Administrative Law Midterm Transcript

AY 2013-2014
private right on the other (Freund, Cases on
Administrative Law).

Administrative Law Midterm Transcription

(AY 2013-2014)
Atty. Renato M. Galeon

Purpose of administrative Law:

Definition of Administrative Law:

In a general sense, administrative law embraces all

the law that controls, or is intended to control, the
administrative operations of government.
CASE:

The focus of the first definition is administration of the

affairs of the government.
What is Administration? Administration can be viewed as a
function or an organization.
If viewed as a function, it refers to the execution in nonjudicial matters of the laws or the will of the state. Simply
put, it refers to the enforcement of the laws in a nonjudicial character.
If viewed as an organization, it refers to a group of persons
manning the affairs of the government for the time being.

Internal refers to the internal functioning of the

administrative agencies; refers to the legal sense of the
administration.
Ex. personnel administration, fiscal activities, planning
activities for each administrative agencies
External deals with problems regarding or anent
government regulation. Its more on the external function
of the government/admin agencies; Performance of their
functions in relation to private individuals.

PRC vs De Guzman, GR 144681 June 21, 2004

In the medical board examinations, the examinees from Fatima

College passed the exam. Surprisingly, in the 2 difficult subject,
Biochem and ObiGyn, 10 got perfect scores in BioChem and 11
got perfect scores in ObiGyn. Then 11 got a score of 99 in
BioChem and 21 got 99 in ObiGyn and not one examinee
coming from Fatima College failed in the examination.
Thus an investigation was conducted by the PRC and the NBI. It
was later found out by the NBI that there was a leakage, so the
PRC prohibited the passers of Fatima College to take their oaths
as doctors/physicians.
Aggrieved, they filed a case seeking to compel the PRC to allow
them to take their oaths as doctors, invoking Sec. 20 of RA
2380, saying that as long as they passed the board
examinations, it becomes ministerial on the part of the PRC to
administer the oath.

Classifications of Administrative Law:

The chief concern of administrative law, as all other

branches of civil law, is the protection of private
rights.

That branch of public law which fixes the organization

of government, determines the competence of the
administrative authorities who execute the law, and
indicates to the individual remedies for the violation of
his rights (Goodnow, Comparative Administrative Law).

PRC citing the same article contended that it has the power to
regulate the medical profession. The SC upheld the authority of
the PRC to regulate the medical board examination and the
medical profession. Any such regulation as thus imposed by the
PRC should not be construed as a containment of the rights of
the individuals to pursue their career. Rather, any such
regulation should be considered as a measure of protection of
the rights of private individuals, the SC said, we cannot just
entrust the lives of the Filipino people to doctors who are not
competent to practice medicine.
Function of Administrative Law:

That system of legal principles which settles the

conflicting claims of the executive and administrative
authorities on the one hand and of the individual or

Page 1

The main function of administrative law is to make the

government machinery work well and in orderly
manner.

Compiled by MFLH Exclusive for EH405

Administrative Law Midterm Transcript

AY 2013-2014
Sources of Administrative Law:

These are doctrine rendered by the SC interpreting the

rules and regulations of administrative bodies or agencies
concerned

a.

Constitution;

COA created by Article 19; Human Rights Commission

Sec 17, Art 13; National Language Commission Art
14, sec 9.

b.

Special Legislations creating specialized agencies;

c.

Revised Administrative Code of 1970;

d.

1987 Administrative Code (Executive Order No. 292);

c.

Ex. Rules and regulations issued by the NLRC, SEC, etc.

d.

Q: Would you still consider the Revised Administrative Code of

1970 as a good source of admin law or is it repealed by EO 292?
CASE: Mecano vs COA, GR 173982 Dec 11, 1992
Antonio Mecano was an officer of the NBI, he got hospitalized
and he claimed reimbursement of the medical expenses and he
anchored his claim on the basis of Sec 699 of the Revised
Administrative Code of 1970.
COA denied the claim, citing that the provision stated by
Mecano was already repealed by EO 292 or the 1987 Admin
Code because the latter code does not contain a similar
provision as stated in Art 699 of the 1970 Admin Code.
The SC ruled, only those provisions in the 1970 Admin which are
inconsistent with the provisions of the 1987 Admin Code are
considered repealed. In other words, not all provision of the
1970 Admin Code have been repealed, only those provisions
which are inconsistent with the 1987 Admin Code are
considered repealed.
SC said that while it is true that Sec 699 of the 1970 Admin Code
may not have been re-enacted by the 1987 Admin Code, that
does not mean that that provision has been repealed.

Definition of Terms:

b.

The body of doctrines and decisions dealing with

creation, operation, and effect of determinations and
regulations of such administrative authorities;

Page 2

Administrative Bodies or Agencies refer to the organ

of government, other than a court and other than a
legislature, which affects the rights of private parties
either through adjudication or rule-making.
Thus, an administrative body/agency does not belong
to a judiciary nor the legislature, but belongs to the
Executive department although it is performing quasijudicial functions thru adjudication and their rule
making power or their quasi-legislative function.

