SAINT MARY COLLEGE OF LAW

GRACIANO C. ARAFOL JR.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Provincial ProsecutorCompostela

Valley Province

ADMINISTRATIVE LAWDefinition of administrative law

For purpose of our study, we shall adopt the definition made by Dean Roscoe Pound [ American Administrative law], in a narrower sense and as commonly used today, implies that the branch of modern law under which the executive department of the government, acting in a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity, interferes with the conduct of the individual for the purpose of promoting the well being of the community. Such conflicts arise from laws regulating public utility corporations, business affected with a public interest, professions, trades and calling, rates and prices, laws for the protection of public health and safety and the promotion of the public convenience and advantage.

Similarly with the same perspective, the former Dean of the college of law of the University of the Philippines, as pointed out by H. De Leon in his book Administrative Law define Administrative law as branch of modern law under which the executive department of government acting in a quasi-legislative or quasi -judicial capacity, interferes with the conduct of the individual for the purpose of promoting the well-being of the community, as under laws, regulating public corporations, business affected with a public interest, professions, trades and callings, rates and prices, laws for the protection of the public health and safety, and the promotion of the public convenience and advantage.

The forgoing concerned demonstrates the reason or purpose of administrative law which is basically the protection of private rights. Thus, the subject matter of administrative law is the nature and mode of powers exercised by the administrative bodies and officers. It has for is basic function the effective and efficient operation of the government machinery. That is why, the Supreme Court in Matienzo vs. Abellara, 162 SCRA 2) has pronounce the doctrine that laws conferring powers on administrative agencies must be liberally construct to enable them to discharge their assigned duties in accordance with the legislative purpose. In this connection it must be remembered that the origin of the Administrative law is legislation of the legislative department of the government and follows from the increase function of government because of the complexities of the modern society .

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DISTINGUISHED FROM CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Constitutional law may be regarded as the framework of governmental organization;

Constitutional law lays down the general rules of government which are fundamental and without which no governmental organization can hope to stand on its feet;

Administrative law, the details which give such skeleton structure the characteristics of a finished whole.

Administrative law , on the other hand, lays down secondary rules which limit and qualify or expand and amplify, the general precepts of governmental organization as laid down by constitutional law, so that they may be better understood and applied to the needs of the layman citizens.

Constitutional law treats of the relations of the government with the individual.

Constitutional law lays stress upon rights; administrative law emphasis duties.

Administrative law Administrative law treats them from the standpoint of the powers of the government.

Administrative law complements constitutional law insofar as it determines the rules of the law relative to the activity of administrative authorities. It also supplements constitutional law insofar as it regulates the administrative organization of the government.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DISTINGUISHED FROM INTERNATIONAL LAW

Administrative law lays down the rules which shall guide the officers of the administrative in their action as agents of the government;

International law cannot be regarded as binding upon the officers of any government considered in their relation to their own government except insofar as it has been adopted into the administrative law of the state;

KINDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Administrative law is of four kinds:

(1) Statutes setting up administrative authorities either by creating boards and commission or administrative offices or by confiding the powers and duties to existing boards, commissions, or officers, to amplify, apply, execute, and supervise the operation of, and determine controversies arising under particular laws in the enactment of which the legislature decided for matters of convenience or for quicker or more efficient administration to withhold the controversies, at least in the first instance, from the courts of law;

(2) Rules, regulations, or order of such Administrative authorities enactment and promulgated in pursuance of the purposes for which they were created or endowed;

(3) The determinations, decisions, and order of such administrative authorities made in the settlement of controversies arising in their particular fields; and

(4) The body of doctrines and decisions dealing with the creation, operation, and effect of determinations and regulations of such administrative authorities.

SCOPE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

From its various definitions and kinds, administrative law includes in its scope:

(1) The body of statutes which sets up administrative agencies and endows tem with powers and duties;

(2) The body of rules, regulations, and orders issued by administrative agencies;

(3) The body of determinations, decisions, and orders of such administrative authorities made in the settlement of controversies arising in their respective fields; and

(4) The body of doctrines and decisions dealing with the creation, operation, and effect of determinations and regulations of such administrative agencies.

CRITICISMS AGAINST ADMINISTRATIVE

ACTION

Regulatory bodies, sometimes collectively referred to as the “fourth branch of government” or government in miniature, have been attacked as a government by discretion. While viewing the administrative process with the sympathetic outlook of one who appreciated the local need for it, Mr. Justice Frankfurter was nonetheless aware that the exercise of such discretion “opened the door to its potential abuse and arbitrariness.”

The recognized weakness of and criticisms against administrative action may be summed up as follow:

(1) Tendency towards arbitrariness; (2) Lack of legal knowledge and aptitude in sound

judicial technique; (3) Susceptibility to political bias or pressure, often

brought about by uncertainty of tenure and lack of sufficient safeguards for independence;

(4) A disregards for the safeguards that insure a full and fair hearing;

(5) Absence of standard rules of procedure suitable to the activities of each agency; and

(6) A dangerous combination of legislative, executive and judicial functions.

IN THE PHILIPPINES

In the Philippines, administrative regulation of private activities was originally undertaken through the regular departments of the executive branch. Even today, certain departments, bureaus and offices pass upon private rights by rule or decision. As examples of these, we have the Bureau of Customs, Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Office of the Insurance Commissioner in the Ministry of Finance; the Bureau of Posts and Land Transportation Commission in the Ministry of Public Works and Communications; the National Labor Relations Commission, Bureau of Labor Relations, Overseas Employment Development Board, Bureau of Women and Minors and the Office of Apprenticeship in the Ministry of Labor.

In the Department of Natural Resource we have the Bureau of Forestry, and the Bureau of Lands. In the Ministry of Education and Culture, we have the Board of Medical Education, Textboard Board, State Scholarships Council and Bureau of Higher Education.

As in other modern states, as increasing use is made of regulatory agencies specially created to carry out the legislative policy regulating specified activities. They are given powers to promulgate rules and regulations implementing statutes and to adjudicate controversies arising from them. Example are: the Oil Industry Commission, National Housing Authority, Price Control Council, Board of Censors for Motion Pictures, Civil Aeronautics Administration, Parents Office, Securities and Exchange Commission, Philippine Coconut Authority, the National Economic Development Authority, Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration, and the Professional Regulation Commission.

