Page |1

I. About Administrative Law

a) Origin
 Recognition as a distinct category of law
o Due to rapid expansion of administrative agencies and increased functions
 Multiplication of government functions
o Modern life became more complex, the subjects of government regulations correspondingly
increased
 Growth and utilization of administrative agencies
o Complexities of modern age
 Fusion of different powers of government in administrative agencies
o Administrative law, then, resulted from the increased functions of government, the recent
tremendous growth in administrative agencies, and the fact that the agencies created in
this period of growth were much more than conventional administrative officials such as
had existed under earlier legislation.
 Law in the making
o Administrative law is still in its formative stages and is being developed as part of our
traditional system of law.
b) Definitions
 Administrative Law
o Branch of public law which fixes the organization of government and determines the
competence of the administrative authorities who execute the law, and indicates to the
individual the remedies for the violation of his rights
o Embraces all the law that controls, or is intended to control, the administrative operations
of government.
o As enshrined in the 1987 constitution, covers those of internal (i.e. legal aspects of
administration) and external administration (i.e. legal relations between administrative
authorities and private interests).
 Administration
o Refers to aggregate of those persons in whose hand the reins of government are for the
time being.
 Administrative Functions
o Those which involve the regulation and control over the conduct and affair of individuals for
their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the
policy of the legislature or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the
organic law of its existence
 Government of the Republic of the Philippines
o Corporate governmental entity – in which the functions of government is exercised
throughout the Philippines
 Agency of the government – any of the various units of the Government,
including a department, bureau, office, instrumentality, or government-owned or
controlled corporation, or a local government or a distinct unit therein.
 Instrumentality of the government – any agency of the National Government, not
integrated within the department framework, vested with functions or jurisdiction
by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special
funds, and enjoying operational authority, usually through a charter. E.g.
regulatory agencies, institutes and government-owned or controlled corporations
 Public Office
o Refers to the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for a given
period either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the appointing power, an individual
is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised
by that individual for the benefit of the public.
o 2 concepts
 Functional unit of government; such as department or bureau
 Position held or occupied; by individual persons, whose functions are defined by
law or regulation
o Public trust or responsibility, and embraces the idea of term, duration, emoluments, powers
and duties.


c) Classification
 Statutes setting up administrative authorities
 The body of doctrines and decisions dealing with the creation, operation, and effect of determinations
and regulations of such administrative authorities
 Rules, regulations, or orders of such administrative authorities in pursuance of the purposes for which
administrative authorities were created or endowed
 Determinations, decisions, and orders of such administrative authorities in the settlement of
controversies arising in their particular fields

d) Cases
 Pangasinan Transportation vs. PSC, G.R. No. 47065, June 26, 1940, 70 Phil. Reports 221
o Gist: “Valid Delegation of Legislative Power (i.e. administrative)”
Pursuant to Section 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended by section 1 of
Commonwealth Act No. 454, the Public Service Commission, upon the application of
authorization to operate ten additional new Brockway trucks of a Transportation Company
on the ground that they were needed to comply with the terms and conditions of its
existing certificates of public convenience, prescribed for the issuance of the certificate of
public convenience and that the certificate shall be valid for a definite period (25 years)
fixed therein.
o Issue: “Constitutionality of the delegation of a legislative power”
That the legislative powers granted to the Public Service Commission by Section 1 of
Commonwealth Act No. 454, without limitation, guide or rule except the unfettered
discretion and judgment of the Commission, constitute a complete and total abdication by
the Legislature of its functions in the premises, and for that reason, the Act, in so far as
those powers are concerned, is unconstitutional.
 Page |2

o Ruling/Ratio: “Delegation is constitutionally valid”

All that has been delegated to the commission, therefore, is the administrative function,
involving the use of discretion, to carry out the will of the National Assembly having in
view, in addition, the promotion of “public interests in a proper and suitable manner”. The
fact that the national Assembly may itself exercise the function and authority thus
conferred upon the Public Service Commission does not make the provision in question
constitutionally objectionable.

With the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of
governmental regulation and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a
constantly growing tendency toward the delegation of greater powers by the legislature,
and toward the approval of the practice by the court. In harmony with such growing
tendency, this Court, since the decision in the case of Compañia General de Tabacos de
Filipinas vs. Board of Public Utility Commissioner (34 Phil., 136), relied upon by the
petitioner, has, in instances, extended its seal of approval to the "delegation of greater
powers by the legislature.

 US vs. Ang Tang Ho, G.R. No. 17122, February 27,1922, 43Phil1
o Gist: “Invalid Delegation of Legislative Power”
Pursuant to a legislative act (Act No. 2868) penalizing the monopoly and hoarding 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 therefor, a Governor-General
issued a proclamation fixing the price at which the rice should be sold. Allegedly, Ang Tang
Ho committed a crime and was found guilty in violation of the said proclamation when he
sold rice to a consumer at price beyond the rate fixed by the proclamation of the Governor-
General. The question here involves an analysis and construction of Act No. 2868, in so far
as it authorizes the Governor-General to fix the price at which rice should be sold.

o Issue: “Extent of authority granted to the Governor-General”

Does the act of the Governor-General constitute a delegation of power which is
unconstitutional and void?

o Ruling/Ratio: “Act is a delegation of legislative power which is unconstitutional and void”

The legislature cannot delegate legislative power to enact any law. If Act No. 2868 is a law
unto itself and within itself, and it does nothing more than to carry it into effect, then the
Legislature created the law. There is no delegation of power and it is valid. On the other
hand, if the act within itself does not define a crime and is not complete, and some
legislative act remains to be done to make it a law or a crime, the doing of which is vested
in the Governor-General, the act is a delegation of legislative power is unconstitutional and
void.

In so far as Act No. 2868 undertakes to authorize the Governor-General, in his discretion to
issue a proclamation fixing the price of the rice and to make the sale of it in violation of the
proclamation a crime, it is unconstitutional and void.

When Act No. 2868 is analyzed, it is the violation of the Proclamation of the Governor-
General which constitutes the crime, if at all, because of the Proclamation by the Governor-
General.

 Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Board of Public Utility Commissioners, G.R.
No. L-11216 , March 6, 1916
o Gist: “Invalid delegation of power”
Pursuant to Sec 16 of Act No. 2307, the Public Utility Commission ordered a vessel
company to present annually a detailed report of finances and operations of such vessels as
are operated by it as a common carrier within the Philippine Islands, in the form prescribed
the board (commission). The said provision reads; “Sec. 16. The Board shall have power,
after hearing upon notice, by order in writing, to require every public utility as herein define
xxx (e) to furnish annually a detailed report of finances and operations, in such form and
containing such matters as the Board may from time to time by order prescribe.”

o Issue: “Validity of Act No. 2307”

The vessel company denied the authority of the Board to require the report asked for on
the ground that the provision of Act No. 2307 relied on by the said Board as authority for
such requirement was, if construed as conferring such power, invalid as constituting an
unlawful attempt on the part of the Legislature to delegate legislative power to the board.

o Ruling/Ratio: “Provision in question is invalid”

In the case at bar, the provision complained of does not lay “down the general rules of
action under which the commission shall proceed,” nor does it itself prescribe in detail what
those reports shall contain. Practically, everything is left to the judgment and discretion of
the Board of Public Utility Commissioners, which is unrestrained as to when it shall act, why
it shall act, how it shall act, to what extent it shall act, or what it shall act upon.

An act of the Philippine Legislature giving to the Board of Public Utility Commissioner the
power to require every public utility “to furnish annually a detailed report of finances and
operations, in such form and containing such matters as the board may from time to time
by order prescribe” is invalid for the reason that it is a delegation of legislative power to the
Board of Public Utility Commissioners and is in violation of the Act of July 1, 1902.