Agency includes any department, bureau, office,

commission, authority or officer of the National
Government authorized by law or executive order to
make rules, issue licenses, grant of rights or privileges,
and adjudicate cases; research institutions with
respect to licensing functions; government
corporations with respect to functions regulating
private right, privilege, occupation or business; and
official in the exercise of disciplinary power as
provided by law (Section 2 [1], Chapter I, Book VII,
Executive Order No. 292).

Department refers to an executive department

created by law (Section 2, par. 7, Introductory
Provisions, Executive Order No. 292).

Kinds of Administrative Law:

Statutes setting up administrative authorities;

Determinations, decisions, and orders of such

administrative authorities in the settlement of
controversies arising in their particular fields.

The decisions referred here is the decisions of the

administrative agencies themselves.

So that is why the Revised Admin Code of 1970 is still a good

source of Admin Law.

a.

Rules, regulations, or orders of such administrative

authorities in pursuance of the purposes for which
administrative authorities were created or endowed;
and

Compiled by MFLH Exclusive for EH405

Administrative Law Midterm Transcript

AY 2013-2014
Ex. DFA, DOJ, DOF, DENR, DOLE

So the various administrative agencies are integral

components or parts of the entire framework of the
Republic of the Philippines; the umbrella organization.

Bureau refers to any principal subdivision or unit of

any department (Section 2, par. 8, Introductory
Provisions, Executive Order No. 292).

Reasons for creation of administrative agencies:

Ex. BIR under the Dept of Finance, NBI under the DOJ,
Bureau of Lands under DENR

1.

To meet the growing complexities of the modern

society;

Office refers, within the framework of governmental

organization, to any major functional unit of a
department or bureau including regional offices. It may
also refer to any position held or occupied by
individual persons, whose functions are defined by law
or regulation (Section 2, par. 9, Introductory Provisions,
Executive Order No. 292).

2.

To unclog court dockets;

3.

To help in the regulation of ramified activities of

developing country;

4.

To entrust to specialized agencies in specified fields

with their special knowledge, experience, and
capability the task of dealing with problems thereof as
they have the experience, expertise and power of
dispatch to provide solutions thereto.

It is a component of a Bureau

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 term includes regulatory agencies,
chartered institutions and government-owned or
controlled corporation (Section 2, par. 10, Introductory
Provisions, Executive Order No. 292).

Common Types of Administrative Agencies:

Ex. MCIAA, PNOC (Phil National Oil Company), NPC

(National Power Corp), Phil National Railways, PPO
GOCCs fall under this category

Government of the Republic of the Philippines refers

to the corporate governmental entity through which
the functions of government are exercised throughout
the Philippines, including, save as the contrary appears
from the context, the various arms through which
political authority is made effective in the Philippines,
whether pertaining to the autonomous regions, the
provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions or
other forms of local government (Section 2, par. 1,
Introductory Provisions, Executive Order No. 292).

Page 3

a)

Agencies created to function in situations wherein the

government is offering some gratuity, grant, or special
privileges. e.g. Philippine Veterans Board, Board on
Pensions for Veterans, Philippine Veterans
Administration, Government Service Insurance System,
and the Social Security System.

b) Agencies set up to function in situations wherein the

government is seeking to carry on certain
governmental functions. e.g. Bureau of Immigration,
Bureau of Internal Revenue, Board of Special Inquiry
and Board of Commissioners, the Civil Service
Commission, the Central Bank.
c)

Agencies set up to function in situations wherein the

government is performing some business service for
the public. e.g. the Bureau of Posts, the Postal Savings
Bank, Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage
Authority, Philippine National Railways, the Civil
Aeronautics Administration (now MCIAA, MIAA).

d) Agencies set up to function in situations wherein the

government is seeking to regulate business affected
with public interest. e.g. Fiber Inspection Board, the
Philippine Patent Office, Office of the Insurance
Commissioner.

Compiled by MFLH Exclusive for EH405

Administrative Law Midterm Transcript

AY 2013-2014
e) Agencies set up to function in situations where the
government is 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 Regulations Commission.
f)

Bureau refers to any principal subdivision or unit of a

department
Office refers to any major functional unit or subdivision of any
department or bureau including regional offices.

Agencies set up to function in situations wherein the

government is seeking to adjust individual
controversies because of strong social policy. e.g.
National Labor Relations Commission, the Court of
Agrarian Relations, the Regional Offices of the Ministry
of Labor, Bureau of Labor Standards.
Take note: the agencies falling under this category
performs quasi- judicial functions. So the problem is
how to determine if it is an admin agency or a court of
law. See criterion below

g)

Agencies set up to function in situations where the

government is seeking to conduct investigations and
gather evidence for information, recommendations of
prosecution of crimes. e.g. Commission on Human
Rights, the National Bureau of Investigation and the
Prosecutors Office

A body or agency is administrative where its function is

primarily regulatory even if it conducts hearings and determines
to carry out its regulatory duty. On its rule-making authority, it
is administrative when it does not have discretion to determine
what the law shall be but merely prescribes details for the
enforcement of the law.

Department refers to any executive department created by

law.

Q: What kind of relationship does these administrative bodies

have in relation to each other?
A: Case: Beja, Sr vs DOTC
It was stated that the relationship between a department and a
bureau and a bureau vis a vis an office may be classified as an
(1) attachment or it may be categorized as that of (2) control;
or also may be categorized as (3) supervision.