Remember these was ask in the bar, what are the types of quasi-judicial or administrative bodies or agencies. The answer are the following.

1) Administrative agencies created to carry on governmental functions (BIR, BoC, CSC, LRA)

2) Administrative agencies created to perform business services for the public (Philippines Postal Authority: PNR, NFA, NHA)

3) Administrative agencies created to regulate businesses affected with public interest (NTC, LTFRB, Insurance Commission, ERB, HLURB, Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences)

4) administrative agencies created to regulate private businesses and individuals under police power (SEC, Dangerous Drug Board, CID, PRC)

5) Administrative agencies that adjudicate and decide industrial controversies (NLRC, POEA)

6) Administrative agencies that grant privileges (GSIS, SSS, PAO, Phil Veterans Adm.

7) administrative agencies making the government a private party (COA, Social Security System Adjudication Office)

It must be noted also De Leon in his writing on Administrative Law, advances the different types of administrative agencies. They are as follows:

(1) Those created to function in situations wherein the government is offering some gratuity, grant, or special privilege.

Examples are: Philippine Veterans Administrative (PVA), GSIS, SSS, Public Attorney’s Office, Philippine Medical Care Commission (PMCC), etc.

(2) Those set up to function in situations where in the government is seeking to carry on certain functions of government.

Examples are: Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), Bureau of Customs, Bureau of Immigration, Land Registration Authority and most administrative agencies;

(3) Those set up to function in situations wherein the government is performing some business service for the public.

Examples are: Philippine Postal Corporation, Philippine National Railways, Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage Authority, Government Telephone System, National Electrification Administration, National Food Authority, National Housing Authority, etc.;

(4) Those set up to function in situations wherein the government is seeking to regulate businesses affected with public interest.

Examples are: Insurance Commission, Bureau of Air Transportation; Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB), Energy Regulatory Board, Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences, National Telecommunications Commission, Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), etc.;

CREATION, ESTABLISHEMENT AND ABOLITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE

AGENCIES Repeatedly it is assorted, administrative agencies or bodies –

whether individual or institutional- are created directly, by constitutional provisions, (2) by the legislature in legislative enactments, or (3) by authority of law.

The civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit are administrative agencies created under the Constitution. The Bureau of Customs, Bureau of Internal Revenue, National Labor Relations Commissions, Professional Regulations Board, Court of Agrarian Relations, Philippine Patent Office, Securities & Exchange Commission, the Board of Transportation, Social Security Commission, Central Bank on the Philippines, and the National Grains authority, are example of agencies created by law. Under the various government reorganizations acts, the President and the Government Survey and Reorganization Commission had been authorized and had in fact created administrative offices and agencies in the course of reorganization of the executive branch of the government, like the defunct Board of Tax Appeals and Regional Offices of the Department of Labor.

At these point it must be pointed out that the

administrative law concern also the org. of the

government. We have to have a clear

understanding on the concept of an entity,

otherwise known as the Republic of the

Philippines, which is not synonymous of the term

National Government.

Under Sec. 2, Administrative code Republic of the

Philippines refers to the corporate governmental entity through

which the functions of government are exercised throughout

the Philippines Island, including, save as the contrary appears

from the context, the various arms through which political

authority is made effective in said Islands, whether pertaining

to the central Government or to the provincial or municipal

branches or other form of local government.

Whereas, the “National Government” refers to the central

government consisting of the three branches or department of

the government.

CASES TO BE READ:(1) BACANI vs. NACOCO- November 29, 1956 (100

P 468).

(2) MACTAN CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY vs. MARCOS- (September 11,

1996)

(3) MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY vs. CITY OF PARANAQUE- (July 20, 2006)

(4) CENTRAL BANK vs. CA, ABLANZA - April 22, 1975 (63 SCRA 431)

-Under Section two(2) of the Administrative Code of

the Philippines refers to the corporate governmental entity

through which the functions of government are exercised

throughout the Philippine Island, including, save as the

contrary appears from the context, the various arms through

which political authority is made effective in said Islands,

whether pertaining to the Central Government or to the

provincial or municipal branches or other form of local

government.

-National Government refers to the central

government consisting of the three branches or

departments of the government.

BACANI vs. NACOCO- (29 November, 1956)

FACTS:

A case of the National Coconut Corporation (NAPOCO)

who requested for copies of the Stenographic notes, and

paid accordingly the charges as a result of its securence of

the said stenographic notes. Thereafter, after examination

of the records, the Commission on Audit (COA) this allowed

such payment. The stenographer Bacani stop or enjoined

the embarrassment of such payment to him.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the National Coconut

Corporation (NACOCO) falls within the scope of

Government of the Republic of the Philippines in

other to be exempt of such payment of charges

for under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the

Government should be exempted from payment of

the foregoing charges.

RULING:

The National Coconut Corporation (NACOCO)

possesses a corporate personality separate and distinct

from the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. It

is not with in the scope of the term Government of the

Republic of the Philippines, thus it is not exempted form

the payment of charges for the stenographic notes under

Rule 131 of the Revise Penal Code.

The term the of Government of the

Republic of the Philippines under Section 2 of the

Administrative Code of the Philippines means only

to the government entity through which the

functions of government are exercised as attribute

of sovereign, and in this are included those are

through which such political authority is made

effective whether they be provincial, municipal or

other form of local government. These are what we

call municipal corporation.

MACTAN CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY VS. MARCOS- (11 SEPTEMBER , 1996)

FACTS:

The Mactan Cebu International Airport

Authority Marcos was created under Republic Act 6958,

for the purpose of “principally” undertake the

economical, efficient and effective control,

management and supervisions of Mactan International

Airport in Cebu City. Under Section 1 of the said law the

Mactan International Airport Authority is exempt from

the real taxes impost by National Government or any

political subdivision, agencies and instrumentalities.

The treasuree of Cebu City demanded payment or realty

Taxes of Parcel of Land belonging to Mactan International Airport

Authority. It objected embooking tax exemption under Republic Act

6958, and claim that the Mactan Cebu national Airport Authority is

an instrumentality of the government performing governmental

function. The Cebu City however insisted that the Mactan Cebu

International Airport Authority is a Government Owned and

Controlled Corporation performing proprietary functions whose tax

exemption withdrawn by the local Government Code of the

Philippines.