 Asuncion vs. de Yriarte, 28 Phil. 67 GR. NO. 9321, September 24, 1914
o Gist: “Ministerial Function”
 Page |3

The chief of the division of archives refused to file an article of incorporation on the ground
that the object of the corporation, as stated in the articles, was not lawful and that, in
pursuance of section 6 of Act No. 1459, they were not registerable. The incorporators filed
an action for mandamus. The court found in favor of the chief of the division of archives
and refused to order the registration of the articles mentioned, maintaining and holding
that the defendant, under the Corporation Law, had authority to determine both the
sufficiency of the form of the articles and the legality of the object of the proposed
corporation.

o Issue: “Question on legality vis-à-vis ministerial function”

Whether or not the chief of the division of archives has authority, under the Corporation
Law, on being presented with articles of incorporation for registration, to decide not only as
to the sufficiency of the form of the articles, but also as to the lawfulness of the purposes of
the proposed corporation.

o Ruling/Ratio: “Question on legality is a duty of the chief of the division of archives”

The chief of the division of archives, on behalf of the division, has also the power and duty
to determine from the articles of incorporation presented for registration the lawfulness of
the purposes of the proposed corporation and whether or not those purposes bring the
proposed corporation within the purview of the law authorizing corporations for given
purposes.

The duties of the chief of the division of archives, so far as relates to the registration of
articles of incorporation, are purely ministerial and not discretional; and mandamus will lie
to compel him to perform his duties under the Corporation Law, if, in violation of law, he
refuses to perform them.

II. Creation, Abolition and Reorganization of Administrative Agencies

a) Meaning of Administrative Agency
 Administrative agencies are government bodies charged with administering and implementing
particular legislations
 Administrative agencies, boards and commissions are public offices.
 Public Office
o Refers to the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for a given
period either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the appointing power, an individual
is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised
by that individual for the benefit of the public.
o 2 concepts
 Functional unit of government; such as department or bureau
 Position held or occupied; by individual persons, whose functions are defined by
law or regulation
o Public trust or responsibility, and embraces the idea of term, duration, emoluments, powers
and duties.

b) Their creation, reorganization and abolition

 Creation;
o All administrative agencies or bodies other than those established by the Constitution are
created by statutes or by officers or tribunals authorized by Congress to do so
expressly or impliedly.
o Administrative agencies are created by (1) Constitutional Provisions (2) Legislative
enactments (3) Autonomous Region’s enactments and (4) Local government action
 Reorganization; power to reorganize includes power to create or abolish offices
o Authorizing reorganization: means by which the legislature delegates the power to the
President or to another executive officer or body to create or abolish
o (def.) the process of restructuring the bureaucracy’s organizational and functional set-up,
to make it more viable in terms of the economy, efficiency, effectiveness and make it more
responsive to the needs of its clientele as authorized by law.
o (def.) means used by the legislature to reorganize or abolish offices, which it may do so by
law directly or indirectly by authorizing an executive department or agency to reorganize its
office
o Applies to all offices, including lower courts, except only those created by the Constitution
itself.
o President’s continuing authority to reorganize his Office: expressly granted by Sec. 31,
E.O.292
o The President, subject to the policy in the Executive Office and in order to
achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency, shall have continuing authority to
reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the President.
 Reasons for creation of administrative agencies:
o Unclog court dockets
o Meet the growing complexities of modern society
o Help in the regulation of ramified activities of a developing country
o Entrust to specialized agencies in specific fields with their special knowledge, experience,
and capability the task of dealing with problems thereof as they have the experience, the
expertise and power of dispatch to provide solutions thereto
 “complexities of modern governments”: with the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication
of the subjects of governmental regulations, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws,
the rigidity of the theory of separation of governmental powers has, to large extent, been relaxed by
permitting the delegation of greater powers by the legislature and the vesting of a larger amount of
discretion in administrative and executive agencies and officials, not only in the execution of the laws,
but also in the promulgation of certain rules and regulations and the adjudication of claims and
disputes calculated to promote public interest.
 Powers of executive or administrative agencies or officials are either express and implied, or
discretionary and ministerial, or directory and mandatory.
o Express: power is granted within the law
 Page |4

o Implied: power is implied from the wording of the law

o Ministerial: duty which is so clear and leaves no room for the exercise of discretion in its
performance. Remedy of an aggrieved party: mandamus
o Discretionary: by its nature requires the exercise of judgment. Remedy of an aggrieved
party: certiorari
o Directory: no substantial rights depend on it and no injury can result from ignoring it; and
the purpose of the legislature can be accomplished in a manner other than that prescribed
and substantially the same results obtained
o Mandatory: relating to matters of substance; prohibitions

c) Classification of Administrative Agencies

 The most common types of administrative bodies tasked with the duties and powers of performing
administrative, regulatory, investigative, quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions, or one or any
combination thereof, may be classified as follows: Agencies created to function in situations where in
the government is;
o Offering some gratuity, grant, or special privileges (e.g. Philippine Veterans Board, Board
on Pensions for Veterans, Philippine Veterans Administration, GSIS, and the SSS).
o Seeking to carry on certain governmental functions (e.g. Bureau of Immigration, the
Bureau of Internal Revenue, the Board of Special Inquiry and Board of Commissioners, the
Civil Service Commission, the Central Bank)
o Performing some business service for the public (e.g. Bureau of Posts, the Postal Savings
Bank, Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage Authority, Philippine National Railways, the
Civil Aeronautics Administration.
o Seeking to regulate business affected with public interest (e.g. Fiber Inspection Board, the
Philippines Patent Office, and Office of the Insurance Commissioner).
o Seeking under the police power to regulate private business and individuals (e.g. Securities
and Exchange Commission, Board of Food Inspectors, the Board of Review of Motion
Pictures, and the Professional Regulation Commission)
o Seeking to adjust individual controversies because of some strong social policy involved
(e.g. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court of Agrarian Relations, the Regional
Offices of the Ministry of Labor, Bureau of Labor Standards, Women and Minors Bureau)
o Seeking to conduct investigations and gather evidence for information, recommendation or
prosecution of crimes, (e.g. Commission on Human Rights, the National Bureau of
Investigation and the Prosecutor’s Office)

d) Cases
<Conceptual Framework in studying the cases>

***Q: Who has the power to reorganize?

A: It depends. In order to determine who has the power to reorganize, it is essential to
characterize whether the body to be reorganized is a department or an instrumentality of
government. Under EO 292, the President is given the power of control over all
departments, bureaus and offices under the executive branch. Since the power of control
includes the power to reorganize, then the power to reorganize a department, a bureau or
an office can be said to be lodged in the President. On the other hand, an instrumentality
is, as a general rule, created by statute or made pursuant to a law. So unless the law
creating such instrumentality delegates the authority to reorganize to a separate body, the
power to reorganize such is with Congress.

***Q: When is reorganization of administrative agencies valid?

A: First, determine whether the agency is a department or an instrumentality in order to
determine who has the authority to reorganize. Then, determine whether the
reorganization is done in good faith, not in good faith, or in bad faith. Reorganization is in
good faith if done for the purpose of economy and efficiency.

***Q: May a public officer validly claim violation of security of tenure as a result of
abolition of office?
A: It depends on the validity of the abolition. Was the abolition done by someone who has
authority? To determine who has authority to abolish, bear in mind the three modes of
creating an office: (1) Constitution; (2) Statute; and (3) authority by law. An office created
by the Constitution may only be abolished by Constitutional amendment or revision, unless
the Constitution itself provides for another mode of abolition. Likewise, an office created by
Statute, may, as a general rule, be only abolished by Congress, unless this power is
delegated. And the President may abolish an office if such office is under his power of
control and Congress has not provided for a different mode of abolition.

So if the abolition is made by someone with authority, then was it done in good faith?
Abolition is in good faith if the purpose is for economy and efficiency, or if it not done in
bad faith, bearing in mind the circumstances evidencing bad faith.

If done in good faith, then the abolition is valid. When there is valid abolition, there can be
no separation or removal from office and the affected public officer cannot claim violation of
security of tenure for there can be no tenure to a non-existent office.

***Q: May an official of an abolished office claim vested right to that office?
A: There is no such thing as a vested right to an office. The only exceptions are those
offices established by the Constitution, such as the Constitutional Commissions, etc.