Attachment - it is a lateral relationship between a department

or any of its equivalent or attached agency or corporation for
purposes of policy and program coordination.

We must determine first their primary function.

The terms as used in the Administrative Code of 1997:

A department may have different or several bureau under the

same, in like manner that a bureau may be composed of several
offices.

(1) ATTACHMENT

Criterion: (in determining whether it is a government

agency/body or a court of law)

January 11, 2014 From Atty Galeons summary discussion

Proceeding from the definitions, we can therefore say that the

Department is the larger unit;

And policy and program coordination may be accomplished, by

allowing the department to have a representative in the
governing board or body in the attached agency, to ensure that
there is coordination as regards to their policies and programs.
The representative of the department of that particular
governing body or board of that attached agency may or may
not have a voting right depending on the provisions of the law.
So in attachment there is policy and program coordination, but
as regards to the day to day operations or internal functioning
of the attached agency, bureau or office, the same is left to the
sound judgement of the officer in charge of that particular
body.
Meaning, the mother unit or department cannot decide the day
to day operations of the attached agency, because what they
only have if policy and program coordination.

Page 4

Compiled by MFLH Exclusive for EH405

Administrative Law Midterm Transcript

AY 2013-2014
So in attachment, there is a larger measure of independence on
the part of the attached agency.

So the President can alter, modify, nullify or set-aside the

decisions of his cabinet members.

That is why in the case of BEJA vs DOTC, the SC said that the
admin case involving Mr. Beja, should have been decided by the
PPA Manager and not by the DOTC Secretary, because the PPA
is an attached agency of the DOTC. In other words, according to
the SC, PPA has a larger measure of independence such as the
case involving Mr. Beja should not have been decided by the
DOTC Sec but by the PPA Manager himself.

Control therefore is pervasive as compared to attachment.

(2) CONTROL

(3) SUPERVISION
Supervision the mother unit or agency may only oversee the
performance by the subordinate of his duties and functions.
The mother unit cannot substitute his judgement from that of
the subordinate agency.
This is the relationship between the President and the various
Local Government Units.

But if the relationship between admin bodies is one of Control,

then the superior body or mother unit or superior officer, has
the authority to alter, modify, nullify and set aside what the
subordinate officer or agency had done. The superior
body/officer has the authority to substitute his/her own
judgement from that of the subordinate which is not in
attachment.

Under Sec 4, Art 10 of the 1987 Constitution:

In fact the superior officer may command the performance of

an act by the subordinate; in like manner the superior officer
may command the undoing of what has been done by the
subordinate officer. The superior officer may also perform what
the subordinate can lawfully do.
Unlike in attachment, there is no larger measure of
independence on the part of the subordinate agency where the
relationship is one of control.
This is the kind of relationship obtaining by and between the
President and the members of his cabinet.
Under Sec 17, Art 7 of the 1987 Constitution:
Section 17. The President shall have control of all the
executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure
that the laws be faithfully executed.
Alter Ego Doctrine/Principle all administrative offices are
considered adjuncts of the office of the President such that the
decisions or acts performed by the cabinet ministers in the
course of their business are considered acts and decisions of
the President himself, and these acts and decisions are
considered valid unless disapproved by the President.

Section 4. The President of the Philippines shall exercise

general supervision over local governments. Provinces with
respect to component cities and municipalities, and cities and
municipalities with respect to component barangays, shall
ensure that the acts of their component units are within the
scope of their prescribed powers and functions.
So the President therefore cannot overturn the decisions of the
Local Government Officers or Units because his power over
them is nothing more than supervision.
Illustrative case:
CASE: Dadole vs COA, GR 125350, December 3, 2000
This involves the granting of allowances to the Judges of the
Mandaue City Courts. The city government of Mandaue granted
allowances to the Judges of the city courts of Mandaue in the
amount of Php 1,500. But the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) under the office of the President, issued a
memorandum circular decreasing the amount from P1500 to
P1000 so there is a variance of P500 (Sir: Dako nana ang 500,
makapalit namu ana og isda, or vegetables if you are a
vegetatrian)
Aggrieved, the Judges of Mandaue City questioned the circular
by the DBM and the SC sustained the challenge mounted
against the validity of the memorandum circular issued by the
DBM. According to SC, the DBM and not even the President has
the power to overturn the decisions of the LGUs because what

Page 5

Compiled by MFLH Exclusive for EH405

Administrative Law Midterm Transcript

AY 2013-2014
the President has over the LGUs is only the power of
supervision and not control.

implementing a valid reorganization program. In carrying out a

valid reorganization program, the President is vested with the
authority to create or even abolish public offices.

So among the (3) relationships, the one that is most pervasive is

Control followed by Attachment and then Supervision.
Q: How would we know the kind of relationship by and
between two or more administrative bodies?

