You are on page 1of 2

Administrative agencies have no inherent powers.

They only have powers that are or were conferred to

them by constitution or by law or by authority of law. We also discussed some of the powers like the
power of investigation, the power of the president

And we likewise discussed last meeting the quasi legislative or rule making powers of administrative
agencies. So now well go to the discussion one of the major powers granted to administrative agencies.
And this is a quasi judicial power or adjudicatory powers.

Quasi judicial power or adjudicatory power is simply the power of an administrative agency to hear and
determine or to ascertain facts and decide by application of the rules to ascertain facts.

Judicial power, it is simply the power to hear and determine or ascertain facts and most importantly to
decide by the application of rules to ascertain facts. Meaning judicial power consists of 1.) reception of
evidence 2.) determination facts based on the evidence received 3.) the decision to decide or to apply
the law to the facts as ascertained or as determined based on the evidence or the pleadings submitted.

So these are the major components of judicial power. So 1.) to ascertain/determine facts and to receive
evidence 2.) to determine facts and ascertain facts from the evidence received 3) to decide based on the
facts and applicable law.

So based on this definition alone, there must be an applicable law which would be the basis of your
decision, which should be applied to the facts determined or ascertained.

Santiago case, this is very common nowadays. We could see parents now contesting the ranking of their
preschool children, quarrelling the school administration; not content with the ranking or the placement
of their children, they honour places. We often see that nowadays. Now the question in this Santiago
case is whether the determination of the ranking of the students in a certain school is an exercise of
judicial determination or a judicial function or an exercise of quasi judicial power. And why is in this
case, why did the court determined first whether there is an exercise of quasi judicial power.


And why is it important? Because as we will learn later, or you will extensively later in your civil law,
some of the remedies of a party have some requirements. And one of this, rule 65, and action for
certiorari, special action, civil action for certiorari, requires, what is being questioned is the decision or
resolution of a tribunal acting in a judicial or quasi judicial function or capacity. So in this case, the court
said, they first determine whether there is a proper remedy of certiorari, to determine that, there is a

And the court said no. They are not because one of the requirements in the exercise of quasi judicial
function is of course, that there must be a law first which law should be applied to the facts as
determined by the body. And the SC said, there is no such law regarding the ranking of the students.,
But in this case, the SC defined extensively, what is judicial power, what is quasi judicial power. So if you
could find that in your text, it has many definitions. But you just read those, or better yet, you read the
decision, full decision of Santiago Jr v Bautista. So special action is an adjudication of