Questions and Answers in Administrative Law

Questions and Answers in Administrative Law Q —    What is the essence of due process in administrative proceedings? Explain. ANS:   In administrative proceedings, due process simply means an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the order complained of; it cannot be fully equated to due process in its strict jurisprudential sense. A respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the preliminary findings and recommendations; he is entitled only to a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and to the administrative decision based on substantial evidence. (Vealasquez v. CA, G.R. No. 150732, August 31, 2004, 437 SCRA 357). Note that it is the administrative order, not the preliminary report, which is the basis of any further remedies the losing party in an administrative case may pursue. (Viva Footwear Mfg. Corp. v. SEC, et al., G.R. No. 163235, April 27, 2005). Exhaustion of administrative remedies. The general rule is that before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail of all the means afforded him by administrative processes. The issues which administrative agencies are authorized to decide should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to a court without first giving such administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due deliberation. Corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; that is, courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. Nonetheless, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the corollary doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which are based on sound public policy and practical considerations, are not inflexible rules. There are many accepted exceptions, such as: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice; (f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) when its application may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due process; (i) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot; (j) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) when strong public interest is involved; and, (l) in quo warranto proceedings. Exceptions (c) and (e) are applicable to the present case. (Rep., et al. v. Lacap, et al., G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007). The underlying principles of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies rests on the presumption that the administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the matter, will decide the same correctly. There are both legal and practical reasons for the principle. The administrative process is intended to provide less expensive and speedier solutions to disputes. Where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for administrative review and provides a system of administrative appeal or reconsideration, the courts – for reasons of law, comity, and convenience – will not entertain a case unless the available administrative remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate authorities have been given an opportunity to act and correct the errors committed in the administrative forum. (Berdin, et al. v. Hon. Eufracio Mascarinas, et al., G.R. No. 135928, July 6, 2007, Tinga, J). Describe the Administrative Code of 1987. Held: The Code is a general law and “incorporates in a unified document the major structural, functional and procedural principles of governance (Third Whereas Clause, Administrative Code of 1987) and “embodies changes in administrative structures and procedures designed to serve the people.” (Fourth Whereas Clause, Administrative Code of 1987) The Code is divided into seven (7) books. These books contain provisions on the organization, powers and general administration of departments, bureaus and offices under the executive branch, the organization and functions of the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional bodies, the rules on the national government budget, as well as guidelines for the exercise by administrative agencies of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers. The Code covers both the internal administration, i.e., internal organization, personnel and recruitment, supervision and discipline, and the effects of the functions performed by administrative officials on private individuals or parties outside government. (Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998 [Puno]) What is Administrative Power? Administrative power is concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental organs. It enables the President to fix a uniform standard of administrative efficiency and check the official conduct of his agents. To this end, he can issue administrative orders, rules and regulations. (Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998 [Puno]) What is an Administrative Order? An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of government. It must be in harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy. (Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998 [Puno]) What is the Government of the Republic of the Philippines? The Government of the Republic of the Philippines refers to the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of the 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. (Sec. 2[1], Introductory Provisions, Executive Order No. 292) What is an Agency of the Government? 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, or a local government or a distinct unit therein. (Sec. 2[4], Introductory Provisions, Executive Order No. 292) What is a Department? Department refers to an executive department created by law. For purposes of Book IV, this shall include any instrumentality, as herein defined, having or assigned the rank of a department, regardless of its name or designation. (Sec. 2[7], Introductory Provisions, Executive Order No. 292) What is a Bureau? Bureau refers to any principal subdivision or unit of any department. For purposes of Book IV, this shall include any principal subdivision or unit of any instrumentality given or assigned the rank of a bureau, regardless of actual name or designation, as in the case of department-wide regional offices. (Sec. 2[8], Introductory Provisions, Executive Order No. 292) What is an Office? 