Q: Can the President create a public office if such creation is

not done in pursuance to a valid reorganization program?
Assuming congress has not enacted any law.
CASE: Lagman vs Executive Sec. Ochoa, GR 193036 December
7, 2010

A: you look at the law or the charter creating those bodies

Examining the 1987 Constitution, we can observe that the

Constitution itself has created various admin bodies/agencies
like the Office of the President (under Art 7), then we have the
various independent commissions, like the COA, CSC, COMELEC,
NAPOLCOM, CHR, NLC, Ombudsman and NEDA, so these are
administrative bodies created by the 1987 Constitution.
All other admin bodies/agencies are created by law as thus
enacted by Congress or created by persons or tribunals
authorized by Congress to do so.

Remember Pres. Aquino issued EO 1, creating the Philippine

Truth Commission of 2010, supposedly to investigate the
anomalies of the past administration. Cong. Lagman, being an
ally of GMA, questioned the creation of such commission, it was
contended by Lagman and others that the creation of a public
office is basically and primarily a legislative function, in other
words, the petitioners contended that it is only Congress which
is vested with the power to create a public office.
According to the petitioners, there is no provision in the Admin
Code allowing the President to create a public office.
The SC, citing the second sentence of Sec 17, Art 7 of the 1987
Constitution providing:

In other words, excepting admin bodies created by the

Constitution, all other admin agencies/offices are created
pursuant to a law enacted by Congress.

Section 17. The President shall have control of all the

executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure
that the laws be faithfully executed.

Simply put, creation of public offices other than those created

by the Constitution is primarily a Legislative function.
This is the function of Congress, and the power of Congress to
create admin bodies is supreme in that congress can decide for
itself what offices/agencies are considered essential or are
considered convenient or necessary to be created.
Similarly, congress can decide on the manner on how the
positions may be filled up as well as the duties and functions to
be performed by the holders of the offices where the congress
may create. The power of Congress to create a public office is
supreme.
No doubt Congress can create an office aside from those
created by the Constitution.
Q: How about the President, can he create a public office?

He can therefore create a public office like the truth

commission. In other words the President can create a public
office.
But in this case, the SC nullified the creation of The Truth
Commission, not because it was done without authority, but
because it was in violation of the equal protection clause
enshrined under Section 1, Art 3 of the 1987 Constitution.
According to the SC, the past administration of GMA was zeroed
in and was primarily the object of the supposed investigation.
SC said, there was a violation of the equal protection clause
because the other past administrations would not be
investigated by the Truth Commission. Such that if the truth
commission were created not only to run after GMA but also to
cover the past admin, then there was a good chance that the SC

In our jurisdiction, the President can create a public office if

such creation is done in pursuance or in the course of

Page 6

Compiled by MFLH Exclusive for EH405

Administrative Law Midterm Transcript

AY 2013-2014
would have decided to uphold the validity of the Truth
Commission.

agencies/bodies created under or by virtue of the 1987

Constitution.

Sir: so it was only a matter of putting an s in the words past

administration. Pnoy could have simply amended it but he did
not because in the first place he did not recognize the
appointment of CJ Corona as the Chief Justice. (Corona man siya
ni Gloria, he was the crown of glory)

Verily, Congress cannot pass a law abolishing the COMELEC,

COA, etc. since these are Constitutional bodies and these
bodies are created by the Constitution itself, the constitution is
the supreme law of the land and cannot be amended by mere
legislation.

So the President can create a public office pursuant to Sec 17,

Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution.

Such that Congress has the power to abolish public offices, it

does not have the power to abolish public offices created by the
Constitution, less the supremacy of the Constitution would be
violated.

It is settled that Congress can create a public office or public

agency.

Q: How about the President, does he have the authority to

abolish public offices created by Congress?

Q: Does Congress the power to abolish a public office/agency

that it created?
The power to create a public office necessary carries with it the
authority to abolish the same.

No, he cannot abolish the offices created by Congress and like

manner he cannot abolish the offices created by the Judiciary. It
would be violative of the Separation of Powers.

Such that pursuant to a valid reorganization program or law,

Congress may order the abolition of a public office or agency.

Q: How about the offices under the executive department, can

the President abolish those offices?

CASE: De La Llana vs Alba (NO LONGER CONTROLLING!)

Yes, pursuant to a valid reorganization program can abolish

admin offices under the executive department.

It was ruled by the SC that Congress may even abolish lower

courts anchored on the provision of Sec 2, Art 8 of the 1987
Constitution.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define,
prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various
courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its
jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.

Q: Do we have any legal provisions conferring upon the

President the power to abolish public offices under the
executive department?
Sec 20, Book 3, of the 1987 Administrative Code
Sec. 20. Residual Powers. Unless Congress provides
otherwise, the President shall exercise such other powers and
functions vested in the President which are provided for under
the laws and which are not specifically enumerated above, or
which are not delegated by the President in accordance with
law.

No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it

undermines the security of tenure of its Members.
With the express provision of the 2nd par of Art 2, Sec 8 of the
1987 Constitution, the ruling in De La Llana vs Alba is no longer
controlling.
But insofar as the other admin bodies/agencies are concerned,
there is no doubt that Congress has the power to abolish the
same.
Take note: where congress has the power to abolish
administrative agencies, it has no power to abolish the admin

Even according to our jurisdiction, the President pursuant to his

Residual powers can perform even those functions or power
which may not have been expressly delegated to him by any
law.
Luckily for the President, in our jurisdiction, we have laws
granting him the authority to reorganize the various offices
belonging to the executive department.