ISSUE:

Is the City of Cebu has a power to impost taxes owned the

properties of the Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority.

RULING:

The City of Cebu has the Authority to impost taxes owned of the

Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority. The mantel of exemption of tax

under Section 14 of the Charter of the Mactan Cebu International Airport

Authority, Republic Act 6958 has been withdrawn .

Moreover, the term Republic of the Philippines, is not

synonymous with Government of the Republic of the Philippines

which under the Administrative Code of the Philippines, Republic

of the Philippines is defines as “corporate government entity

through which the functions of government are exercised

throughout the Philippines, including, save as the contrary

appears from the context, the various arms though which political

authority is made affective in the Philippines, whether pertaining

to the autonomous regions, the provincial, city, municipal or

barangay subdivisions or other forms of local government”.

These “autonomous regions, provincial, city municipal or

barangay subdivisions” are the political subdivisions.

“ National Government” refers to the entity machinery of the

central government, as distinguished from the different forms of

local governments.” The National Government then is composed

of the great departments: the executive, the legislative and the

judicial.

An “agency” of the Government refers to “any of the various

units of the Government, including a department, bureau, office,

instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled corporation. It

may also refer to a local government or a distinct unit therein.”

An “instrumentality” refers to “any agency

of the National Government, not integrated within

the department framework, vested with special

functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with

some if not all corporate powers, administering

special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy,

usually through a charter. This tem includes

regulatory agencies, chartered institutions and

government-owned and controlled corporations.

CREATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

You well remember that this creation of

administrative agencies was discuss by as partially. I

pointed out that administrative agencies, whether

individual or institutional are created directly by

constitutional provisions, (2) by the legislature in

legislative enactments, or (3) by authority of law. I

even sighted to you the different offices of

government under the existing system of

governance.

DEGREE OF CONTROL OF THE LEGISLATURE OVER

ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

Dean Nepthaly Gonzales, a noted constitutional

and administrative law professor explained that, thus:

“The legislative power over the administrative

agencies is very broad. It is the legislative branch that

promulgates the general policy; creates the agency to

administer it if none is already in existence for the

purpose; prescribes the mode of appointment, the term of

office and the compensation; fixes its authority and

procedure; determines the size 0f its personnel and staff;

exercises continuing surveillance over its activities; and

may investigate its operations for remedial or corrective

legislation. Moreover, the legislature is more and more in

favor of enacting statutes in broad and general wording

and leaving details thereof to administrative agencies to

fill by rules, orders, regulations, and the like.”

REORGANIZATION AND ABOLITIONAdministrative agencies are sometimes abolished and

new ones created embodying the fruits of experience, or old

agencies are reorganized, or their functions transferred to other

agencies. The powers of departments, boards, and

administrative agencies are subject to expansion, contraction,

or abolition at the will of the legislative and executive branches

of the government. Thus a new agency may be created to

centralize authority which has been scattered among several

agencies, the powers of an independent commission may be

placed in a division of another agency, or reorganization may

create an independent agency in regard to previously

subordinate functions.

Congress has at various times vested powers in the

President to reorganize executive agencies and redistribute

functions, and particular transfers under such statutes have been

held to be within the authority of the President. Any doubt as to

the authority of the President under power given him by Congress

to transfer the functions of one agency to another by executive

order and the question of the compliance with the conditions of

the exercise of authority, and the validity of the performance of

those functions by authority, and the validity of the performance

of those functions by the transferee, is determined by

congressional approval and ratification in subsequently

recognizing the validity of the transfer by making appropriations

for the purpose of carrying out the transferred functions.

With respect to administrative agencies

created by the Constitution, they cannot be

abolished by statute. But with respect to those

created by legislative enactments, or authority of

the same, the legislature may validity abolish and

reorganize them.

ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND THE

PRINCIPLES OF SEPARATION AND NON-

DELEGATION OF POWERS AND DOCTRINE OF

PRIMARY JURISDICTION OR EXHAUSTED OF

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

A study of administrative law may be divided

into three broad segments, namely: (1) the transfer

of power from the legislature to administrative

agencies; (2) the exercise of such delegated powers

by these agencies; and (3) a review of such

administrative actions by the court.

The most common of these limitations are those

imposed by the constitutional principle of separation of

powers, with its concomitant principle of non-delegability of

powers. Similarly, prohibits the delegation of Executive

power.

The theory of separation of powers prohibits the

delegation of legislative and executive power, the vesting of

judicial officer with non-judicial functions, as well as the

investing of non-judicial officers with non judicial powers.

According to judge Cooley, a well-known american

constitutional law and administrative law authority, in his

oft-qouted language, thus

“One of the settled maxims in

constitutional law is, that the power conferred

upon the legislature to make laws cannot be

delegated by that department to any other

body or authority. Where the sovereign power of

the state has located the authority. There it

must remain; and by that constitutional agency

alone the laws must be made until the

Constitution itself is changed. The power to

whose judgment, wisdom, and patriotism this

high prerogative has been intrusted cannot

relieve itself of the responsibility by choosing

other agencies upon which the power shall be

devolve, nor can it substitute the judgment,

wisdom, and patriotism of any other body for

those to which alone the people have seen fit to

confide this sovereign trust.”

As stated earlier that the transfer of power from the legislature to

administrative agencies care must be observe that said transfer of powers

thus not violate constitutional inhibitions. The most common of this

inhibitions, bar limitations are those imposed by the principles of separation

of powers, with its concomitant principle of non-deligability of power.

Now, it is only proper to us, what is this principle called as separation of

powers. To ask the questioned is to answered it, separation of powers, as a

principle of democratic, republican and constitutional government is easily

understood by its working and its operation. It is not a lifeless principle but

one of being active and moving dynamically at the very heart of our regime

of constitutionalism. Slight, tender and satell action resulting to create

imbalances a destruction of government and constitution is likely to occur.