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. (Sec. 2[9], Introductory Provisions, Executive Order No. 292) What is a Government Instrumentality? What are included in the term Government Instrumentality? A government 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, enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. The term includes regulatory agencies, chartered institutions and government-owned or controlled corporations. (Sec. 2[10], Introductory Provisions, Executive Order No. 292) What is a Regulatory Agency? A regulatory agency refers to any agency expressly vested with jurisdiction to regulate, administer or adjudicate matters affecting substantial rights and interest of private persons, the principal powers of which are exercised by a collective body, such as a commission, board or council. (Sec. 2[11], Introductory Provisions, Executive Order No. 292) What is a Chartered Institution? A chartered institution refers to any agency organized or operating under a special charter, and vested by law with functions relating to specific constitutional policies or objectives. This term includes state universities and colleges and the monetary authority of the State. (Section 2[12], Introductory Provisions, Executive Order No. 292) What is a Government-Owned or Controlled Corporation? Government-owned or controlled corporation refers to any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, vested with functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the Government directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or, where applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-one (51) per cent of its capital stock; x x x (Sec. 2[13], Introductory Provisions, Executive Order No. 292) When is a Government-Owned or Controlled Corporation deemed to be performing proprietary function? When is it deemed to be performing governmental function? Government-owned or controlled corporations may perform governmental or proprietary functions or both, depending on the purpose for which they have been created. Proprietary - If the purpose is to obtain special corporate benefits or earn pecuniary profit ; are those intended for private advantage and benefit. (Blaquera v. Alcala, 295 SCRA 366, 425, Sept. 11, 1998, En Banc [Purisima]) Governmental- If it is in the interest of health, safety and for the advancement of public good and welfare, affecting the public in general The Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) is a government-owned and controlled corporation with an original charter under R.A. No. 95, as amended. Its charter, however, was amended to vest in it the authority to secure loans, be exempted from payment of all duties, taxes, fees and other charges, etc. With the amendnt of its charter, has it been “impliedly converted to a private corporation”? Held: NO The test to determine whether a corporation is government owned or controlled, or private in nature is simple. Is it created by its own charter for the exercise of a public function, or by incorporation under the general corporation law? Those with special charters are government corporations subject to its provisions, and its employees are under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. The PNRC was not “impliedly converted to a private corporation” simply because its charter was amended to vest in it the authority to secure loans, be exempted from payment of all duties, taxes, fees and other charges, etc. (Camporedondo v. NLRC, G.R. No. 129049, Aug. 6, 1999, 1st Div. [Pardo]) When may the Government not validly invoke the rule that prescription does not run against the State? Illustrative Case. Held: While it is true that prescription does not run against the State, the same may not be invoked by the government in this case since it is no longer interested in the subject matter. While Camp Wallace may have belonged to the government at the time Rafael Galvez’s title was ordered cancelled in Land Registration Case No. N-361, the same no longer holds true today. Republic Act No. 7227, otherwise known as the Base Conversion and Development Act of 1992, created the Bases Conversion and Development Authority. X x x With the transfer of Camp Wallace to the BCDA, the government no longer has a right or interest to protect. Consequently, the Republic is not a real party in interest and it may not institute the instant action. Nor may it raise the defense of imprescriptibility, the same being applicable only in cases where the government is a party in interest. x x x. Being the owner of the areas covered by Camp Wallace, it is the Bases Conversion and Development Authority, not the Government, which stands to be benefited if the land covered by TCT No. T-5710 issued in the name of petitioner is cancelled. Nonetheless, it has been posited that the transfer of military reservations and their extensions to the BCDA is basically for the purpose of accelerating the sound and balanced conversion of these military reservations into alternative productive uses and to enhance the benefits to be derived from such property as a measure of promoting the economic and social development, particularly of Central Luzon and, in general, the country’s goal for enhancement (Section 2, Republic Act No. 7227). It is contended that the transfer of these military reservations to the Conversion Authority does not amount to an abdication on the part of the Republic of its interests, but simply a recognition of the need to create a body corporate which will act as its agent for the realization of its program. It is consequently asserted that the Republic remains to be the real party in interest and the Conversion Authority merely its agent. We, however, must not lose sight of the fact that the BCDA is an entity invested with a personality separate and distinct from the government. X x x It may not be amiss to state at this point that the functions of government have been classified into governmental or constituent and proprietary or ministrant. While public benefit and public welfare, particularly, the promotion of