***Q: In case of abolition and a new office is thereby created, may the incumbent of the
abolished office claim preference to that new office?

A: The concept of preference is illustrated in the “next-in-rank rule”. Under that rule,
anyone who is employed on a permanent basis in a position that has been previously
 Page |5

determined to be next-in-rank to the vacated office and who is qualified is given preference
to said office. This presupposes that there is an old office which is vacated. Thus, the rule
does not apply to a newly created office, which necessarily entails new positions. Besides,
preference only means that the old employee should be considered first but it does not
automatically follow that they should then be automatically reappointed.

 Crisostomo vs. Court of Appeals, 258 SCRA 134, G.R. NO. 106296, July 5, 1996
o Administrative Law; Schools and Universities; Statures; P.D. 1341 did not abolish, but only
changed, the former Philippine College of Commerce into what is now the Polytechnic
University of the Philippines – what is took place was a change in academic status of the
educational institution, not its operating life.
o Same; Same; Same; When the purpose is to abolish a department or an office or an
organization and to replace it with another one, the lawmaking authority says so.
o Same; Same; Same; Neither the addition of new course offerings nor changes in its
existing structure and organization bring about the abolition of an educational institution
and the creation of a new one – only an express declaration to that effect by the lawmaking
authority will.

 PSPCA v. COA (G.R. No. 169752, September 25, 2007) 534 SCRA 112
o Statutory Construction; Statutes; where statutes can be given retroactive effect – Statutes
can be given retroactive effect in the following cases; (1) when the law itself so expressly
procides; (2) in case of remedial statutes; (3) in case of curative statutes; (4) in case of
laws interpreting others; (5) in case of laws creating new rights
o Corporation Law; Fact that a certain juridical entity is impressed with public interest does
not, by that circumstance alone, make the entity a public corporation, inasmuch as a
corporation may be private though its charter contains provisions of a public character
incorporated solely for the public good. – this class of corporations may be considered
quasi-public corporations, which are private corporations that render public service, supply
public wants, or pursue other eleemosynary objectives. While purposely organized for the
gain or benefit of its members, they are required by law to discharge functions for the
public benefit. It must be stressed that a quasi-public corporation is a species of private
corporations, but the qualifying factor is the type of service the former renders to the
public; if it performs a public service, then it becomes quasi-public corporation.
o Same; the true criterion to determine whether a corporation is a public or private is found
in the totality of the relation of the corporation to the State – if the corporation is created
by the State as the latter’s own agency or instrumentality to help in carrying out its
governmental functions, then that corporation is considered public; otherwise, it is private.

 Buklod vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 142801-802. July 10, 2001, 360 SCRA 718
o Constitutional Law; Political Law; Public Offices; Abolition; General rules has always been
that the power to abolish a public office is lodged with the legislature; Except where the
office was created by the Constitution itself, it may be abolished by the same legislature
that brought it into existence; As far as bureaus, agencies or offices in the executive
department are concerned, the President’s power of control may justify him to inactivate
the functions of a particular office, or certain law may grant him the broad authority to
carry out reorganization measures.
o Same; Same; Same; Same; The Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) is
subject to the President’s continuing authority to reorganize. – the EIIB is a bureau
attached to the Department of Finance. It falls under the Office of the President. Hence, it
is subject to the President’s continuing authority to reorganize.
o Same; Same; Same; Reorganization is carried out in “good faith” if it is for the purpose of
economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient; Circumstances which may be considered
as evidence of bad faith in the removal of civil service employees made as a result of
reorganization. – R.A. No. 6656 provides for the circumstances which may be considered as
evidence of bad faith in the removal civil service employees made as a result of
reorganization, to wit; (a) where there is significant increase in the number of positions in
the new staffing pattern of the department or agency concerned; (b) where an office is
abolished and another performing substantially the same functions is created; (c) where
incumbents are replaced by those less qualified in terms of status of appointment,
performance and merit; (d) where there is a classification of offices in the department or
agency concerned and the reclassified offices perform substantially the same functions as
the original offices, and (e) where the removal violates the order of separation.
o Same; Same; Same; Same; Nothing is better settled in our law than that the abolition of
an office within the competence of a legitimate body if done in good faith suffers from no
infirmity. – the petitioner’s right to security of tenure is not violated. Nothing is better
settled in our law than that the abolition of an office within the competence of a legitimate
body if done in good faith suffers from no infirmity. Valid abolition of offices is neither
removal nor separation of the incumbents.

 Bagaoisan vs. National Tobacco Administration, G.R.No. 152845. August 5, 2003, 408 SCRA
337
o Political Law; Legislative Power; Abolition of Office; Exception; The general rule has always
been that the power to abolish a public office is lodged with the legislature. – This proceeds
from the legal precept that the power to create includes the power to destroy. A public
office is either created by the Constitution, by statute, or by authority of law. Thus, except
where the office was created by the Constitution itself, it may be abolished by the same
legislature that brought it into existence. The exception, however, is that as far as bureaus,
agencies or offices in the executive department are concerned, the President’s power of
control may justify him to inactivate the functions of a particular office, or certain laws may
grant him the broad authority to carry out reorganization measures.
 Page |6

o Same; Same; Same; Same; Reorganization; Security of Tenure; Republic Act No. 6656
provides for the circumstances which may be considered as evidence of bad faith in the
removal of civil service employees made as a result of reorganization. - it having been duly
established that the President has the authority to carry out reorganization ini any branch
or agency of the executive department, what is then left for us to resolve is whether or not
the reorganization is valid. In this jurisdiction, reorganizations have been regarded as valid
provided they are pursued in good faith. Reorganization is carried out in “good faith” if it is
for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient. Pertinently, R.A. 6656
provides for the circumstances which may be considered as evidence of bad faith in the
removal of civil service employees made as result of reorganization, to wit(a) where there
is significant increase in the number of positions in the new staffing pattern of the
department or agency concerned; (b) where an office is abolished and another performing
substantially the same functions is created; (c) where incumbents are replaced by those
less qualified in terms of status of appointment, performance and merit; (d) where there is
a classification of offices in the department or agency concerned and the reclassified offices
perform substantially the same functions as the original offices, and (e) where the removal
violates the order of separation.

 Domingo vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 142283. February 6,2003

o Constitutional Law; Executive Department; Office of the President; Power to Reorganize;
Executive Order 81 is a valid exercise of the President’s delegated power to reorganize the
Office of the President. – Since E.O. 81 is based on the President’s continuing authority
under Section 31 (2) and (3) of E.O. 292, E.O. 81 is a valid exercise of the President’s
delegated power to reorganize the Office of the President. The law grants the President this
power in recognition of the recurring need of every President to reorganize his office “to
achieve simplicity, economy, and efficiency”. The Office of the President is the nerve center
of the Executive Branch. To remain effective and efficient, the Office of the President must
be capable of being shapred and reshaped by the President in the manner he deems fit to
carry out his directives and policies. After all, the Office of the President is the command
post of the President. This is the rationale behind the President’s continuing authority to
reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the President.
o Same; same; same; same; Abolition of an office and transfer of functions or agencies,
distinguished; The distinction is crucial as it affects the security of tenure of employees. –
this distinction is crucial as it affects the security of tenrure of employees. The abolition of
an office in good faith necessarily results in the employee’s cessation in office, but in such
event there is no dismissal or separation because the office itself ceases to exist. On the
other hand, the transfer of functions or agencies does not result in the employee’s
cessation in office because his office continues to exist although in another department,
agency or office.

 Liban et al. vs. Gordon, PNRC (G. R. No. 175352,Jan. 18, 2011)
o Corporation Law; Philippine National Red Cross; A closer look at the nature of the Philippine
National Red Cross (PNRC) would show that there is none like it not just in terms of
structure, but also in terms of history, public service and official status – The passage of
several laws relating to the PNRC’s corporate existence notwithstanding the effectivity of
the constitutional proscription that the PNRC is not strictly in the nature of a private
corporation contemplated by the aforesaid constitutional ban. A closer look at the nature of
the PNRC would show that there is none like it not just in terms of its structure, but also in
terms of history, public service and official status accorded to it by the State and the
international community. There is merit in PNRC’s contention that its structure is sui
generis.