SEPARATION OF POWER

Let us have this simple illustration:

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

SEPARATION SEPARATION

INDEPENDENT, CO-EQUAL, AND SUPREME WITHIN ITS OWN CIRCLE. NO ENTERFERENCE, NO INTRUTION

NOR CONSCENTRATION OF POWERS IN ONE DEPARTMENT

ANOTHER SIMPLE ILLUSTRATION FROM THE LECTURE OF MR. JUSTICE LAUREL WHICH MIGHT HELP US IN DEEPLY UNDERSTANDING THE FOREGOING PRINCIPLE;

Executive

Legislative Judicial

THE CONSTITUTIONThe smaller circles, inside the bigger circles which is the constitution,

represent the three (3) branches of our government namely Executive, Legislative and Judicial, within its own circle, the three (3) circles are supreme and cannot be interfered with any other circle. Outside and within the 3 circles it is co-equal and independent from each other. The three(3) circles shall not, at all times overstep the bigger circle which is the constitution.

Corollary to this principle of Separation of powers,

illustrated above is another principle know constitutional

law administrative law as the non-delegation of powers.

Simply when the powers are separated to the three (3)

branches of government the next rule that be observe is

the non-delegation of power to any other agencies of the

government except permitted by the constitution itself.

As explained by Mr. Justice Malcolm, and Justice Laurel, Justices of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, thus

“No department of the

government (be it legislative, executive

or judicial) except when authorized by

the Constitution, can abdicate authority

or escape responsibility by delegating

any of its power to another body. Any

attempt at such delegation of power is

void under the maxim of potestas

delegata non potest delegari.”

NON-DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER

While the rule of non-delegation is applicable to all the

three departments of the government, the doctrine has found

greater and persistent application to the prohibition against the

delegation of legislative power. Congress may not escape its

duties and responsibility by delegating its powers to any other

body or authority. Any attempt to abdicate the legislative power

is unconstitutional and void. The classic statement of the rule is

that of Locke, namely: “ “The legislative neither must nor can transfer the power of making laws to anybody else, or place it anywhere but where the people have.”

Of course, the supreme essential power of the legislature

which it may not delegate is the power to make law, at least

purely substantive law, the legislature may not delegate to

administrative agencies the determination of what the law

shall be, to whom it may be applied, or what acts are

necessary to effectuate the law. The essential of legislative

function are the determination of the legislative policy and its

formulation and promulgations as a defined and binding rule of

conduct, that is, he determination of the legislative policy and

legislative approval of a rule of conduct to carry that policy into

execution.

EXCEPTIONS TO NON-DELEGATION

The rule which forbids the delegation of power is not

rigid and inflexible. To borrow the words of Justice Cordozzo,

“it is not a doctrinaire concept to be

made use of with pedantic rigor. There

must be sensible approximation. There

must be elasticity of adjustments in

response to the practical necessities of

government which cannot foresee today

the developments of tomorrow in its

nearly infinite variety.”The rule of non-delegation therefore admits of exceptions.

DELEGATION OF POWERS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

It is a rule sanctioned by immemorial practice that delegation of

legislative power to local authorities does not transgress the principle of

non-delegation. “It is a cardinal principle of our system of

government, that local affairs shall be managed by local

authorities, and general affairs by the central authority;

and hence, while the rule is also fundamental that he

power to make laws cannot be delegated, the creation of

municipalities exercising local self-government has never

been held to trench upon that rule. Such legislation is not

regarded as a transfer of general legislative power but

rather as the grant of authority to prescribe local

regulations, according to immemorial practice, subject of

course to the interposition of the superior in cases of

necessity.” On the same principles, Congress is empowered to delegate

legislative power to such agencies in the territories it may select. A territory

stands in the same relation to Congress as a municipality or city to the state

government.

DELEGATION OF POWER TO “FILL UP” DETAILS

Matters of detail may be left by the legislature to be filled by

rules and regulations to be adopted or promulgated by executive officers

and administrative boards. In other words, it is still true – albeit with a

wider degree of latitude- that the legislature may only make a general

provisions to fill up the details. So, therefore, the Courts recognizing the

necessary of delegation “in order that the exertion of legislative power

does not become a futility” have drawn a theoretical distinction between

legislative power and a subsidiary power to fill up the details or to find

facts to carry the legislatively declared policies into effect. The Supreme

Court of the United States has consistently recognized that “Congress

may declare its will, and after fixing a primary standard, devolve upon

administrative officers ‘the power to fill up the details’ by prescribing

administrative rules and regulations.

DELEGATION OF POWERS TO ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES

With the modern complexities of modern life, the

multiplication of the subjects of government regulation and the

increased difficulty of administering the laws. It was found that

neither the legislature nor the courts were equipped to administer

them. The legislature is not always in session. Its members can

agree only on general policies but not on matters of detail. Even if

they could agree on details, there is the danger that too detailed

control and regulation on the part of the statute creating

administrative bodies may hamper their efficiency and render

them impotent in the face of everchanging conditions.

The legislature, therefore, neither has the time nor the

competence to possibly foresee every contingency involved in

the particular problem it is seeking to control. Reluctantly at

first, and later with persistency and determination, the

legislature begun until it became customary for it to delegate to

each newly created instrumentality of the executive department

the power to make the regulations necessary to carry the statute

into effect. Likewise, to enable the said administrative agencies

to achieve their functions efficiently and effectively, the

legislature has granted to them the power to adjudicate on

cases arising within the scope of their activities.

Advantages of Delegation of Power to Administrative Agencies:

-

Some of the advantages of delegation of power to executive and

administrative agencies are:

(1) It relieves the legislature of a great burden of work in respect to which it

has no special competence, and thus, enables it more largely to direct its

attention to matters of general import;

(2) it entrusts the drafting of detailed provision, which are usually of a highly

technical character, to the agencies most familiar with the conditions to be met

and which will have the responsibility for their enforcement;

(3) It permits a great flexibility in adopting the regulations to the different

classes of individuals or interests affected; and

(4) It makes possible the prompt modification of a provision as soon as

experience demonstrates that it is unsatisfactory.

DELEGATION OF POWER TO THE PEOPLE AT LARGE

While a representative democracy embodies a government

where the powers of government are not exercised directly by the

people but through their chosen representatives and, therefore, the

people in their sovereign capacity have voluntarily delegated the

power to enact laws to the legislature, no objection may be raised

where the people have expressly reserved to themselves in the

Constitution the power of decision with respect to certain matters.

Under Article XVI of the New Constitution, the people have reserved to

themselves the finality of decision with respect to the approval of any

change in the fundamental law. Any amendment to, or revision of, said

Constitution shall be valid when ratifies by a majority of the votes cast

in a plebiscite which shall be held not later than three months after the

approval of such amendment or revision.