the economic and social development of Central Luzon, may be attributable to the operation of the BCDA, yet it is certain that the functions performed by the BCDA are basically proprietary in nature. The promotion of economic and social development of Central Luzon, in particular, and the country’s goal for enhancement, in general, do not make the BCDA equivalent to the Government. Other corporations have been created by government to act as its agents for the realization of its programs, the SSS, GSIS, NAWASA and the NIA, to count a few, and yet, the Court has ruled that these entities, although performing functions aimed at promoting public interest and public welfare, are not government-function corporations invested with governmental attributes. It may thus be said that the BCDA is not a mere agency of the Government but a corporate body performing proprietary functions. Having the capacity to sue or be sued, it should thus be the BCDA which may file an action to cancel petitioner’s title, not the Republic, the former being the real party in interest. One having no right or interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as a party plaintiff in an action. A suit may be dismissed if the plaintiff or the defendant is not a real party in interest. x x x However, E.B. Marcha Transport Co., Inc. v. IAC is cited as authority that the Republic is the proper party to sue for the recovery of possession of property which at the time of the installation of the suit was no longer held by the national government body but by the Philippine Ports Authrotiy. In E.B. Marcha, the Court ruled: It can be said that in suing for the recovery of the rentals, the Republic of the Philippines, acted as principal of the Philippine Ports Authority, directly exercising the commission it had earlier conferred on the latter as its agent. We may presume that, by doing so, the Republic of the Philippines did not intend to retain the said rentals for its own use, considering that by its voluntary act it had transferred the land in question to the Philippine Ports Authority effective July 11, 1974. The Republic of the Philippines had simply sought to assist, not supplant, the Philippine Ports Authority, whose title to the disputed property it continues to recognize. We may expect the that the said rentals, once collected by the Republic of the Philippines, shall be turned over by it to the Philippine Ports Authority conformably to the purposes of P.D. No. 857. E.B. Marcha is, however, not on all fours with the case at bar. In the former, the Court considered the Republic a proper party to sue since the claims of the Republic and the Philippine Ports Authority against the petitioner therein were the same. To dismiss the complaint in E.B. Marcha would have brought needless delay in the settlement of the matter since the PPA would have to refile the case on the same claim already litigated upon. Such is not the case here since to allow the government to sue herein enables it to raise the issue of imprescriptibility, a claim which is not available to the BCDA. The rule that prescription does not run against the State does not apply to corporations or artificial bodies created by the State for special purposes, it being said that when the title of the Republic has been divested, its grantees, although artificial bodies of its own creation, are in the same category as ordinary persons. By raising the claim of imprescriptibility, a claim which cannot be raised by the BCDA, the Government not only assists the BCDA, as it did in E.B. Marcha, it even supplants the latter, a course of action proscribed by said case. Moreover, to recognize the Government as a proper party to sue in this case would set a bad precedent as it would allow the Republic to prosecute, on behalf of government-owned or controlled corporations, causes of action which have already prescribed, on the pretext that the Government is the real party in interest against whom prescription does not run, said corporations having been created merely as agents for the realization of government programs. It should also be noted that petitioner is unquestionably a buyer in good faith and for value, having acquired the property in 1963, or 5 years after the issuance of the original certificate of title, as a third transferee. If only not to do violence and to give some measure of respect to the Torrens System, petitioner must be afforded some measure of protection. (Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, 352 SCRA 334, Feb. 20, 2001, 3rd Div. [Melo]) Discuss the nature and functions of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), and analyze its powers and authority as well as the laws, rules and regulations that govern its existence and operations. The NTC was created pursuant to Executive Order No. 546 x x x. It assumed the functions formerly assigned to the Board of Communications and the Communications Control Bureau, which were both abolished under the said Executive Order. Previously, the NTC’s function were merely those of the defunct Public Service Commission (PSC), created under Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended, otherwise known as the Public Service Act, considering that the Board of Communications was the successor-in-interest of the PSC. Under Executive Order No. 125-A, issued in April 1987, the NTC became an attached agency of the Department of Transportation and Communications. In the regulatory communications industry, the NTC has the sole authority to issue Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the installation, operation, and maintenance of communications facilities and services, radio communications systems, telephone and telegraph systems. Such power includes the authority to determine the areas of operations of applicants for telecommunications services. Specifically, Section 16 of the Public Service Act authorizes the then PSC, upon notice and hearing, to issue Certificates of Public Convenience for the operation of public services within the Philippines “whenever the Commission finds that the operation of the public service proposed and the authorization to do business will