 Biraogo vs. PTC, G.R. No. 192935, December 7, 2010

o Presidency; Philippine Truth Commission (PTC); Reorganizations; Administrative code of
1987 (E.O. 292); Words and Phrases; To say that the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) is
borne out of a restructuring of the Office of the President under Section 31, Chapter 10,
Book III, of the Executive Order No. 292, is a misplaced supposition, even in the plainest
meaning attributable to the term “restructure” – an “alteration of an existing structure” –
the PTC was not part of the structure of the Office of the President prior to the enactment
of Executive Order No. 1. – The question, therefore, before the Court is this: does the
creation of the PTC fall within the ambit of the power to reorganize as expressed in Section
31 of the Revised Administrative Code? Section 31 contemplates “reorganization” as limited
by the following functional and structural lines: (1) restructuring the internal organization
of the Office of the President Proper by abolishing, consolidating or merging units thereof or
transferring functions from one unit to another; (2) transferring any function under the
Office of the President to any other Department/Agency or vice versa; or (3) transferring of
agency under the Office of the President to any other Department/Agency or vice versa.
Clearly, the provision refers to reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition
thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions. These points to situations where
a body or an office is already existent but a modification or alteration thereof has to be
effected. The creation of an office is nowhere mentioned, much less envisioned in said
provision. Accordingly, the answer to the questions in the negative. To say that the PTC is
borne out of a restructuring of the Office of the President under section 31 is a misplaced
supposition, even in the plainest meaning attributable to the term “restructure” – an
“alteration of an existing structure.” Evidently, the PTC was not part of the structure of the
Office of the President prior to the enactment of Executive Order No. 1.

e) EO 366: The Government Rationalization Program

 What is the program all about?
The overall goal is to make government focus its efforts on vital/core functions and enhance
effectiveness and efficiency of public service.
o It is function-based
o It seeks to promote and establish effectiveness, efficiency, accountability and
transparency in the bureaucracy
 Page |7

o It aims to improve delivery/support systems

o It seeks to refocus resources to priority areas
 Why the need to rationalize?
o Technological change
o Shifts in core functions
o Overlapping/duplicating functions
o Changes in work systems
o Structures that have outlived their usefulness
 What is the coverage of the program? Who are excluded?
o All Departments of the Executive Branch, including all agencies and GOCCs
under/attached to them
o Excluded are the police, military, teachers, and health workers
 What does EO 366 say on abolition of positions and rehiring of retired/separated personnel?
o A funded position will be abolished for every employee who opts for voluntary
retirement/separation
o Retired/separated personnel cannot be appointed or hired in the Executive Branch
within five years, except in educational institutions or hospitals

III. The Powers of the President as the Chief Administrative Officer

Powers granted: control, supervision, and investigation
a) Power of control
 Definitions
o Means power to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done
in the performance of his duties and to substitute his judgment with that of the latter.
(Carpio v. Executive Secretary)
o Under constitutional provision implies the right of the President to interfere in the exercise
of such discretion as may be vested by law in the officers of the executive departments,
bureaus, or offices of the national government, as well as to act in lieu of such officers.
(Pelaez v. Auditor General)
o Exercised through executive departments and executive officials (Tecson v. Salas)
 Doctrine of qualified political agency
o The President’s power of control is directly exercised by him over the members of the
Cabinet who, in turn, and by his authority, control the bureaus and other offices under their
respective jurisdictions in the executive departments. The acts of a department Secretary
are presumed to be the acts of the President.
 Limitations on the President’s control power
o The abolition or creation of an executive office
o The suspension or removal of career executive officials or employees without due process
of law
o The setting aside, modification, or supplanting of decisions of quasi-judicial agencies,
including that of the Office of the President, on contested cases that have become final
pursuant to law or to rules and regulations promulgated to implement the law
 President’s power of supervision
o Supervision is a lesser power than control. The power of supervision does not allow the
superior to annul the acts of the subordinate.
o The power to see that the officials concerned perform their duties, and if they later fail or
neglect to fulfill them, to take such action or steps as prescribed by law to make them
perform their duties.
b) Ordinance power
The President’s Ordinance Power is the Executive’s rule-making authority in implementing or
executing constitutional or statutory powers.
 Executive Orders – acts of the President providing for rules of a general or permanent character in
implementation or execution of constitutional or statutory powers shall be promulgated in executive
orders.
 Administrative Orders – acts of the President which relate to particular aspects of governmental
operations in pursuance of his duties as administrative head shall be promulgated in administrative
orders.
 Proclamations – acts of the President fixing a date of declaring a status or condition of public moment
or interest, upon the existence of which the operation of a specific law or regulation is made to
depend, shall have the force of an executive order.
 Memorandum orders – acts of the President on matters of administrative detail or of subordinate or
temporary interest which only concern a particular officer or office of the Government shall be
embodied in memorandum orders.
 Memorandum circulars – acts of the President on matters relating to internal administration, which
the President desires to bring to the attention of all or some of the departments, agencies, bureaus or
offices of the Government, for information or compliance, shall be embodied in memorandum
circulars.
 General or Special Orders – acts and commands of the President in his capacity as Commander-in-
Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be issued as general or special orders.
c) Power over aliens
 Section 8. Power to Deport. - The President shall have the power to deport aliens subject to the
requirements of due process.
 Section 9. Power to Change Non-Immigrant Status of Aliens. - The President, subject to the
provisions of law, shall have the power to change the status of non-immigrants by allowing them to
acquire permanent residence status without necessity of visa.
 Section 10. Power to Countermand Decisions of the Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of
Immigration. - The decision of the Board of Commissioners which has jurisdiction over all deportation
cases shall become final and executory after thirty (30) days from promulgation, unless within such
period the President shall order the contrary.
 Section 11. Power over Aliens under the General Principles of International Law. - The President
shall exercise with respect to aliens in the Philippines such powers as are recognized by the generally
accepted principles of international law.
 Page |8

d) Powers of Eminent Domain, Escheat, Land Reservation and Recovery of Ill-gotten Wealth
 Section 12. Power of Eminent Domain. - The President shall determine when it is necessary or
advantageous to exercise the power of eminent domain in behalf of the National Government, and
direct the Solicitor General, whenever he deems the action advisable, to institute expropriation
proceedings in the proper court.
 Section 13. Power to Direct Escheat or Reversion Proceedings. - The President shall direct the
Solicitor General to institute escheat or reversion proceedings over all lands transferred or assigned
to persons disqualified under the Constitution to acquire land.
 Section 14. Power to Reserve Lands of the Public and Private Domain of the Government. -
o (1) The President shall have the power to reserve for settlement or public use, and for
specific public purposes, any of the lands of the public domain, the use of which is not
otherwise directed by law. The reserved land shall thereafter remain subject to the specific
public purpose indicated until otherwise provided by law or proclamation;
o (2) He shall also have the power to reserve from sale or other disposition and for specific
public uses or purposes, any land belonging to the private domain of the Government, or
any of the Friar Lands, the use of which is not otherwise directed by law, and thereafter
such land shall be used for the purposes specified by such proclamation until otherwise
provided by law.
 Section 15. Power over Ill-gotten Wealth. - The President shall direct the Solicitor General to
institute proceedings to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, from
them or from their nominees or transferees.