It is for these reasons that the principles of separation

and non-delegation of powers are intertwined with the first

and the third segment in the study of administrative law.

The emergence of administrative agencies has

brought about a constantly growing tendency toward the

delegation of greater powers by the legislature and toward

the approval of the practice by the courts. The rigidity of

the theory of the separation of governmental powers has,

to a large extent, been relaxed by permitting the delegation

of greater power by the legislature and vesting a large

amount of discretion in administrative and executive

official;

Not only in execution of the laws, but also in the promulgation of certain rules and regulations calculated to promote public interest.

As pointed out by Mr. Justice Cardozzo of the U.S. Supreme Court:

“In the complex life of today, the

business of government could not go on

without the delegation, in greater or less

degree of the power to adapt the rule to

the swiftly moving facts.”

RULE OF NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS

No department of the government (be

it legislative, executive or judicial) except

when authorized by the Constitution, can

abdicate authority or escape responsibility by

delegating any of its power to another body.

Any attempt at such delegation of power is

void under the maxim of potestas deleagta

non potest delegari.

The rule against delegation of legislative power is fixed and

unalterable, not depending upon the existence of an emergency. An

unconstitutional delegation of power is not brought within the limits of

permissible delegation by the establishment of procedural

safeguards, the right of judicial review, or by the assumption that the

officer acts and will act for the public good.RULE NOT ABSOLUTE:-

The rule precluding the delegation of power by the

legislature does not embrace every power the legislature may

properly exercise. Any power not legislative in character which

the legislature may exercise, it may delegate. What the rule

precludes is the delegation of those powers which are strictly or

inherently and exclusively legislative and the legislature’s

abdication of its own power and the conferring of such power

upon an administrative agency to be exercised in its uncontrolled

discretion.

ORIGIN OF THE RULE

The doctrine of non-delegation of powers is wholly judge-made. Mr. Justice Laurel, writing the opinion of the Supreme Court in People vs. Vera, gave the following account of the origin of the principle, as follows:

“ The principle is said to have originated with the glossators, was introduced into English law through a misreading of Bracton, there developed as a principle of agency, was established by Lord Coke in he English public law in decisions forbidding the delegation of judicial power, and found its way into America as an enlightened principle of free government. It has become an accepted corollary of the principle of separation of power.”

START HERE!

Laws enacted by the legislative prescribing the powers and

functions of administrative agencies must respect constitutional

limitations. Since administrative bodies are usually vested with

rule-making and adjudicatory powers which are akin to

legislative and judicial powers, it is important to determine

whether the transfer of such powers from the legislature to

administrative agencies does not violate constitutional

inhibitions.

These constitutional inhibitions are as follows:

1. SEPARATION OF POWERS

2. NON-DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE

POWER

Based on the principle of potestas delegata

non potest delegari, the doctrine of non-

delegation rests on he 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 and not

through he intervening mind of another.

The rule precluding the delegation of power by

the legislature does not embrace every power the

legislature may properly exercise. Any power not

legislative in character which the legislature may

exercise, it may delegate. What the rule precludes is

the delegation of those powers which are strictly or

inherently and exclusively legislative and the

legislature’s abdication of its own power and the

conferring of such power upon an administrative

agency to be exercised in its uncontrolled discretion.

Instances of permissible delegation of power,

namely:

(1) when permitted by the Constitution

itself;

(2) Delegation of legislative power to local

governments.

(3) Delegation of the power to “fill in”

details;

(4)Delegation of rule- making and

adjudicatory powers to administrative

bodies, provided ascertainable standards

are set;

(5) Delegation of power to ascertain facts;

contingencies or events upon which the

applicability or non-applicability of a law is

made to depend;

(6) Delegation of powers to the people at large,

when such has been reserved in the Constitution;

(7) Delegation of power to the Executive in the field

of foreign or international relations.

TEST OF VALIDITY OF DELEGATION OF POWERS

Two tests have been resorted to by the courts in delegation of power

cases. They are (1) The completeness or incompleteness of the statute;

and (2) The absence or sufficiency of standard. However, these two

tests have apparently been merged into one, for as held in the cases of

Vigan Electric Light Co., Inc. vs. Public Service Commission, and Pelaez

vs. Auditor General, for a valid delegation, that is, one that does not

transgress the principle of separation of powers, it is essential that the

law delegating powers must be: 1) complete in itself, that is, it must set

forth the policy to be executed by the delegated and 2) fix a standard-

limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable – to which

the delegate must conform.

VIGAN ELECTRIC LIGHT CO., INC. VS.

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

G.R. No. L-19850, prom. Jan. 30, 1964

This is an action to annual an order issued by respondent

Public Service Commission ordering the reduction of the rates for

its electric services therefore charged by petitioner, on the

ground among others, that such order had been issued without

notice and hearing and that, accordingly, petitioner had been

denied due process. In defense, respondent maintain that rate

fixing is a legislative function that may be constitutionally

exercised without previous notice or hearing; and that the rule

that notice and hearing is essential refers to a proceeding

involving the exercise of judicial functions.

HELD:

Consistently with the principle of separation of powers, which underlie our

constitutional system, legislative powers may not be delegated except to local

governments, and only as to matters purely of local concern. However, congress

may delegate to administrative agencies of the government power to supplies the

details in the enforcement or execution of a policy laid down by a law which is

c0mplete in itself. Such law is not deemed complete unless it lays down a

standard or pattern sufficiently fixed or determinate, or, at least, determinable

without requiring another legislation, to guide the administrative body concerned

in the performance of its duty to implement or enforce said policy. Otherwise,

there would be no reasonable means to ascertain whether or not said body has

acted within the scope of its authority, and, as consequence, the power of

legislation would eventually be exercised by a branch of the Government other

than that in which it is lodged by the Constitution, in violation, not only of the

allocation of powers therein made, but, also, of the principle of separation of

powers.

Hence, Congress has not delegated, legislative powers to

respondent. Moreover, although the rule-making power and the

power to fix rates-when such rules and/or rates are meant to apply

to all enterprises of a given kind throughout the Philippines- may

partake of a legislative, character, such is not the nature of the order

complained of. Indeed, the same applied exclusively to petitioner

herein. What is more, it is predicated on a finding of fact that

petitioner is making a profit of more than 12% of its invested capital,

which is denied by petitioner. In making such finding of facts,

respondent performed a function partaking of a quasi-judicial

character, the valid exercise of which demands previous notice and

hearing.