promote the public interests in a proper and suitable manner.” (Commonwealth Act No. 146, Section 16[a]) The procedure governing the issuance of such authorizations is set forth in Section 29 of the said Act x x x. (Republic v. Express Telecommunication Co., Inc., 373 SCRA 316, Jan. 15, 2002, 1st Div. [Ynares-Santiago]) Is the filing of the administrative rules and regulations with the UP Law Center the operative act that gives the rules force and effect? Held: In granting Bayantel the provisional authority to operate a CMTS, the NTC applied Rule 15, Section 3 of its 1978 Rules of Practice and Procedure, which provides: Sec. 3. Provisional Relief. – Upon the filing of an application, complaint or petition or at any stage thereafter, the Board may grant on motion of the pleader or on its own initiative, the relief prayed for, based on the pleading, together with the affidavits and supporting documents attached thereto, without prejudice to a final decision after completion of the hearing which shall be called within thirty (30) days from grant of authority asked for. Respondent Extelcom, however, contends that the NTC should have applied the Revised Rules which were filed with the Office of the National Administrative Register on February 3, 1993. These Revised Rules deleted the phrase “on its own initiative”; accordingly, a provisional authority may be issued only upon filing of the proper motion before the Commission. In answer to this argument, the NTC, through the Secretary of the Commission, issued a certification to the effect that inasmuch as the 1993 Revised Rules have not been published in a newspaper of general circulation, the NTC has been applying the 1978 Rules. The absence of publication, coupled with the certification by the Commissioner of the NTC stating that the NTC was still governed by the 1987 Rules, clearly indicate that the 1993 Revised Rules have not taken effect at the time of the grant of the provisional authority to Bayantel. The fact that the 1993 Revised Rules were filed with the UP Law Center on February 3, 1993 is of no moment. There is nothing in the Administrative Code of 1987 which implies that the filing of the rules with the UP Law Center is the operative act that gives the rules force and effect. Book VII, Chapter 2, Section 3 thereof merely states: Filing. – (1) Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by it. Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed within three (3) months from the date shall not thereafter be the basis of any sanction against any party or persons. (2) The records officer of the agency, or his equivalent functionary, shall carry out the requirements of this section under pain of disciplinary action. (3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the issuing agency and shall be open to public inspection. The National Administrative Register is merely a bulletin of codified rules and it is furnished only to the Office of the President, Congress, all appellate courts, the National Library, other public offices or agencies as the Congress may select, and to other persons at a price sufficient to cover publication and mailing or distribution costs (Administrative Code of 1987, Book VII, Chapter 2, Section 7). In a similar case, we held: This does not imply, however, that the subject Administrative Order is a valid exercise of such quasi-legislative power. The original Administrative Order issued on August 30, 1989, under which the respondents filed their applications for importations, was not published in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation. The questioned Administrative Order, legally, until it is published, is invalid within the context of Article 2 of Civil Code, which reads: “Article 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette (or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines), unless it is otherwise provided. X x x” The fact that the amendments to Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01 were filed with, and published by the UP Law Center in the National Administrative Register, does not cure the defect related to the effectivity of the Administrative Order. This Court, in Tanada v. Tuvera stated, thus: “We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity is fixed by the legislature. Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative power or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution. Administrative Rules and Regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation. Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published. Neither is publication required of the so-called letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties. We agree that the publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the laws.” The Administrative Order under consideration is one of those issuances which should be published for its effectivity, since its purpose is to enforce and implement an existing law pursuant to a valid delegation, i.e., P.D. 1071, in relation to LOI 444 and EO 133. Thus, publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation is a condition sine qua non before statutes, rules or regulations can take effect. This is explicit from Executive Order No. 200, which repealed Article 2 of the Civil Code, and which states that: Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided (E.O. 200, Section 1). The Rules of Practice and Procedure of the NTC, which implements Section 29 of the Public Service Act, fall squarely within the scope of these laws, as explicitly mentioned in the case of Tanada v. Tuvera. Our pronouncement in Tanada v. Tuvera is clear and categorical. Administrative rules and regulations must be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. The only exception are interpretative regulations, those merely internal in nature, or those so-called letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules and guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties (PHILSA International Placement & Services Corp. v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 103144, April 4, 2001, 356 SCRA 174). Hence, the 1993 Revised Rules should be published in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation before it can take effect. Even the 1993 Revised Rules itself mandates that said Rules shall take effect only after their publication in a newspaper of general circulation (Section 20 thereof). In the absence of such publication, therefore, it is the 1978 Rules that govern. (Republic v. Express Telecommunication Co., Inc., 373 SCRA 316, Jan. 15, 2002, 1st Div. [Ynares-Santiago]) May a person be held liable for violation of an administrative regulation which was not published? Held: No Petitioner insists, however, that it cannot be held liable for illegal exaction as POEA Memorandum Circular No. II, Series of 1983, which enumerated the allowable fees which may be collected from applicants, is void for lack of publication. There is merit in the argument. In Tanada v. Tuvera, the Court held, as follows: “We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution. Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and the public, need not be published. Neither is publication required of the so-called letter of instructions issued by the administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties.” Applying this doctrine, we have previously declared as having no force and effect the following administrative issuances: a) Rules and Regulations issued by the Joint Ministry of Health-Ministry of Labor and Employment Accreditation Committee regarding the accreditation of hospitals, medical clinics and laboratories; b) Letter of Instruction No. 416 ordering the suspension of payments due and payable by distressed copper mining companies to the national government; c) Memorandum Circulars issued by the POEA regulating the recruitment of domestic helpers to Hong Kong; d) Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01 issued by the Philippine International Trading Corporation regulating applications for importation from the People’s Republic of China; and e) Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 issued by the Department of Budget and Management discontinuing the payment of other allowances and fringe benefits to government officials and employees. In all these cited cases, the administrative issuances questioned therein were uniformly struck down as they were not published or filed with the National Administrative Register as required by the Administrative Code of 1987. POEA Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 must likewise be declared ineffective as the same was never published or filed with the National Administrative Register. POEA Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 provides for the applicable schedule of placement and documentation fees for private employment agencies or authority holders. Under the said Order, the maximum amount which may be collected from prospective Filipino overseas workers is P2,500.00. The said circular was apparently issued in compliance with the provisions of Article 32 of the Labor Code x x x. It is thus clear that the administrative circular under consideration is one of those issuances which should be published for its effectivity, since its purpose is to enforce and implement an existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. Considering that POEA Administrative Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 has not as yet been published or filed with the National Administrative Register, the same is ineffective and may not be enforced. (Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, 356 SCRA 174, April 4, 2001, 3rd Div., [Gonzaga-Reyes]) Does the publication requirement apply as well to administrative regulations addressed only to a specific group and not to the general public? Held: YES The Office of the Solicitor General likewise argues that the questioned administrative circular is not among those requiring publication contemplated by Tanada v. Tuvera as it is addressed only to a specific group of persons and not to the general public. Again, there is no merit in this argument. The fact that the said circular is addressed only to a specified group, namely private employment agencies or authority holders, does not take it away from the ambit of our ruling in Tanada v. Tuvera. In the case of Phil. Association of Service Exporters v. Torres, the administrative circulars questioned therein were addressed to an even smaller group, namely Philippine and Hong Kong agencies engaged in the recruitment of workers for Hong Kong, and still the Court ruled therein that, for lack of proper publication, the said circulars may not be enforced or implemented. Our pronouncement in Tanada v. Tuvera is clear and categorical. Administrative rules and regulations must be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. The only exceptions are interpretative regulations, those merely internal in nature, or those so-called letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules and guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties. Administrative Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 has not been shown to fall under any of these exceptions. In this regard, the Solicitor General’s reliance on the case of Yaokasin v. Commissioner of Customs is misplaced. In the said case, the validity of certain Customs Memorandum Orders were upheld despite their lack of publication as they were addressed to a particular class of persons, the customs collectors, who were also the subordinates of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs. As such, the said Memorandum Orders clearly fall under one of the exceptions to the publication requirement, namely those dealing with instructions from an administrative superior to a subordinate regarding the performance of their duties, a circumstance which does not obtain in the case at bench. X x x To summarize, petitioner should be absolved from the three (3) counts of exaction as POEA Administrative Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 could not be the basis of administrative sanctions against petitioner for lack of publication. (Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, 356 SCRA 174, April 4, 2001, 3rd Div., [Gonzaga-Reyes]) May a successful bidder compel