Within the period fixed in, or any extension thereof authorized by, the Constitution, the President
shall have the authority to recover ill-gotten properties amassed by the leaders and supporters of the
previous regime and protect the interest of the people through orders of sequestration or freezing of
assets or accounts.

e) Power of appointment
 Nature
o Basically executive
o Prerogative of the appointing power
o Right of choice which he may exercise freely according to his judgment deciding for himself
who is best qualified among those who have the necessary qualifications and eligibilities
 Kinds of appointments
o Regular – requires the confirmation of the CA
o Ad interim – appointment takes effect immediately
o Recess – needs no confirmation by the CA
 Section 16. Power of Appointment. - The President shall exercise the power to appoint such
officials as provided for in the Constitution and laws.
 Section 17. Power to Issue Temporary Designation. -
o (1) The President may temporarily designate an officer already in the government service
or any other competent person to perform the functions of an office in the executive
branch, appointment to which is vested in him by law, when: (a) the officer regularly
appointed to the office is unable to perform his duties by reason of illness, absence or any
other cause; or (b) there exists a vacancy;
o (2) The person designated shall receive the compensation attached to the position, unless
he is already in the government service in which case he shall receive only such additional
compensation as, with his existing salary, shall not exceed the salary authorized by law for
the position filled. The compensation hereby authorized shall be paid out of the funds
appropriated for the office or agency concerned.
o (3) In no case shall a temporary designation exceed one (1) year.

f) Other Powers
g) Cases

 Marcos vs. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668, G.R. NO. 88211, September 15, 1989
“The grant of Executive power means a grant of all executive powers. The powers granted to the
President are not limited to those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution.”
 Gist: “Powers of the President”
President Corazon Aquino, in her decision, barred the Marcos family from returning to the
Philippines in the interest of national security, public safety or public health. The Marcoses
advanced the view that the President’s powers are limited to those specifically enumerated
in the 1987 Constitution, hence, the President acted with grave abuse amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
 Issue: “Presidential powers and limitations”
By enumerating certain powers of the President did the framers of the Constitution intend
that the President shall exercise those specific powers and no other? Are these enumerated
powers the breadth and scope of executive power?

 Ruling/Ratio: “The powers granted to the President are not limited to those powers
specifically enumerated in the Constitution”
It would not be accurate, however, to state that executive power to enforce the laws, for
the President is head of state as well as head of government and whatever powers inhere
in such positions pertain to the office unless the Constitution itself withholds it.
Furthermore, the Constitution itself provides that the execution of the laws is only one of
the powers of the President. It also grants the president other powers that do not involve
the execution of any provision of law, e.g. his power over the country’s foreign relations.
On these premises, we hold the view that although the 1987 Constitution imposes
limitations on the exercise of the specific powers of the President, it maintains intact what
is traditionally considered as within the scope of executive power. Corollary, the powers of
the President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the
 Page |9

Constitution. In other words, executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so
enumerated.

The request or demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines cannot be
considered in the light solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode
and the right to travel, subject to certain exceptions, or of case law which clearly never
contemplated situations even remotely similar to the present one. It must be treated as a
matter that is appropriately addressed to those residual unstated powers of the President
which are implicit in and correlative to the paramount duty residing in that office to
safeguard and protect general welfare. In that context, such request or demand should
submit to the exercise of a broader discretion on the part of the President to determine
whether it must be granted or not.

 Carpio vs. Executive Secretary, 206 SCRA 290, G.R. NO. 96409, February 14, 1992
o Administrative Law; The presidential power of control was held to mean the power of the
President to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in
the performance of this duties and to substitute the judgment of the former with that of the
latter. – This presidential power of control over the executive branch of government
extends over all executive officers from Cabinet Secretary to the lowliest clerk and has
been held by us, in the landmark case of Mondano vs. Silvosa, to mean “the power of the
President to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in
the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former with that of the
latter.” It is said to be at the very “heart of the meaning of Chief Executive.”
o Same; same; The “Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency” equally accepted as a corollary
rule to the control powers of the President. – Equally well accepted, as a corollary to the
control powers of the President, is the “Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency.” As the
President cannot be expected to exercise his control powers all at the same time and in
person, he will have to delegate some of them to his Cabinet Members.
o Same; same; same; The President’s power of control is directly exercised by him over the
members of the Cabinet who in turn and by his authority, control the bureaus and other
offices under their respective jurisdiction in the executive department. – Thus, and in short,
“the President’s power of control is directly exercised by him over the members of the
Cabinet who, in turn, and by his authority, control the bureaus and other offices under their
respective jurisdictions in the executive department.”
o Same; National Police Commission; there is no usurpation of the power of control of the
NAPOLCOM under Section 51. – we agree, and so hold, with the view of the Solicitor
General that “there is no usurpation of the power of control of the NAPOLCOM under
Section 51 because under this very same provision, it is clear that the local executives are
only acting as representatives of the NAPOLCOM. As such deputies, they are answerable to
the NAPOLCOM for their actions in the exercise of their functions under that section. Thus,
unless countermanded by the NAPOLCOM, their acts are valid and binding as acts of the
NAPOLCOM.”

 Tecson vs. Salas, 34 SCRA 275

o Constitutional Law; President; Power of control over all executive departments; Villena
ruling still vali. - Insofar as the power of control over all executive departments, bureaus or
offices is concerned, the Villena ruling applies with undiminished force. No doubt can be
entertained then as to the continuing authority of the Villena doctrine concerning the
plenitude of authority lodged in the President implicit in the power of control expressly
granted him by the Consitution. Nor should any restrictive significance be attached to the
wordking in the Mondano decision as to the implications of such concept considering that
there was no need in such case for a more elaborate treatment, all that was necessary
being to distinguish it from supervision.
o Civil service Act; Personnel; Transfer of personnel; Detail to Office of the President not
considered a transfer. – Detail of a superintendent of Dredging, Bureaus of Public works to
the Office of the President pursuant to a directive of the Executive Secretary acting by
President pursuant to a directive of the Executive secretary acting by presidential authority,
is not removal or transfer.

 DENR vs. DENR Region 12 Employees, G.R. No.149724. August 19, 2003
o Constitutional Law; Executive Department; Powers; Doctrine of Qualified Political agency;
Under this doctrine, all executive and administrative organizations are adjuncts of the
executive department, and the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the
Chief Executive are performed by and through the Executive Departments. – It is apropos
to reiterate the elementary 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 and executive functions of
the Chief Executive are performed by and through the executive departments, and the acts
of the Secretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course
of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively
the acts of the Chief Executive. This doctrine is corollary to the control power of the
President as provided for under Article VII, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution.

 Taule vs. Santos, 200 SCRA 512

o Constitutional Law; Administrative Law; Election Law; Election protest of officers of the
katipunan ng mga barangay; The Secretary of Local Government has no power to assume
jurisdiction over election protest involving officers of the katipunan ng mga barangay. –
Construing the constitutional limitation on the power of general supervision of the President
over local governments, we hold that respondent Secretary has no authority to pass upon
 P a g e | 10

the validity or regularity of the election of the officers of the katipunan. To allow
respondent Secretary to so will give him more power than the law of the Constitution
grants. It will in effect give him control overl local government officials for it will permit him
to interfere in a purely democrative and non-partisan activity aimed at strengthening the
barangay as the basic component of local governments so that the ultimate goal of fullest
autonoly may be achieved. In fact, his order that the new elections to be conducted be
presided by the Regional Director is a clear and direct interference by the Department with
the political affairs of the barangays which is not permitted by government units to ensure
their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective
partners in the pursuit of national development and social progress.” To deny the Secretary
of Local Government the power to review the regularity of the elections of officers of the
katipunan would be to enhance the avowed state policy of promoting the autonomy of local
governments.

 Cariño vs. CHR, 204 SCRA 483

o The Commission on Human Rights has the power to investigate, but not to adjudicate,
alleged human rights violations.
o Constitutional Law; Jurisdiction; Commission on Human Rights; Court declares the
Commission on Human rights to have no jurisdiction on adjudicatory powers over certain
specific type of cases like alleged human rights violations involving civil or political rights. –
The threshold question is whether or not the Commission on Human Rights has the power
under the Constitution to do so; whether or not, like a court of justice, or even a quasi-
judicial agency, it has jurisdiction or adjudicatory powers over, or the power to try and
decide, or heard and determine, certain specific type of cases, like alleged human rights
violations involving civil or political rights. The Court declares the Commission on Human
Rights to have no such power; and that it was not meant by the fundamental law to be
another court or quasi-judicial agency in this country, or duplicate much less take over the
functions of the latter.

