also estopped
by his participation in the proceedings; estoppel by laches. There was no violation of procedural due
process. He was given opportunity to cross examine witnesses against him. So it is not really something
that the law confers exclusively to the DepEd.
In ombudsman vs estandarte, even if under the law the primary jurisdiction is vested under section 9 of
magna carta to the investigating committee, once the case has been filed with the DepEd, and in fact the
same already commenced proceedings, such case may no longer be transferred even if there is agreement
on the part of the ombudsman for it to take cognizance. Where here the complainant has a change of mind
and wished that the ombudsman take cognizance of the case, decided to withdraw the case and there was
no objection on the part of the DepEd and neither was the ombudsman not willing. The SC ruled that
jurisdiction is conferred by law and it cannot simply be lost upon the instance of the parties. Once
acquired, the tribunal continues to acquire jurisdiction even if the parties agree.
In the case of Ombudsman vs Medrano, Medrano was administratively charged before the office of the
ombudsman because of sexual harrassment. He later on declared that the matter ought to be decided not
by the ombudsman but by the DepEd. The Sc ruled that he is already barred from impugning the authority
of the ombudsman. Despite the provison under the ombudsman act, section 23 thereof, gives the
ombudsman the power to reverse certain complaints to their proper disciplinary authority; the referral of
the complaint to the proper disciplinary authority. The SC ruled that it's not a case of exclusive authority
but concurrent. And there was active participation again by Medrano. It was too late for him to question
the jurisdiction.

We will include Ombudsman vs Delijero and Ombudsman vs Masing.