Continuatio

n:

PELAEZ VS. AUDITOR GENERALG.R. L-23825, DEC. 24, 1965

Purporting to act pursuant to Section 68 of the Revised Administrative

Code, the President issued Executive Orders creating 33 municipalities.

Petitioner, Vice-President and taxpayer, instituted the present action.

ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND THE PRINCIPLES OF SEPARATION AND NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS

Petitioner alleges that said executive orders are null and

void upon the ground, among others, that Section 68 constitutes

an undue delegation of power.

HELD

The authority to create municipal corporations is essentially legislative in

nature: As the Supreme Court of Washington has put it “municipal

corporations are purely the creatures of the statute.” The Cardona vs.

Binangonan case cannot be relied upon to support the contrary view for

what was transfer of territory from a municipality to another.

True it is, 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. However, for a valid delegation, that is, one that does not transgress

the principle of separation of powers, it is essential that the law delegating

powers must be: (1) complete in its self, that is, it must set forth the policy

to be executed by the delegate and (2) fix a standard-limits of which are

sufficiently determine or determinable-to which the delegate must conform.

Without a statutory declaration of policy, the delegate would, in effect,

make or formulate such policy, which is the essence of every law. Without

the aforementioned standard, there would be no means to determine

whether the delegate has acted within or beyond the scope of his authority.

Section 68 of the Revised Administrative Code fails to meet these well-

settled requirements. There is no enunciation of policy. Neither is there

sufficient standard. True it is, the last clause of the section provides that

the President “x x x x x may change the seat of he government within any

subdivision to such place therein as the public welfare may require” . It is

however apparent that the phrase “ as the public welfare may require”

qualifies, not the clauses preceding the ones just quoted, but only the

place to which the seat of the government may be transferred.

Continuatio

n:

Even granting, that the aforementioned phrase qualifies

all other clauses of Section 68, he conclusion would be the same.

Reliance to the cases of Calalang vs. Williams and People vs.

Rosenthal, wherein the Supreme Court had upheld “public

welfare” and “public interest” as sufficient standards for a valid

delegation of powers, is futile. Both cases involved grants to

administrative officers of powers related to the exercise of their

administrative function, calling for the determination of questions

of fact. Such is not the nature of the powers dealt with in Section

68. to repeat, the creation of municipalities is one which is

essentially and eminently legislative character.

Contin

uatio

n:

ABSENCE OR SUFFICIENCY OF STANDARD TEST

Even if a statute delegates authority, if it lays down a policy and a definite

standard by which the executive or administrative officer or board may be

guided in the exercise of his discretionary authority, there is no undue

delegation of legislative power. On the other hand, if the statute furnishes no

standard and grants an officer or bard uncontrolled and unlimited discretion,

such a statute is an unconstitutional delegation of power.

In order for a delegation of legislative power to the President (or any

administrative body or officer) to be lawful least three criteria must be met:

(1) The “policy” must be clearly declared in the language or the statute, and

not left to the discretion of the “grantee” or “delegate” the recipient of the

delegated power, who acts as the agent of the Congress;

(2) The statute must pronounce “standards” to guide the executive

behavior of the President (or whomever else Congress might select as its

subordinate administrator); Court something to determine, in exercising

judicial review, whether the subordinate administrative action was ultra

vires in relation to the statute; and

(3) Formal “findings” by the President(or the subordinate agency”

would be a condition precedent to a valid exercise of his delegated

authority, assuming that the statute satisfied the above “policy” and

“standards” criteria; or in other words, the president must specify in his

order the facts and circumstances that justified the action that he purported

to take under the statute delegating to him his authority to act.

Contin

uatio

n

:

Standard Defined:-

A standard is the criterion laid down by the

legislature by which the policy and purpose of the law may

be carried out. A standard defines the legislative policy,

marks its limits, and maps out its boundaries. It indicates

the circumstances under which legislative command is to be

effected. They are indeed guideposts to be followed by the

delegate in exercising the granting discretion.

Contin

uatio

n

:

LEGISLATIVE STANDARDS CONSIDERED ADEQUATE IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN THE PHILIPPINES

In the United States:-

(1) “Just and reasonable;”53

(2) “Unreasonable obstruction to navigation;”54

(3) “ Public interest;”55

(4) “Reciprocally unequal and unreasonable;”56

(5) “Public convenience;”57

(6) “National security or defense;”58

(7) “Unfair methods of competition;”59

(8) “Tea of an inferior quality;”60

(9) “Films as are in the judgment and discretion of the

Board of Censors of a moral., educational or amusing,

and harmless character; “61

In the Philippines:

(1) “Public Welfare;”62

(2) “Necessary in the interest of law and order;”63

(3) “Public interest;”64

(4) “Justice and equity and substantial merits of the case;” 65

(5) “Simplicity, economy and efficiency;”66

(6) “Adequate and sufficient instruction;”67

(7) “In order to protect the international reserves. . . .to monetary

stability in the Philippines. . . To promote a rising level of

production, employment and real income in the Philippines;”68

(8) “All educational institutions to observe daily flag ceremony,

which shall be simple and dignified and shall include the playing

or singing of the Philippine National Anthem;”69

PEOPLE VS. ROSENTHAL68 PHIL. 28

Act No. 2581, otherwise known as the Blue

Sky Law, requires every person, partnership or

corporation to obtain a certificate or permit from

“Public Interest” as a Standard:-

CALALANG VS. WILLIAMS70 PHIL. 726

Commonwealth Act No. 548 authorizes the Director of

Public Works, with the approval of the Secretary of Public

Works and Communication, to promulgate rules and

regulations for the regulation and control of the use and

traffic on national roads. The Director of Public Works, with

the approval of the Secretary of Public works and

communication, and upon the recommendation of the

National Commission issued, an order closing to animal-drawn

vehicles certain portions of Rizal Avenue and Rosario Street,

both in the City of Manila. Petitioner challenges the

constitutionality of said order as having been issued pursuant

to an undue delegation of power.