IV. Organization of Administrative Agencies

a) Distribution of Powers of Government
 Administrative Organization – refers to the administrative structure of the government including its
political subdivisions and the allocation of powers, functions, and duties to its various units or
agencies.
o Traditional Branches- powers of the National Government are distributed among the three
branches;
o Legislative power – it shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which
shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent
reserved to the people by the constitutional provision on initiative and
referendum;
o Executive power – it shall be vested in the President
o Judicial power – vested in 1 Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.
o Special bodies or agencies – there are 3 independent Constitutional Commissions created
by the Constitution, namely: the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections,
and the Commission on Audit

b) The Office of the President

 Consists of the Office of the President Proper and the agencies under it
o Office of the President Proper
o Private Office – shall provide direct services to the President and shall, for this
purpose, attend to functions and matters that are personal or which pertain to
the First Family;
o Executive Office – headed by the Executive Secretary refers to the Office of the
Executive Secretary, Deputy Executive Secretaries, and Assistant Executive
Secretaries. It shall be fully responsive to the specific needs and requirements of
the President to achieve the purposes and objectives of the Office. The Executive
Secretary shall, subject to the control and supervision of the President, carry out
the functions assigned by law to the Executive Office and shall perform such
other duties as may be delegated to him by the President
o Common Staff Support System – embraces the offices or units under the general
categories of development and management, general government administration
and internal administration
o Presidential Special Assistants/Advisers System – includes such special assistants
or advisers as may be needed by the President. It shall provide advisory or
consultative services to the President in such fields and under such conditions as
the President may determine.
o Agencies under the Office of the President – refer to those offices under the chairmanship
of the President, those under the supervision and control of the President, those under the
administrative supervision of the Office of the President, those attached to it for policy and
proper coordination, and those that are not placed by law or order creating them under any
special department.
c) The Cabinet
 Secretary – vested with the authority and responsibility for the exercise of the mandate of the
Department and for the discharge of its power and functions; has the supervision and control of the
Department
 Undersecretary – advise and assist the Secretary in the formulation and implementation of
department objectives and policies
 Assistant Secretary – perform such duties and functions as may be provided by law or assigned to
him by the Secretary

d) The Departments and their mandates

 P a g e | 11

 Planning Service – it shall have provide the department with economical, efficient and effective
services relating to planning, programming, and project development, and discharge such other
functions as may be provided by law
 Financial and Management Service – it shall advise and assist the Secretary on budgetary, financial
and management matters and shall perform such other functions as may be provided by law
 Administrative Service – it shall provide the Department with economical, efficient and effective
services relating to personnel legal assistance, information, records, delivery and receipt of
correspondence, supplies, equipment, collections, disbursement, security and custodial work
 Technical Service – it shall take charge of technical staff activities essential to a department and
which cannot be allocated to the three other services or the bureaus.
 Legal Service – it shall be provided where the operations of the department involve substantial legal
work, in which case, the Administrative Service shall not have a Legal Division. It shall provide legal
advice to the department.

e) The Organization of Bureaus

 Bureau refers to any principal subdivision or unit of any department
 a Bureau is any principal subdivision of the department performing a single major function or closely
related functions. Each bureau is headed by a Director.
 Powers and duties of heads of bureaus or offices: as a Chief Executive Officer
 Bureaus are either staff or line
o Staff – perform policy, program development and advisory functions
o Line – implement programs adopted pursuant to department policies and plans

f) Relationships between Administrative Agencies

 Unless otherwise stated in the Administrative Code of 1987 or in other laws defining special
relationship of particular agencies, administrative relationship shall be categorized and defined as
follows;
o Supervision and control
o Administrative supervision
o Attachment – refers to lateral relationship between the department or its equivalent and
the attached agency

V. Separation of Powers and Delegation of Powers

a) Doctrine of Separation of Powers
 The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains not
through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution.
o Allocation of governmental powers – governmental powers are divided among the three
departments of government; the legislative, executive, and judicial, and broadly operates
to confine legislative powers to the legislature, executive powers to the executive
department, and judicial powers to the judiciary, precluding one branch of the government
from exercising or invading the powers of another.
o Blending of allocated powers – that there may be a certain degree of blending or admixture
of the three powers of government, particularly in administrative agencies, is well
recognized.
o Exclusive exercise of assigned powers – the powers assigned to one department should not
be exercised by either of the other departments, and that no department ought to possess,
directly or indirectly, an overruling influence or control over the others.

b) Doctrine of non-delegation of powers

 Based on the maxim; potestas delegata non potest delegari. What has been delegated cannot in turn
be delegated.
 Follows the corollary doctrine of separation of powers
 Prohibits the delegation of legislative power, the vesting of judicial officers with non-judicial functions,
as well as the investing of judicial officers with judicial powers. Any attempt at such delegation is
unconstitutional and void.
 The Doctrine rests on the ethical principle that a delegated power constitutes not only a right but a
duty to be performed by the delegate by the instrumentality of his own judgment acting immediately
upon the matter and not through the intervening mind of another

c) Allowable delegation
The legislature can delegate the discretion as to;
o How the law shall be enforced
o To issue rules to fill in details
o To ascertain facts on which the law will operate to exercise police power, and
o To fix rates
To be valid, however, the delegation has to pass the completeness and sufficiency of standards
tests.

Power of subordinate legislation – the reasons given for the delegation of legislative powers in
general are particularly applicable to administrative bodies with the proliferation of the specialized
activities and their attendant peculiar problems, the national legislature has found it more and more
necessary to entrust administrative agencies the authority to issue rules to carry out the general
provisions of the statute. With this power, administrative bodies may implement the broad policies
laid down in the statute by “filling in” the details which the congress may not have the opportunity or
competence to provide. This is effected by their promulgation of what are known as supplementary
regulation such as the implementing rules issued by the department of labor on the labor code.
These regulations have the force and effect of law.

d) Sufficiency of standards (completeness test and sufficient standard test)

Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authority to the delegate, who is
not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and exercise a power essentially legislative.

 Completeness Test – the law must be complete in all its items and conditions when it leaves the
legislature such that when it reaches the delegate the only thing he will have to do is enforce it.
 P a g e | 12

 Sufficient Standard Test – there must be adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the
boundaries of the delegate’s authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.
o Express – standard may be found within the framework of the statute under which the act
is to be performed
o Implied – standard may inhere in its subject matter or purpose, and a clearly defined field
of action may implicitly contain the criteria which must govern the action.

e) Cases
 Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Board of Public Utility Commissioners (G.R.
No. L-11216, March 6,1916
o Statutes; Validity of Act No. 2307; Delegation of Legislative Powers of Board of Public
Utilities. – An Act of the Philippine Legislature giving to the Board of Public Utility
Commissioners power to require every public utility “to furnish annually a detailed report of
finances and operations, in such form and containing such matters as the board may from
time to time by order prescribe” is invalid for the reason that it is a delegation of legislative
power to the Board of Public Utility Commissioners and is in violation of the Act of July 1,
1902.

 People vs. Vera (65 Phil. 56)

o TEST OF UNDUE DELEGATION; DETAILS OF EXECUTION---In testing whether a statute
constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power or not, it is usual to inquire whether
the statute was comlete in all its terms and provisions when it left the hands of the
legislature so that nothing was left to the judgment of any other appointee or delegate of
the legislature. The general rule, however, is limited by another rule that to a certain
extent matters of detail may be left to be filled in by rules and regulations to be adopted or
promulgated by executive officers and administrative boards. As a rule, an act of the
legislature is incomplete and hence invalid if it does not lay down any rule or definite
standard by which the administrative board may be guided in the exercise of the
discretionary powers delegated to it.
o PROBATION ACT MAKES VIRTUAL SURRENDER OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS TO PROVINCIAL
BOARDS---The (old) Probation Act does not, by the force of any of its provisions, fix and
impose upon the provincial boards any standard or guide in the exercise of their
discretionary power. What Is granted is a “roving commission” which enables the provincial
boards to exercise arbitrary discretion. By sec. 11 of the Act, the legislature does seemingly
on its own authority extend the benefits of the Probation Act to the provinces but in reality
leaves the entire matter for the various provincial boards to determine. If a provincial
board does not wish to have the Act applied in its province, all that is has to do is to
decline to appropriate the needed amount for the salary of a probation officer. This is a
virtual surrender of legislative power to the provincial boards.