Page 7

Compiled by MFLH Exclusive for EH405

Administrative Law Midterm Transcript

AY 2013-2014
One such law is (1) PD 1416 as amended by PD 1772

So, except those created by the constitution, all other admin

bodies/agencies/offices may be abolished pursuant to a
reorganization plan/program.

These PDs have vested upon the President the continuing

authority to reorganize the various offices under the executive
department.

Reorganization is the process by which there is restructuring

of the bureaucracies agency or setup, to make it more viable in
terms of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and to make
these agencies responsive to the needs of the public.

Are these decrees still controlling?

CASE: Larin vs Executive Secretary
According to the SC, and in fact under Sec 3, Art 18 of the 1987
Constitution:

Purpose of Reorganization is to promote economy, efficiency

and effectiveness.
That explains why abolition of offices is allowed pursuant to a
valid reorganization. But reorganization may not be had by the
astringent act of changing the name of a particular office as in
the Case of Crisostomo vs CA.

Section 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders,

proclamations, letters of instructions, and other executive
issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall
remain operative until amended, repealed, or revoked.
According to the SC in this case, there is yet no law repealing or
amending PD 1416 as amended by PD 1772. These PDs
therefore would fortify the authority of the President to carry
out a reorganization of the various admin agencies or offices
under the executive department.
Then we have (2) Sec 31, Book 3 of the 1987 Administrative
Code:
Sec. 31. Continuing Authority of the President to Reorganize
his Office. 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.
For this purpose, he may take any of the following actions:

In that case there was but a re-naming of the Philippine College

of Commerce to The Polytechnic College of the Philippines. SC
said, it is the same although with a different color.
So, Reorganization may not be had by the simple act of
changing the name of the office.
As mentioned before that an office may be abolished pursuant
to reorganization program, so reorganization therefore may
involve abolition of offices.
Q: Isnt it therefor inconsistent with security of tenure
afforded to those belonging to the Civil Service? Isnt it
violated if an office is abolished pursuant to a reorganization
program?
No, according to the SC, when you speak about tenure of an
office, this presupposes the existence of an office. Conversely
when there is no office, there is no security of tenure to speak
of.

XXX
Far more important we have (3) Sec 17 Article 7 of the 1987
Constitution:
Section 17. The President shall have control of all the
executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure
that the laws be faithfully executed.
In other words, there is no doubt now that the president has
the power to abolish admin agencies/office under the executive
department pursuant to a valid reorganization program.

Again, Security of Tenure is not violated by abolishing an office

pursuant to a valid reorganization program, because Security of
Tenure presupposes the existence of an office.
And it is in this context that we can differentiate removal from
abolition/termination of employment by reason of abolition of
office.

Page 8

Compiled by MFLH Exclusive for EH405

Administrative Law Midterm Transcript

AY 2013-2014
When we talk about removal, this presupposes that the office
still exists. But termination due to abolition of office
necessitates the abolition of an office.

Sir: Its like saying 1 1 = 1. Imung gi-abolish pero naa lang

gihapon.
So it is not consistent with economy, where is economy nag iilisan ra nimu og pareho ra.

Although the end result is the same, removal if different from

termination by reason of abolition of office.
But it does not mean that Congress can simply abolish an admin
agency/office without any condition. Because among other
things, reorganization should be implemented in good faith.
Otherwise tainted, if the reorganization resulting in the
abolition of an office is done in bad faith, then any such
abolition of office is there for invalid.

(c) Where incumbents are replaced by those less qualified

in terms of status of appointment, performance and merit;
Sir: One of the primary objectives of reorganization is to
promote efficiency, but how can you achieve efficiency when
the incumbents are replaced by less qualified personnel?
Ex. Lawyers ang incumbent nya pulihan og paralegal, dili pajud
graduate sa San Carlos.

Q: How do we know that such reorganization is carried out in

bad faith or good faith?

(d) Where there is a reclassification of offices in the

department or agency concerned and the reclassified
offices perform substantially the same function as the
original offices;

We need to consider the provision in RA 6656 Sec 2, Badges of

Bad Faith:
Section 2. No officer or employee in the career service shall
be removed except for a valid cause and after due notice and
hearing. A valid cause for removal exists when, pursuant to a
bona fide reorganization, a position has been abolished or
rendered redundant or there is a need to merge, divide, or
consolidate positions in order to meet the exigencies of the
service, or other lawful causes allowed by the Civil Service
Law. The existence of any or some of the following
circumstances may be considered as evidence of bad faith in
the removals made as a result of reorganization, giving rise
to a claim for reinstatement or reappointment by an
aggrieved party:

(e) Where the removal violates the order of separation

provided in Section 3 hereof.
Under Sec 3 of RA 6656:

(a) Where there is a significant increase in the number of

positions in the new staffing pattern of the department or
agency concerned;
Sir: Ex. If one agency has 10 offices but under the new staffing
pattern pursuant to a reorganization, those 10 offices became
20. If that is the case, then it is done in bad faith because one of
the primary purposes of reorganization is to promote economy.
But where is economy there?
So bad faith because of a substantial increase of the number of
positions in the new staffing pattern.
(b) Where an office is abolished and other performing
substantially the same functions is created;