“Public Convenience and Interest” as a Standard: -

Facts:

YAKUS VS. UNITED STATES321 U.S. 414, 64 S. CT. 660, 88 L. ED. 834

The Emergency Price Control Act provides for the establishment

of the Office of Price Administrator under the direction of a price

Administrator appointed by the President and sets up a

comprehensive scheme for the promulgation by the

Administrator of regulations or orders fixing such maximum

prices of commodities and rents as will effectuate the purpose

of the Act. Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of this law

as an undue delegation of legislative power.

‘Fair and Equitable” as a standard:

Facts“:

HELD:This challenged statute is not an undue delegation of

power. The law establishes a defined policy and requires that the

prices fixed by the Administrator should further that policy and

conform to the standards prescribed by the Act. It directs that the

prices fixed shall effectuate the declared policy of the Act which is to

stabilize commodity prices as t prevent wartime inflation and its

enunciated, disruptive causes or effects. In addition, the prices

established must be fair and equitable, and in fixing them the

Administrator is directed to give due consideration, so far as

practicable, to prevailing price during the designated base period

(Oct. 1-15, 1941), with prescribed administrative adjustments to

compensate for enumerated disturbing factors affecting prices. The

law is for a limited duration. It provides for its termination on June

30, 1943, unless sooner terminated by Presidential proclamation or

concurrent resolution of Congress.

GIL BALBUNA VS. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

G.R. NO. L-14283, PROM. NOVEMBER 29, 1960

Petitioners, members of the religious sect “Jehovah’s Witness

“, challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1265, by

virtue of which the Secretary of Education issued Department

Order No. 8, prescribing compulsory flag ceremony in all schools as

an undue delegation of legislative power. Section 1 of the act

requires all educational institutions to observe daily flag ceremony,

which shall be simple and dignified and shall include the playing or

singing of the Philippine national anthem. Section 2 thereof

authorize the Secretary of Education to issue rules and regulations

for the proper conduct of the flag ceremony.

Facts:

HELD:

The requirements constitute an adequate standard to wit,

simplicity and dignity of the flag ceremony and the singing of the

national anthem- especially when contrasted with other standards

heretofore upheld by the courts such as “public interest,” “ public

welfare”, “interest of law and order”, “justice and equity” and the

“substantial merits of the case,” or “adequate and efficient instruction.”

That the legislature did not specify he details of the flag ceremony is no

objection to the validity of the statute, for all that is required of it is the

laying down of standard and policy that will limit the discretion of the

regulatory agency. To require the statute to establish in detail the

manner of exercise of the delegated power would be to destroy the

administrative flexibility that the delegation is intended to achieve.

SUBLEGATION IN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

Subdelegation Defined

By subdelegation is meant the transmission of

authority from the heads of agencies to subordinates.

“Sound principles of organization demand that those

at the top be able to concentrate their attention upon

the larger and more important questions of policy and

practice, and that their time be freed, so far as

possible, from the consideration of the smaller and

less important matters of detail.”

HELD:There is here no undue delegation of power. The authority

delegated to the Director of Public Works is not to

determine what public policy demands or what the law

shall be but merely the ascertainment of the facts and

circumstances upon which the application of the law is to

be predicated. Under the law in question, the promulgation

of rules and regulations on the use of national roads and

the determination of when and how long a national road

should be closed to traffic, is to be made with a view of the

condition of the road or the traffic thereon and the

requirements of public convenience and interest. Definite

standards are therefore provided in the law.

EXTENT OF PERMISSIBLE SUBDELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

The extent of permission subdelegation depends primarily upon

the intent of the legislature.

it is a general principle of law, expressed in the maxim “delegatus

potestas non potest delegare,” that a delegation power may not be further

delegated by the person to whom such power is delegated. Apart from

statute, whether administrative officer in whom certain powers are vested

or upon whom certain duties are imposed may deputize others to exercise

such powers or perform such duties usually depend upon whether the

particular act or duty sought to be delegated is ministerial, on the one

hand, or, on the other, discretionary or quasi-judicial. Merely ministerial

functions may be delegated to assistants whose employment is authorized,

but there is no authority to delegate acts discretionary or quasi-judicial in

nature. Authority from the legislature is necessary to the power of a

commission to appoint a general deputy who may exercise quasi-judicial

powers.

However, the rule that requires an officer to exercise his own

judgment and discretion in making an order does not preclude him

from utilizing, as a matter of practical administrative procedure,

the aid of subordinates directed by him to investigate and report

the facts and their recommendation in relation to the advisability of

the order. Also, administrative authorities having power to

determine certain questions after a hearing may make use of

subordinates to hold the hearing, and make their determinations

upon the report of the subordinates, without violating the principles

as to fairness of hearing or delegation of powers.

Continuation:

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

Under the concept of primary

jurisdiction, the court will not take

cognizance of a controversy involving a

question requiring the prior determination

of an administrative body of officer. Even

if such an action is filed in court.

THE PURPOSE OF THE DOCTRINE ARE AS FOLLOWS:

a. To give the administrative agency the opportunity to decide the controversy by itself correctly and so as to enable the said administrative tribunal to correct its error.

b. To prevent unnecessary and premature resort to courts so as to declog court dockets

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION(BOC) VS. DELA ROSA

MAY 31, 1991 (197 SCRA 854)

In 1961, William Gatchalian and his companions were admitted

as Filipino citizens. In 1962, the Secretary of Justice set aside all

decisions purporting to have been rendered by the BOC on appeal or

on review motu proprio of decisions of the Board of Special Inquiry.

The same memo directed BOC to review all cases whereby entry was

allowed on the grant that the entrant was a Philippine citizen. Among

those was that of Gatchalian and others. Decisions of the Board of

Special Inquiry were reversed. Gatchalian was covered by the warrant

of exclusion. A TRO was issued restraining petitioners from continuing

with the deportaton proceedings against Gatchalian.

Facts:

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC judges have no jurisdiction over

BOC and the subject matter of the case.

Held:

The court is not empowered to look into this

question: whether or not a person is an alleged alien.

This is within the competence of the BOI.

The Bureau of immigration has the exclusive

authority to hear and try cases involving alleged aliens,

and in the process, determine also their citizenship.

Continuation:

The Primary Jurisdiction of the Bureau of

immigration over deportation proceedings admits of an

exception, i.e. judicial intervention may be resorted to in

cases where the claim of citizenship is so substantial that

there are reasonable grounds to believe that the claim is

correct. The Bureau of Immigration is not of equal rank

as the RTC, hence its decisions may be appealable to,

and may be reviewed through a special civil action for

certiorari by the RTC.