 Lovina vs. Moreno

o DELEGATION TO SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS UNDER REP. ACT NO. 2056, VALID---
Republic Act No. 2056 does not constitute an unlawful delegation of judicial powers to the
Secretary of Public Works. Although the exercise of the secretary’s power under the Act
necessarily involves the determination of some questions of fact, yet these functions,
whether judicial or quasi-judicial, are MERELY INCIDENTAL to the exercise of the power
granted by law and are validly conferable upon execute officials provided the party affected
is given opportunity to be heard.

 Pelaez vs. Auditor General

o NATURE OF POWER TO CREATE MUNICIPALITIES---Whereas the power to fix a common
boundary, in order to avoid or settle conflicts of jurisdiction between adjoining
municipalities, may partake of an administrative nature—involving, as it does, the adoption
of means and ways to carry out into effect the law creating said municipalities—the
authority to CREATE municipal corporations is essentially LEGISLATIVE in nature.
o REQUISITES FOR VALID DELEGATION OF POWER---Although Congress may delegate to
another branch of the government the power to fill in the details in the execution,
enforcement or administration of a law, it is essential that said law: (a) be complete in
itself, setting forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the
delegate; and (b) fix a standard—the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or
determinable—to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions.

 Edu vs. Ericta; Agustin vs. Edu

o VALID DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER; STANDARD MUST BE SET TO AVOID THE
TAINT OF UNLAWFUL DELEGATION---What cannot be delegated is the authority under the
Constitution to make laws and to alter and repeal them. The test is the completeness of the
statute in all its terms and provisions when it leaves the hands of the legislature.
o To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard which
implies at the very least that the legislature inself determines matters of principle and lays
down fundamental policy. Otherwise, the charge of complete abdication may be hard to
repel. A standard thus defines legislative policy, makes its limits, maps out its boundaries
and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the
legislative command is to be effected. It is the criterion by which legislative purpose may
be carried out. Thereafter, the executive and administrative office designated may in
pursuance of the above guidelines promulgate supplemental rules and regulations.
o The standard may be either express or implied. If the former, the non-
delegation objection is easily met. The standard though does not have to be spelled out
specifically. It could be implied from the policy and purpose of the act considered as a
whole. In the Reflector Law, same as in Early Warning Device issue, clearly the legislative
objective is public safety. What is sought to be attained is “safe transit upon the roads.”

 Toledo vs. CSC

o ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS CANNOT AMEND AN ACT OF CONGRESS---The power
vested in the Civil Service Commission was to implement the law or put it into effect, not to
 P a g e | 13

add to it; to carry the law into effect or execution, not to supply percieved omissions in it.
“By its administrative regulations, of course, the law itself can not be extended; said
regulations ‘cannot amendan an act of Congress.’”

 Chiongbian vs. Orbos

o DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER; POWER CONFERRED ON THE PRESIDENT IS
SIMILAR TO THE POWER TO ADJUST MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES WHICH IS ADMINISTRATIVE
IN NATURE---As this Court observed in Abbas “while the power to merge administrative
regions is not expressly provided in the Constitution, it is a power which has traditionally
been lodged with the President to facilitate the exercise of the power of general supervision
over local governments.” The regions themselves are not territorial and political
subdivisions like provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays but are “mere groupings of
contigous provinces for administrative purposes.” The power conferred on the President is
similar to the power to adjust municipal boundaries which has been described as
“administrative in nature.”
o THERE IS NO ABDICATION BY CONGRESS OF ITS LEGISLATIVE POWER IN CONFERRING
ON THE PRESIDEN THE POWER TO MERGE ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONS---There is,
therefore, no abdication by Congress of its legislative power in conferring on the president
the power to merge administrative regions. The question is whether Congress has provided
a sufficient standard by which the president is to be guided in the exercise of the power
granted and whether in any event the grant of power to him is included in the subject
expressed in the title of the law.

 Santiago vs. Commission on Elections

o WHAT HAS BEEN DELEGATED CANNOT BE DELEGATED; EXCEPTIONS---The rule is that
what has been delegated, cannot be delegated. The recognized exceptions are as follows:
(1) Delegation of tariff powers to the president; (2) Delegation of Emergency powers to the
president; (3) Delegation to the people at large; (4) Delegation to local governments; (5)
Delegaton to administrative bodies.
o R.A. NO.6735 MISERABLY FAILED TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS IN SUBORDINATE
LEGISLATION INSOFAR AS INITIATIVE TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION
IS CONCERNED.---Insofar as initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution is
concerned, R.A No.6735 miserably failed to satisfy both requirements in subordinate
legislation. The delegation of the power to the COMELEC is then invalid. It logically follows
that the COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the
exercise of the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution
through the system of initiative. It does not have the power under R.A No.6735. Reliance
on the COMELECS’s power under Sec.2(1) of Art IX-C of the Constitution is misplaced, for
the laws and regulations referred to there are those promulgated by the COMELEC under
(a) Sec.3 of Art.IX-C of the Constitution, or (b) a law where subordinate legislation is
authorized and which satisfies the “completeness” and the “sufficient standard” tests.

 Tatad vs. Secretary of DOE

o TWO ACCEPTED TESTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A VALID DELEGATION
OF LEGISLATIVE POWER---“There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not
there is a valid delegation of legislative power , viz: the completeness test and the
sufficient standard test. Under the first test, the law must be complete in all its terms and
conditions when it leaves the legislative such that when it reaches the delegate the only
thing he wil have to do is to enforce it. Under the sufficient standard test, there must be
adequate guidelines or limitations in the la to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s
authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. Both tests are intended to prevent
a total transference of legislative authority to the delegate, who is not allowed to step into
the shoes of the legislature and exercise a power essentially legislative.”
o SECTION 15 CAN HURDLE BOTH THE COMPLETENESS TEST AND THE SUFFICIENT
STANDARD TEST---Given the groove of the Court’s rulings, the attempt of petitioners to
strike down sec. 15 on the ground of undue delegation of legislative power cannot prosper.
Sec.15 can hurdle both the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. It will be
noted that Congress expressly provided in R.A. No.8180 that full deregulation will start at
the end of March 1997, regardless of the occurrence of any event. Full deregulation at the
end of March 1997 is mandatory and the Executive has no discretion to postpone it for any
purported reason. Thus, the law is complete on the question of the final date of full
deregulation.