a government agency to formalize a contract with it notwithstanding that its bid exceeds the amount appropriated by Congress for the project? Held: NO Enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution is the mandate that “no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.” (Sec. 29[1], Article VI of the 1987 Constitution) Thus, in the execution of government contracts, the precise import of this constitutional restriction is to require the various agencies to limit their expenditures within the appropriations made by law for each fiscal year. It is quite evident from the tenor of the language of the law that the existence of appropriations and the availability of funds are indispensable pre-requisites to or conditions sine qua non for the execution of government contracts. The obvious intent is to impose such conditions as a priori requisites to the validity of the proposed contract. Using this as our premise, we cannot accede to PHOTOKINA’s contention that there is already a perfected contract. While we held in Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Jancom Environmental Corporation that “the effect of an unqualified acceptance of the offer or proposal of the bidder is to perfect a contract, upon notice of the award to the bidder,” however, such statement would be inconsequential in a government where the acceptance referred to is yet to meet certain conditions. To hold otherwise is to allow a public officer to execute a binding contract that would obligate the government in an amount in excess of the appropriations for the purpose for which the contract was attempted to be made. This is a dangerous precedent. In the case at bar, there seems to be an oversight of the legal requirements as early as the bidding stage. The first step of a Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) is to determine whether the bids comply with the requirements. The BAC shall rate a bid “passed” only if it complies with all the requirements and the submitted price does not exceed the approved budget for the contract.”(Implementing Rules and Regulations [IRR] for Executive Order No. 262, supra.) Extant on the record is the fact that the VRIS Project was awarded to PHOTOKINA on account of its bid in the amount of P6.588 Billion Pesos. However, under Republic Act No. 8760 (General Appropriations Act, FY 2000, p. 1018, supra.),the only fund appropriated for the project was P1 Billion Pesos and under the Certification of Available Funds (CAF) only P1.2 Billion Pesos was available. Clearly, the amount appropriated is insufficient to cover the cost of the entire VRIS Project. There is no way that the COMELEC could enter into a contract with PHOTOKINA whose accepted bid was way beyond the amount appropriated by law for the project. This being the case, the BAC should have rejected the bid for being excessive or should have withdrawn the Notice of Award on the ground that in the eyes of the law, the same is null and void. Even the draft contract submitted by Commissioner Sadain that provides for a contract price in the amount of P1.2 Billion Pesos is unacceptable. x x x While the contract price under the draft contract is only P1.2 Billion and, thus, within the certified available funds, the same covers only Phase I of the VRIS Project, i.e., the issuance of identification cards for only 1,000,000 voters in specified areas. In effect, the implementation of the VRIS Project will be “segmented” or “chopped” into several phases. Not only is such arrangement disallowed by our budgetary laws and practices, it is also disadvantageous to the COMELEC because of the uncertainty that will loom over its modernization project for an indefinite period of time. Should Congress fail to appropriate the amount necessary for the completion of the entire project, what good will the accomplished Phase I serve? As expected, the project failed “to sell” with the Department of Budget and Management. Thus, Secretary Benjamin Diokno, per his letter of December 1, 2000, declined the COMELEC’s request for the issuance of the Notice of Cash Availability (NCA) and a multi-year obligatory authority to assume payment of the total VRIS Project for lack of legal basis. Corollarily, under Section 33 of R.A. No. 8760, no agency shall enter into a multi-year contract without a multi-year obligational authority, thus: “SECTION 33. Contracting Multi-Year Projects. – In the implementation of multi-year projects, no agency shall enter into a multi-year contract without a multi-year Obligational Authority issued by the Department of Budget and Management for the purpose. Notwithstanding the issuance of the multi-year Obligational Authority, the obligation to be incurred in any given calendar year, shall in no case exceed the amount programmed for implementation during said calendar year.” Petitioners are justified in refusing to formalize the contract with PHOTOKINA. Prudence dictated them not to enter into a contract not backed up by sufficient appropriation and available funds. Definitely, to act otherwise would be a futile exercise for the contract would inevitably suffer the vice of nullity. x x x Verily, the contract, as expressly declared by law, is inexistent and void ab initio (Article 1409 of the Civil Code of the Philippines). This is to say that the proposed contract is without force and effect from the very beginning or from its incipiency, as if it had never been entered into, and hence, cannot be validated either by lapse of time or ratification. In fine, we rule that PHOTOKINA, though the winning bidder, cannot compel the COMELEC to formalize the contract. Since PHOTOKINA’s bid is beyond the amount appropriated by Congress for the VRIS Project, the proposed contract is not binding upon the COMELEC and is considered void x x x. (Commission on Elections v. Judge Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla, G.R. No. 151992, Sept. 18, 2002, En Banc [Sandoval-Gutierrez]) What is the remedy available to a party who contracts with the government contrary to the requirements of the law and, therefore, void ab initio? Held: Of course, we are not saying that the party who contracts with the government