VI.

Administrative Enforcement and Sanctions

A. Administrative Subpoena
• Evangelista vs. Jarencio, 68 SCRA 99
SEC. QUIRICO P. EVANGELISTA, in his capacity as Secretary of the
Presidential Agency on Reforms and Government Operations, and the
PRESIDENTIAL AGENCY ON REFORMS AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
(PARGO), petitioner, vs. HON. HILARION U. JARENCIO, as Presiding Judge,
Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXIII, and FERNANDO MANALASTAS,
Assistant City Public Service Officer of Manila, and ALL OTHER CITY
OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY SITUATED, respondents.
G.R. No. L-29274 November 27, 1975
(2) Authority delegated by statute. “The administrative agency has the power of
inquisition which is not dependent upon a case of controversy in order to get
evidence, but can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated or
even just because it wants assurance that it is not. When investigative and
accusatory duties are delegated by statute to an administrative body, it too may take
steps to inform itself as to whether there is probable violation of the law.
In sum, it may be stated that the subpoena meets the requirements for enforcement if
the inquiry is:
(a) within the authority of the agency
(b) the demand is not too indefinite

(c) the information is reasonable relevant”

Facts: Quirico Evalengista, petitioner, is the head of the Presidential Agency on
Reforms and Government Operations (PARGO) created by Executive Order No. 4,
which, among others, provides:
(3) Information sought reasonably relevant to the investigations. “There is no doubt
“The agency is hereby vested with all the powers of an investigating committee under that the fact-finding investigations being conducted by the PARGO upon sworn
Sections 71 and 580 of the Revised Administrative Code, including the power to statements implicating certain public officials of the City Govt of Manila in anomalous
summon witnesses by subpoena duces tecum, administer oaths, take testimony or transactions fall within the PARGO’s sphere of authority and that the information
evidence relevant to the investigation.” sought to be elicited from respondent Manalastas of which he is claimed to be in
possession, is reasonably relevant to the investigations.”
Respondent Manalastas (Assistant City Public Service Officer of Manila) was issued
a subpoena ad testificandum commanding him to appear as witness at the office of
the PARGO to testify in a certain investigation pending therein. Instead of obeying it,
he filed a petition with the CFI of Manila for prohibition, certiorari and restraining order
assailing its legality. Judge Jarencio issued a restraining order. Hence, this action. • Read full text for the vital Separate Opinions

Issue: Whether or not the PARGO enjoys the authority to issue subpoena in its
conduct of fact-finding investigation

Held: YES

(1) Agency is with authority to enforce subpoenas issued. “Rightly, administrative

agencies may enforce subpoenas issued in the course of investigations, WON
adjudication is involved, and WON probable cause is shown and even before the
issuance of a complaint. It is enough that the investigation be for a lawfully authorized
purpose. The purpose of the subpoena is to discover evidence, not to prove a
pending charge, but upon which to make one if discovered evidence so justifies.
Because judicial power is reluctant if not unable to summon evidence until it is shown
to be relevant to issues on litigations, it does not follow that an administrative agency
charged with seeing that the laws are enforced may not have and exercise powers of
original inquiry”

Administrative Law | Judge Augusto Jose Arreza BITOR Arellano University School of Law | 2 nd semester 2018-2019
B. Power of Contempt The Commission, although it cannot be classified as a court of justice within the
meaning of the Constitution (Section 30, Article VIII), for it is merely an administrative
• Masangcay vs. Comelec, 6 SCRA 27 body, may however exercise quasi-judicial functions insofar as controversies that by
express provision of law come under its jurisdiction.
BENJAMIN MASANGCAY, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, respondent. The Comelec lacks power to impose the disciplinary penalty meted out to Masangcay
G.R. No. L-13827 September 28, 1962 in the decision subject of review. When the Commission exercises a ministerial
function it cannot exercise the power to punish for contempt because such power is
inherently judicial in nature. The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts;
Facts: On 24 October 1957, Benjamin Masangcay — then provincial treasurer of
its existence is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings, and to
Aklan designated to take charge of the receipt and custody of the official ballots,
the enforcement of judgments, orders and mandates of courts, and, consequently, in
election forms and supplies, as well as of their distribution, among the different
the administration of justice. The exercise of this power has always been regarded as
municipalities of the province— with several others, was charged before the Comelec
a necessary incident and attribute of courts. Its exercise by administrative bodies has
with contempt for having opened 3 boxes containing official and sample ballots for the
been invariably limited to making effective the power to elicit testimony. And the
municipalities of the province of Aklan, in violation of the instructions of said
exercise of that power by an administrative body in furtherance of its administrative
Commission embodied in its resolution promulgated on 2 September 1957, and its
function has been held invalid.
unnumbered resolution dated 5 March 1957, inasmuch as he opened said boxes not
in the presence of the division superintendent of schools of Aklan, the provincial The resolutions which the Commission tried to enforce and for whose violation the
auditor, and the authorized representatives of the Nacionalista Party, the Liberal Party charge for contempt was filed against Masangcay merely call for the exercise of an
and the Citizens’ Party, as required, which are punishable under Section 5 of the administrative or ministerial function for they merely concern the procedure to be
Revised Election Code and Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. followed in the distribution of ballots and other election paraphernalia among the
different municipalities. The Commission, thus, has exceeded its jurisdiction in
Masangcay et.al. complied with the summons issued by the Comelec to appear and
punishing him for contempt, and so its decision is null and void.
show cause why they should not be punished for contempt on the basis of the
charge. On 16 December 1957 the Commission rendered its decision finding Ratio: An administrative agency has no inherent powers, although implied powers
Masangcay and his co-respondent Molo guilty as charged and sentencing each of may sometimes be spoken of as "inherent." Thus, in the absence of any provision to
them to suffer 3 months imprisonment and pay a fine of P500, with subsidiary punich for contempt which has always been regarded as a necessary incident and
imprisonment of 2 months in case of insolvency, to be served in the provincial jail of attribute of the courts. Its exercise by administrative bodies has been invariably
Aklan. The other respondents were exonerated for lack of evidence. limited to making effective the power to elicit testimony. And the exercise of that
power by an administrative body in furtherance of its administrative function has been
Masangcay brought the present petition for review raising as main issue the
held invalid.
constitutionality of Section 5 of the Revised Election Code which grants the Comelec
as well as its members the power to punish acts of contempt against said body under
the same procedure and with the same penalties provided for in Rule 64 of the Rules
of Court in that the portion of said section which grants to the Commission and
members the power to punish for contempt is unconstitutional for it infringes the
principle underlying the separation of powers that exists among the three
departments of our constitutional form of government.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision appealed from insofar as Masangcay is
concerned, as well as the resolution denying his motion for reconsideration, insofar as
it concerns him; without pronouncement as to costs.

Issue: Whether or not Comelec may punish Masangcay for contempt C. Administrative Sanctions
Held/Ruling: No. Under the law and the constitution, the Comelec has not only the D. Summary Powers
duty to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections, but also
the power to try, hear and decide any controversy that may be submitted to it in E. Judicial Enforcement
connection with the elections.

Administrative Law | Judge Augusto Jose Arreza BITOR Arellano University School of Law | 2 nd semester 2018-2019