VI. The Functions and Powers of Administrative Agencies

3 broad powers or functions of administrative agencies
 Quasi-legislative / power of subordinate legislation / rule-making power – to promulgate rules and
regulations
 Quasi-judicial / power of adjudication / adjudicatory power – to hear and decide cases
 Executive and Administrative – to issue licenses and permits
a) Ministerial Powers
 A ministerial duty is one which is so clear and specific as to leave no room for the exercise of
discretion in its performance.
 Contrary to a discretionary act, is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts,
in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to the
existence of his own judgment, upon propriety or impropriety of the act done
 The duty is ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of official
discretion nor judgment
 the fact that the duties of an official are ministerial does not necessarily follow that he may not, in the
administration of his office, determine questions of law. This determination of what the law is involves
the exercise of judgment. (asuncion v. de yriarte, 28 Phil 67)

b) Discretionary Powers
 P a g e | 14

 as a general rule, is a faculty conferred upon an official by which he may decide a question either way
and still be right
 is a power or right conferred upon public functionaries by law of acting officially, under certain
circumstances, uncontrolled by the judgment or consciences of others. If the law imposes a duty
upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such
duty is discretionary and not ministerial. (asuncion v. de yriarte, 28 Phil 67)
 as a rule, cannot be delegated. In those cases in which the proper execution of the office requires on
the part of the officer the exercise of judgment or discretion, the presumption is that he was chosen
because he was deemed fit and competent to exercise that judgment and discretion, and, unless the
power to substitute another in his place has been given to him, he cannot delegate to another.

c) Determinative Powers
 power of administrative agencies to better enable them to exercise their quasi-judicial authority.
 powers vested in administrative agencies in the course of exercising its power of subordinate
legislation (quasi-legislative power)
o ENABLING powers – those that permit the doing of an act which the law undertakes to
regulate and would be unlawful without government approval
 Ex. Issuance of licenses to engage in a particular business
o DIRECTING powers – those that involve the corrective powers of public utility
commissions, powers of assessment under the revenue laws, reparations under public
utility laws, and awards under workmen’s compensation laws, and powers of abstract
determination such as definition – valuation, classification and fact finding.
o DISPENSING powers – exemplified by the authority to exempt from or relax a general
prohibition, or authority to relieve from an affirmative duty. Its difference from
licensing power is that the dispensing power sanctions a deviation from a standard.
o SUMMARY powers – those that apply compulsion or force against person or property
to effectuate a legal purpose without a judicial warrant to authorize such action.
Usually without notice or hearing.
 Ex. Abatement of nuisance, summary destraint, levy of property of
delinquent taxpayers
o EQUITABLE powers - those that pertain to the power to determine the law upon a
particular state of facts. It refers to the right to, and must, consider and make proper
application of the rules of equity.
 Ex. Power to appoint a receiver, power to issue injunctions

d) Quasi-legislative Power (power of subordinate legislation / rule-making power)

 Doctrine of Subordinate Legislation – power of administrative agency to promulgate rules and
regulations on matters of their own specialization.
o The power of administrative officials to promulgate rules and regulations in the
implementation of a statute is necessarily limited only to carrying into effect what is
provided in the legislative enactment.
 Doctrine of Legislative approval by Re-enactment – the rules and regulations promulgated by
the proper administrative agency in implementing the law are deemed confirmed and approved
by the legislature when said law was re-enacted by later legislation or through codification. The
legislature is presumed to have full knowledge of the contents of the regulations then at the
time of re-enactment.
 Quasi-legislative or rule-making power is the authority delegated by the law-making
body to the administrative body to adopt rules and regulations intended to carry out
the provisions of a law and implement the legislative policy. Its kinds are;
o Legislative regulation – designed to implement a primary legislation by providing the
details thereof, is in the nature of subordinate legislation
 Supplementary or detailed legislation regulation – intended to fill in details
of the law, and to make explicit what is only general. (e.g. Rules and
Regulations Implementing the Labor Code)
 Contingent regulation – issued to enforce or suspend the operation of a law,
after the ascertainment by the administrative agency of existence of a
particular contingency.
o Interpretative legislation regulation – those which purport to do no more than
interpret the statute being administered for proper observance by the people (e.g. BIR
circulars)
 What may be granted to an administrative agency is rule-making power to implement
the law it is entrusted to enforce.
 Legislation on the administrative level is the power to make, alter, or repeal laws, or rules for
the future. It operates in the future, rather than on past transactions or circumstances as in
judicial powers.
o The rule-making power of an administrative agency, that is, the power to make
implementing rules or interpretative rules or regulations, is legislative in character and
results in delegated legislation.
 Limitations on the rule-making power: the quasi-legislative or rule-making power of a public
administrative body is a delegated legislative power, which it may not use either to abridge the
authority given it by the Congress of the Constitution or to enlarge its power beyond the scope
intended.

o) Cases
 Lokin vs. COMELEC, G.R. NOs. June 22, 2010, 621SCRA385
o Administrative Law; Delegation of Powers; As a general rule, the Legislature cannot
surrender or abdicate its legislative power, for doing so will be unconstitutional; Under
certain circumstances, the Legislature can delegate to executive officers and
administrative boards the authority to adopt and promulgate Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRRs), but the Legislature must declare the policy of the law and fix the
legal principles that are to control in given cases.
o Same; Same; Requisites for Validity of Administrative Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRRs); It is axiomatic that the clear letter of the law is controlling and
cannot be amended by a mere administrative rule issued for its implementation.
 P a g e | 15

 People vs. Maceren (79 SCRA 450) G.R. NO. L-32166

o the requisites for the validity of administrative regulations with penal sanctions are the
ff;
 the law itself which authorizes administrative authorities to issue the same
must declare as punishable the violation of the rules and regulations issued
under its authority;
 the law should define or fix the penalty for the violation of the said rules and
regulations;
 publication of said rules and regulations must be made
o Fishing; Administrative Law; Fishery Admin. Order No. 84, penalizing electro fishing is
null and void because the Fishery Laws under which it was issued (Act 4003 and R.A.
3512) did not expressly prohibit electro fishing. - we are of the opinion that the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries
exceed their authority in issuing Fisheries Administrative Orders Nos. 84 and 84-1 and
those order are not warranted under the Fisheries Law, Act No. 4003, and under the
law creating the Fisheries Law does not expressly prohibit electro fishing. As electro
fishing is not banned under that law, the Secretary is powerless to penalize it.
o Same; Same; lawmaking body cannot delegate to administrative official the power to
declare what act constitute a criminal offense
o Same; Same; An administration regulation must be in harmony with law; it must not
amend an act of the legislature. – Administrative regulations adopted under legislative
authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of the
law, and should be for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provision.
The rule-making power must be confined to details for regulating the mode or
proceeding to carry into effect the law as it has been enacted. The power cannot be
extended to amending or expanding the statutory requirements or to embrace matters
not covered by the statute. Rules that subvert the statute cannot be sanctioned.
o Same; Same; In a prosecution for violation of an administrative order it must clearly
appear that the order falls within the scope of the authority conferred by law. – While
an administrative agency has the right to make rules and regulations to carry into
effect a law already enacted, that power should not be confused with the power to
enact a criminal statute.

 KMU vs. GARCIA (239 SCRA 386)

o Public Utilities; Common Carriers; Political Law; Administrative Law; Delegation of
Powers; Power of Subordinate Legislation; The legislature has delegated to the
defunct Public Service Commission, and presently the LTFRB, the power of fixing the
rates public services. – Under the foregoing provision, the Legislature delegated to the
defunct Public Service Commission the power of fixing the rates of public services.
Respondent LTFRB, the existing regulatory body today, is likewise vested with the
same under E.O. No. 202 dated June 19, 1987. Section 5(c) of the said E.O.
authorizes LTFRB “to determine, prescribe, approve and periodically review and
adjust, reasonable fares, rates and other related charges, relative to the operation of
public land transportation services provided by motorized vehicles.”
o Given the task of determining sensitive and delicate matters as route-fixing and rate-
making for the transport sector, the responsible regulatory body is entrusted with the
power of subordinate legislation, under which such administrative body may
implement broad policies laid down in a statute by “filling in” the details which the
Legislature may neither have nor competence to provide. – such delegation of
legislative power to administrative agency is permitted in order to adapt to the
increasing complexity of modern life. As subjects for governmental regulation
multiply, so does the difficulty of administering the laws. Hence, specialization even in
the legislation has become necessary. Given the task of determining sensitive and
delicate matters as route-fixing and rate-making for the transport sector, the
responsible regulatory board is entrusted with the power of subordinate legislation.
With this authority, an administrative body and in this case, the LTFRB, may
implement broad policies laid down in a statute by “filling in” the details which the
Legislature may neither have time nor competence to provide. However, nowhere
under the aforesaid provisions of law are the regulatory bodies, the PSC and LTFRB
alike, authorized to delegate that power to a common carrier, transport operator, or
other public service.
o In case of conflict between a statute and an administrative order, the former must
prevail.