has no other recourse in law. The law itself affords him the remedy. Section 48 of E.O. No. 292 explicitly provides that any contract entered into contrary to the above-mentioned requirements shall be void, and “the officers entering into the contract shall be liable to the Government or other contracting party for any consequent damage to the same as if the transaction had been wholly between private parties.” So when the contracting officer transcends his lawful and legitimate powers by acting in excess of or beyond the limits of his contracting authority, the Government is not bound under the contract. It would be as if the contract in such case were a private one, whereupon, he binds himself, and thus, assumes personal liability thereunder. Otherwise stated, the proposed contract is unenforceable as to the Government. While this is not the proceeding to determine where the culpability lies, however, the constitutional mandate cited above constrains us to remind all public officers that public office is a public trust and all public officers must at all times be accountable to the people. The authority of public officers to enter into government contracts is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. In the exercise of their contracting prerogative, they should be the first judges of the legality, propriety and wisdom of the contract they entered into. They must exercise a high degree of caution so that the Government may not be the victim of ill-advised or improvident action. (Commission on Elections v. Judge Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla, G.R. No. 151992, Sept. 18, 2002, En Banc [Sandoval-Gutierrez]) Does the Commission on Human Rights have the power to adjudicate? Held: In its Order x x x denying petitioners’ motion to dismiss, the CHR theorizes that the intention of the members of the Constitutional Commission is to make CHR a quasi-judicial body. This view, however, has not heretofore been shared by this Court. In Carino v. Commission on Human Rights, the Court x x x has observed that it is “only the first of the enumerated powers and functions that bears any resemblance to adjudication of adjudgment,” but that resemblance can in no way be synonymous to the adjudicatory power itself. The Court explained: “x x x [T]he Commission on Human Rights x x x was not meant by the fundamental law to be another court or quasi-judicial agency in this country, or duplicate much less take over the functions of the latter. “The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e., receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards claimed human rights violations involving civil and political rights. But fact finding is not adjudication, and cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or official. The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function, properly speaking. To be considered such, the faculty of receiving evidence and making factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying the law to those factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or determined authoritatively, finally and definitively, subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. This function, to repeat, the Commission does not have. (Simon, Jr. v. Commission on Human Rights, 229 SCRA 117, 125, Jan. 5, 1994, En Banc [Vitug, J.]) Does the Commission on Human Rights have jurisdiction to issue TRO or writ of preliminary injunction? Held: In Export Processing Zone Authority v. Commission on Human Rights, the Court x x x explained: “The constitutional provision directing the CHR to ‘provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection’ may not be construed to confer jurisdiction on the Commission to issue a restraining order or writ of injunction for, if that were the intention, the Constitution would have expressly said so. ‘Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or by law.’ It is never derived by implication.” “Evidently, the ‘preventive measures and legal aid services’ mentioned in the Constitution refer to extrajudicial and judicial remedies (including a writ of preliminary injunction) which the CHR may seek from the proper courts on behalf of the victims of human rights violations. Not being a court of justice, the CHR itself has no jurisdiction to issue the writ, for a writ of preliminary injunction may only be issued ‘by the judge of any court in which the action is pending [within his district], or by a Justice of the Court of Appeals, or of the Supreme Court. x x x. A writ of preliminary injunction is an ancillary remedy. It is available only in a pending principal action, for the preservation or protection of the rights and interest of a party thereto, and for no other purpose.” The Commission does have legal standing to indorse, for appropriate action, its findings and recommendations to any appropriate agency of government. (Simon, Jr. v. Commission on Human Rights, 229 SCRA 117, 134-135, Jan. 5, 1994, En Banc [Vitug, J.]) Does the petition for annulment of proclamation of a candidate merely involve the exercise by the COMELEC of its administrative power to review, revise and reverse the actions of the board of canvassers and, therefore, justifies non-observance of procedural due process, or does it involve the exercise of the COMELEC’s quasi-judicial function? Held: Taking cognizance of private respondent’s petitions for annulment of petitioner’s proclamation, COMELEC was not merely performing an administrative function. The administrative powers of the COMELEC include the power to determine the number and location of polling places, appoint election officials and inspectors, conduct registration of voters, deputize law enforcement agencies and governmental instrumentalities to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections, register political parties, organizations or coalition, accredit citizen’s arms of the Commission, prosecute election offenses, and recommend to the President the removal of or imposition of any other disciplinary action upon any officer or employee it has deputized for violation or disregard of its directive, order or decision. In addition, the Commission