Page 9

Section 3. In the separation of personnel pursuant to

reorganization, the following order of removal shall be
followed:
(a) Casual employees with less than five (5) years of
government service; (1st TO GO)
(b) Casual employees with five (5) years or more of
government service; (2nd TO GO)
(c) Employees holding temporary appointments; (3rd
TO GO) and
(d) Employees holding permanent appointments:
provided, that those in the same category as
enumerated above, who are least qualified in terms
of performance and merit shall be laid first, length of
service notwithstanding. (Last TO GO)
Ex. The first batch removed were casual employees with
less than 5yrs experience and there are 10 of them, 5 are
non-performing (tapulan) and the other 5 are
performing.

Compiled by MFLH Exclusive for EH405

Administrative Law Midterm Transcript

AY 2013-2014
---------------------------------------------------------

Under Sec 3 of RA 6656, the first ones to go are those

casual employees least qualified especially those who are
non-performing although they belong to the same class
having less than 5 years experience.

PART 2 Administrative Law

January 17, 2014

The same goes with permanent employees, those who

are least qualified especially those who are nonperforming will be laid off first, notwithstanding their
length of service.

The form of Government that we have right now is a

Presidential form of Government composed of the 3 branches,
the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary branch.

So Seniority does not matter.

Legislative task to enact and repeal laws;

So again, if the order of separation under Sec 3 of RA 6656 is

not followed, it may be inferred that the reorganization is done
in bad faith as provided for in Sec 2(e) of RA 6656.
You have to take into consideration also Sec 4 of RA 6656:
Section 4. Officers and employees holding permanent
appointments shall be given preference for appointment to
the new positions in the approved staffing pattern
comparable to their former position or in case there are not
enough comparable positions, to positions next lower in
rank.
No new employees shall be taken in until all permanent
officers and employees have been appointed, including
temporary and casual employees who possess the necessary
qualification requirements, among which is the appropriate
civil service eligibility, for permanent appointment to
positions in the approved staffing pattern, in case there are
still positions to be filled, unless such positions are policydetermining, primarily confidential or highly technical in
nature.
What is given here is just a priority, their re-hiring is not
mandatory. They may be re-hired if they will qualify under the
new staffing pattern. Otherwise if they will not meet the
qualifications under the new staffing pattern, then those
affected by a valid reorganization cannot demand that they be
re-hired as a matter of right.

Executive enforce laws enacted by congress;

Judiciary interpreting the laws in conformity with the
Constitution;
The duty of the Judiciary includes the duty to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable and to determine WON there is grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on any
part or instrumentality of the government. (Otherwise known
as Judicial Review)
Judicial Review to determine whether laws like executive acts
are in conformity with the Constitution.
Looking at the functions, it can be concluded that each branch
is separate and distinct from each other.
Purpose of Presidential form: To prevent concentration of
powers to one branch or person in the government.
We will learn that some administrative agencies perform quasijudicial and quasi-legislative powers.
Q: Is this consistent with the doctrine separation of powers?
A: Yes, while it may be said that the 3 major branches are
distinct and separate from each other their relationship can be
best described as interdependence instead of independence.
Interdependence in the sense that there are interactions by and
between the major branches of the government demonstrated
by their Checks and Balances of powers.

Page 10

Compiled by MFLH Exclusive for EH405

Administrative Law Midterm Transcript

AY 2013-2014
Illustration of Checks and Balances:
(1) Creation of Laws (Legislative) Approved by
President (Executive) President may veto the bill
(Executive) Congress may disregard/override the
veto (Legislative);
(2) 1987 Constitution; Article VII, Section 16. The
President shall nominate and, with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of
the executive departments, ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces
from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other
officers whose appointments are vested in him in this
Constitution. XXX

There are also situations where some branches performs

functions which are vested in other branches.
Ex:
(1) 1987 Constitution, Art VI, Section 21. The Senate or
the House of Representatives or any of its respective
committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation
in accordance with its duly published rules of
procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or
affected by, such inquiries shall be respected.
Normally investigations are conducted by the Judiciary
(2) 1987 Constitution, Art VI, Section 23.

Commission on Appointments (Legislative) approves

the appointment by the President (Executive)

XXX

(3) President appoints the Judges and Justices of the lower

courts and the high courts.
(4) President can also grant pardons, amnesty even if the
Judiciary already sentenced the accused.
(5) Judiciary can declare acts of the President as contrary
to the Constitution via Judicial Review.
(6) 1987 Constitution, Art VII, Section 2. The Congress
shall have the power to define, prescribe, and
apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but
may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction
over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
(7) Judiciary can declare a law enacted by Congress as
unconstitutional via Judicial Review.

2.

In times of war or other national emergency, the

Congress may, by law, authorize the President,
for a limited period and subject to such
restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise
powers necessary and proper to carry out a
declared national policy. Unless sooner
withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such
powers shall cease upon the next adjournment
thereof.