GO VS. RAMOS 598 SCRA 268

Luis Ramos initiated a deportation proceeding

against Jimmy Go before the Bureau of Deportation

and Immigration (now Bureau of Immigration) alleging

that the latter is an illegal and undesirable alien. Luis

argued that although it appears from Jimmy’s birth

certificate that his parents, Carlos and Rosario Tan, are

Filipinos; the document seems to be tampered. He

also averred that jimmy, through stealth, machination

and scheming managed to cover up his true

citizenship.

Facts:

In a Resolution, Associate Commissioner

Linda L. Malenab-Hornilla dismissed the

complaint for deportation. However, the Board

of Commissioners reversed said dismissal

finding Jimmy’s claim to Philippine citizenship in

serious doubt. The Board directed the

preparation and filing of the appropriate

deportation charges against Jimmy.

Continuation:

Carlos and Jimmy filed a petition for

certiorari and prohibition with application for

injunctive reliefs before the RTC of Pasig City. In

essence, they challenged the jurisdiction of the

Board to continue with the deportation

proceedings.

Continuation:

HELD:

There can be no question that the Board has the

authority to hear and determine the deportation cases against

a deportee and in the process determine also the question of

citizenship raised by him. However, this Court, laid down the

exception to the primary jurisdiction enjoyed by the

deportation board. We stressed that judicial determination is

permitted in cases when the courts themselves believe that

there is substantial evidence supporting the claim of

citizenship, so substantial that there are reasonable grounds

for the belief that the claim is correct. Moreover, when the

evidence submitted by a deportee is conclusive of his

citizenship, the right to immediate review should also

recognized and the courts shall promptly enjoin the

deportation proceedings.

GUILLES VS. CA NOVEMBER 27, 1990

The Director of the Geological Mines

Bureau has jurisdiction over an award of a

mining claim and NOT the courts. The remedy

available from an adverse decision by the

Bureau shall be appealed first before the

Secretary of the DENR then to the Office of the

President.

INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES, INC. VS. CAAPRIL 18, 1990 (184 SCRA 427)

IEI filed an action for rescission of the

Memorandum of Agreement with damages

against Marinduque Mining and Industrial

Corporation, and the then Minister of Energy

Geronimo Velasco before the Regional Trial

Court of Makati, Branch 150

Facts:

ISSUES:

Whether or not the civil court has

jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit for

rescission of the Memorandum of Agreement

concerning a coal operating contract over

coal blocks.

RULING:

No, the Bureau of Energy Development has

primary jurisdiction over the matter. IEI’s cause of

action was not merely the rescission of a contract

but the reversion or return to it of the operation of

the coal blocks. These are matters properly falling

within the domain of the BED. The application of the

doctrine of primary jurisdiction, however, does not

call for the dismissal of the case below. It needs only

to be suspended until after the matters within the

competence of the BED are threshed out and

determined.

Under the doctrine of Primary jurisdiction,

courts cannot and will not determine a

controversy involving a question which is

within the jurisdiction of an

administrative tribunal, especially where

the question demands the exercise of

sound administrative discretion requiring

the special knowledge, experience and

services of the administrative tribunal to

determine the technical and intricate

matters of facts.

Continuation:

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

The doctrine of exhaustion of

administrative remedies.

Where the law provides for the remedies

against the action of an administrative board, body or

officer, relief to courts against such action can be

sought only after exhausting all the remedies provided

for. This is known as the doctrine of exhaustion of

administrative remedies.

Basis of the doctrine.

The doctrine rests upon the presumption that

the administrative body, board or officer, if given the

chance to correct its mistake or error, may amend

its decision on a given matter and decide it properly.

In the Philippines, our Supreme Court has

recognized the doctrine by declaring that “the

administrative remedies afforded by law must first

be exhausted before resort can be had to the courts,

especially when the administrative remedies are by

law exclusive and final.

Purpose of the doctrine

The purpose of the doctrine is to

compel parties to an administrative

proceeding to avail themselves of all the

administrative remedies on hand. It will save

the parties from a long, tedious litigation in

court and expenses therefrom. It will also

help prevent clogging of our dockets.

Exhaustion of administrative

remedies does not apply where the

law does not make such remedy a

condition precedent to judicial

resort.

EXCEPTION TO HE PRINCIPLE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE

REMEDIES.

1.) When a decision is rendered by a

Department Secretary, the aggrieved party

may directly go to court without appealing

the decision of the Department Head to the

President. 2.) Where the only question to be settled

is a purely legal one and nothing of an

administrative nature is to be done or can be

done.

3.) Where the action of the administrative

officer is clearly and obviously devoid of any

color of authority, the aggrieved party may

forthwith seek the protection of the judicial

department, notwithstanding his failure to

appeal from the action of the Department Head.

4.) When the administrative body is in

estoppel to invoke exhaustion of administrative

remedies.

5.) If its application will cause great

and irreparable damage.

6.) Where insistence on its observance

would result in the nullification of the claim

being asserted.

REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

Extent of judicial review of administrative decisions.

It is the rule that in reviewing administrative

decisions of the Executive Branch of the Government the

findings of facts made therein must be respected, so long

as they are supported by substantial evidence, even if not

overwhelming or preponderant: that it is not for the

reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence,

determine the credibility of the witness, or otherwise

substitute its judgment for that of the administrative

agency on the sufficiency of the evidence

that the administrative decisions in matters

within the executive jurisdiction can only be set

aside on proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud,

or error of law. These principles negate the power

of he reviewing court to re-examine the sufficiency

of he evidence in an administrative case as if

originally instituted therein, and do not authorize

the court to receive additional evidence that was

not submitted to the administrative agency

concerned.

Continuation:

WHEN MAY COURTS REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION?

Courts may review administrative decision?

(1) To determine the constitutionality of any validity of any

treaty, law, ordinance, executive order or regulation;

(2) To determine the jurisdiction of any administrative board,

commissioner or officer;

(3) To determine any other question of law;

(4) To determine questions of facts when necessary to

determine either (a) a constitutional or jurisdictional issue;

(b) the commission of abuse of authority; (c) when the

administrative fact-finding body was unduly restricted by an

error of law?