When this happens, the President may issue

Presidential issuances or decrees which have the force
and effect of laws, so the President can perform
legislative functions. Usually Congress has the power
to enact laws, so here there is blending of powers.

There are also situations where there is Blending of Powers

SO the performance of an office of multiple is not new to us.

Ex:
(1) The approval of the Budget for the national government
the budget shall be prepared by the office of the
President and given to Congress to approve it. There is
interaction/blending of powers, by and between the
President and Congress.
(2) As regards to Presidential appointments there is
interaction between the President and the Commission
on Appointments
(3) As regards to a treaty it should be approved by the
Senate, there is coordination with the President and the
Senate when it comes to approval of treaties.

That is why administrative bodies can perform administrative

functions, quasi-judicial and quasi-judicial functions.

Take note: that what are conferred upon admin bodies and
admin officers are powers and not rights.
It is imperative that there should be a grant of authority to the
public officer/office either expressly or impliedly/indirectly so
as to justify their action, because without any grant of power,
their action therefor lack validity.

Page 11

Compiled by MFLH Exclusive for EH405

Administrative Law Midterm Transcript

AY 2013-2014
What have you learned while watching Spiderman?

TAKE NOTE! (kapila niya gi-balik2x): Implied power is but a

power that is necessary included in expressed powers.

With great power comes great responsibility

Naturally an implied power is lesser in degree compared to an

expressed power conferred to a public officer.

Classification of the Powers of Admin bodies:

(1) Expressed, (2) Implied.
Expressed power this power is specifically conferred upon to
a public officer/office either by the Constitution or by law.
There is express conferment.
These are the powers clearly stated in black in white by the
Constitution or a statute.

Pursuant to the Doctrine of Necessary Implication there is this

principle that The power to create a public office necessary
carries with it the power to abolish the same
Similarly, the power to grant licenses carries with it the power
to revoke the same.
Verily, where the law provides that the President may not
deport aliens without due process of law, then impliedly that
law vests upon the President also the power to deport.

Implied Powers - powers necessarily implied from powers

expressly granted.

Again! (balik2x): Implied Powers are powers necessarily implied

from powers expressly granted. An implied power is lesser in
degree compared to an expressed power because the grant of
power excludes greater power.

These are powers that are necessary included in the powers

expressly granted upon a public officer/office.
This is pursuant to the Doctrine of Necessary Implication
Doctrine of Necessary Implication a law or statute is
understood by implication to include any or all provisions as
necessary to carry out or effectuate its purpose and to make
effective the rights, privileges and powers that the law confers.

Illustration:
(1)

This doctrine is founded on the fact and truism that There can
be no law that can provide all the necessary details in its
application
Illustration:
1987 Constitution; Article VII, Section 16. The President
shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive
departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of
colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose
appointments are vested in him in this Constitution.
This provision is an express power, but this also comes with the
implied power by the President to remove the officers who are
appointed by him.
The power of removal vested on the President is an implied
power derived from the expressed power to appoint granted by
the Constitution.

Page 12

The situation of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR),

under the Constitution, it is conferred with the power to
investigate human rights violations, it is empowered to
gather evidence and to create/proceed with fact finding.
Q: Can the CHR decide cases on human right violations
under the pretext of implied power?
A: NO! because, the doctrine is that an implied power is
lesser in degree than an expressed power.
The power to decide a case is greater than the expressed
power to investigate. (so ang implied power dili dapat
mulabaw sa expressed power)

(2) The Civil Service Commission (CSC), under existing laws

they have appellate jurisdiction involving disciplinary
cases where there is an imposition of penalties ranging
from demotion, suspension or fine.
Q: May the CSC exercise its appellate jurisdiction where
the respondent is absolved of the charges or acquitted?
A: NO! because if we allow that, it is as if we are
expanding the scope of their appellate jurisdiction.

Compiled by MFLH Exclusive for EH405

Administrative Law Midterm Transcript

AY 2013-2014
TAKE NOTE Again! Implied powers cannot exceed the powers
which are expressly granted.

1987 Constitution; Article XI, Section 2. The President, the

Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the
Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the
Ombudsman may be removed from office on
impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of
the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption,
other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other
public officers and employees may be removed from office
as provided by law, but not by impeachment.

An express grant of power/authority does not include by

implication powers, the exercise of which, may run contrary to
the Constitution or the law conferring express powers or to any
other law dealing with the same subject matter.
Ex #1
1987 Constitution; Article VII, Section 16. The President
shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive
departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of
colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose
appointments are vested in him in this Constitution.

This is an example to the end that an implied power can never

be exercised if it runs contrary to the Constitution.
Q: As regards to judges of the lower courts who are appointed
by the president, can he validly remove them?
A: NO!
1987 Constitution; Article VII, Section 11. The Members of
the Supreme Court and judges of the lower court shall hold
office during good behavior until they reach the age of
seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the
duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall
have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or
order their dismissal by a vote of majority of the Members
who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in
the case and voted in thereon.

He can appoint member of his cabinet. Pursuant to his implied

power, he has the power to remove members of his cabinet.
But while the President has the power to appoint career
executive positions, the president cannot remove them because
under the Constitution career executive positions may only be
removed for cause.
Implied power can never be exercised to run contrary to the
Constitution.
Ex #2: The Appointment of judges and justices of the Supreme
Court
1987 Constitution; Article VIII, Section 9. The Members of
the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be
appointed by the President from a list of at least three
nominees preferred by the Judicial and Bar Council for
every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.
GR: The power to appoint necessarily carries with it the power
to remove.
Q: Can the President remove the Justices of the SC appointed
by him?
A: NO! even if there is an implied power to remove derived
from the power to appoint. The president cannot remove the
Justices of the SC.

AGAIN GI-BALIK2x: So this verifies that an implied power can

never be exercised if it runs contrary to the Constitution. (basin
daw kuno MCQ ni mugawas)

The powers of Admin bodies may also be categorized as:

(1) Ministerial; and (2) Discretionary Powers
Ministerial Power/Function this is the kind of power
specifically mentioned so as to leave no room for the exercise
of discretion in the enforcement or exercise thereof.
It is the kind of act which a public officer/office is duty bound to
perform under the given set of facts, in the manner prescribed
by law or pursuant to the mandate of the law, without regard to
the discretion of the officer involved. (KEEP YOUR DISCRETIONS
TO YOURSELF kay wala nay labot sa imung ministerial function)

Page 13

Compiled by MFLH Exclusive for EH405

Administrative Law Midterm Transcript

AY 2013-2014
Ex:
1.
2.

Land registration;
Art 18 of the Family Code in the issuance of marriage
licenses, even if the LCR knows the existence of a legal
impediment on the part of the applicant, he has no
choice but to issue the marriage license if all
requirement are complied with, along with the
necessary publication and an order by the court to
issue the marriage license.

Discretionary Powers powers that a public officer may

perform on the basis of his discretion or sound judgement.

Where the power is discretionary, Mandamus will not lie. Your

remedy is a petition for Certiorari if there is grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
We must know the kinds of powers to know the remedies.
**Controversial question**
Q: Is the issuance of Mayors Permits ministerial?
Sir: Yes, if all the requirement are met, otherwise if the Mayor
issues permits to person similarly situated but not to you, then
you can invoke the due process or equal protection clause.
Ex:

Discretion the faculty conferred on a public officer to act or

decide on a particular situation or matter, and any such
decision is deemed correct.

You have all the req. but the Mayor did not grant you a
permit but granted the others. You can question the act of
the mayor.

Ex:
1.

Case: Lim vs CA

Power of the President to call out the armed forces.

Lim refused to renew the business permits of Bistro

something etc. Refusal to issue licenses can be compelled
thru mandamus because SC said that they had no power to
withhold the license since they already complied with the req
and that there was no showing of any violation.

1987 Constitution; Article VII, Section 18. The

President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all
armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it
becomes necessary, he may call out such armed
forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
invasion or rebellion. XXX

Q: How about an issuance of a rally?

Case: IBP vs Zamora

Sir: the Mayor cannot just reject the application based on his
discretion, there has to be basis.

The calling of the armed forces by the President is

discretionary on his part.
If he calls the armed forces he is correct, if he does not
call the armed forces he is also correct. So either way
he decides it, he is always correct because such power
is discretionary on his part.
Q: What is the purpose of knowing whether a power is
discretionary or ministerial?

Sort of contradictory ang issue sa Mayors permit sa Election of

sa Admin. So lets just stick to unsay ganahan ni sir nga
issuance of a Mayors permit is a ministerial function if all
requirements are met and that there is no ground for denial. It
only becomes discretionary if there is a ground to deny like the
exercise of Police Power
Discretionary powers means either way you do it, your decision
must always be legal.

A: because if the function performed is Ministerial, nonperformance of which can be remedied thru Mandamus.
Petition for Mandamus lies in the event that there is nonperformance of a ministerial function or duty.

Page 14

Compiled by MFLH Exclusive for EH405

Administrative Law Midterm Transcript

AY 2013-2014

Powers can also be classified as:

(1) Mandatory; (2) Directory; and (3) Permissive
Mandatory if the performance or non-performance thereof is
strictly mandated.
Mandatory Statute commands the positively doing of an act
or commands negatively that an act be not done.
Ex.
Postive Mandatory Statute: Daghan like Cases riped for
decision (to decide a case when it is ready to be decided)
Negative Mandatory Statute: RPC, Art 264 Labor Code no
public officer or a member of the AFP or PNP shall escort
any person who are to placed workers under strike; the
PNP should be kept out of the picketing lines.
Periods to perfect an appeal MANDATORY
Periods for filing an action MANDATORY
Period to render judgement by a judge - DIRECTORY
The test is not on the basis of the usage of the words shall or
may.
The real test is that if no injury will result from the fact that the
order is ignored or no substantial right is based thereon, then
any such law is Directory. If it will cause injury then it is
Mandatory.

TYPE OF EXAM: MOSTLY MCQ, TRUE or FALSE, ESSAY

DISCUSSION (gamay lang)
---END OF MIDTERM DISCUSSION--God Bless natoh sa exam!
Inum daw tah lahos after sa Transpo na exam inig sabado..

Page 15

Compiled by MFLH Exclusive for EH405