also has direct control and supervision over all personnel involved in the conduct of election. However, the resolution of the adverse claims of private respondent and petitioner as regards the existence of a manifest error in the questioned certificate of canvass requires the COMELEC to act as an arbiter. It behooves the Commission to hear both parties to determine the veracity of their allegations and to decide whether the alleged error is a manifest error. Hence, the resolution of this issue calls for the exercise by the COMELEC of its quasi-judicial power. It has been said that where a power rests in judgment or discretion, so that it is of judicial nature or character, but does not involve the exercise of functions of a judge, or is conferred upon an officer other than a judicial officer, it is deemed quasi-judicial. The COMELEC therefore, acting as quasi-judicial tribunal, cannot ignore the requirements of procedural due process in resolving the petitions filed by private respondent. (Federico S. Sandoval v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 133842, Jan. 26, 2000 [Puno]) Discuss the contempt power of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). When may it be validly exercised. Held: On its contempt powers, the CHR is constitutionally authorized to “adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court.” Accordingly, the CHR acted within its authority in providing in its revised rules, its power “to cite or hold any person in direct or indirect contempt, and to impose the appropriate penalties in accordance with the procedure and sanctions provided for in the Rules of Court.” That power to cite for contempt, however, should be understood to apply only to violations of its adopted operational guidelines and rules of procedure essential to carry out its investigatorial powers. To exemplify, the power to cite for contempt could be exercised against persons who refuse to cooperate with the said body, or who unduly withhold relevant information, or who decline to honor summons, and the like, in pursuing its investigative work. The “order to desist” (a semantic interplay for a restraining order) in the instance before us, however, is not investigatorial in character but prescinds from an adjudicative power that it does not possess. x x x (Simon, Jr. v. Commission on Human Rights, 229 SCRA 117, 134, Jan. 5, 1994, En Banc [Vitug, J.]) Discuss the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction (or Prior Resort). Held: Courts cannot and will not resolve 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 technical and intricate matters of fact. In recent years, it has been the jurisprudential trend to apply this doctrine to cases involving matters that demand the special competence of administrative agencies even if the question involved is also judicial in character. It applies “where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such case, the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view.” In cases where the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is clearly applicable, the court cannot arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is lodged with an administrative body of special competence. (Villaflor v. CA, 280 SCRA 297, Oct. 9, 1992, 3rd Div. [Panganiban]) Discuss the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies. What are the exceptions thereto? Held: 1. Before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction then such remedy should be exhausted first before the court’s judicial power can be sought. The premature invocation of court’s jurisdiction is fatal to one’s cause of action. Accordingly, absent any finding of waiver or estoppel the case is susceptible of dismissal for lack of cause of action. This doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies was not without its practical and legal reasons, for one thing, availment of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies. It is no less true to state that the courts of justice for reasons of comity and convenience will shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed and complied with so as to give the administrative agency concerned every opportunity to correct its error and to dispose of the case. This doctrine is disregarded: when there is a violation of due process; when the issue involved is purely a legal question; when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned; when there is irreparable injury; when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bears the implied and assumed approval of the latter; when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable; when it would amount to a nullification of a claim; when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceeding; when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, and when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention. (Paat v. CA, 266 SCRA 167 [1997]) 2. Non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is not jurisdictional. It only renders the action premature, i.e., claimed cause of action is not ripe for judicial determination and for that reason a party has no cause of action to ventilate in court. (Carale v. Abarintos, 269 SCRA 132, March 3, 1997, 3rd Div. [Davide]) BAR QUESTIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW FROM 1989-2003 2001 BAR EXAMINATION I TOPIC: QUASI-LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION (Necessity for Notice and Hearing) The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) General Manager issued an administrative order to the fact that all existing regular appointments to harbor pilot positions shall remain valid only up to December 31 of the current year and that henceforth all appointments to harbor pilot positions shall be only for a term of one year from date of effectivity, subject to yearly renewal or cancellation by the PPA after conduct of a rigid evaluation of performance. Pilotage as a profession may be practiced only by duly licensed individuals, who have to pass five government professional examinations. The Harbor Pilot Association challenged the validity of said administrative order arguing that it violated the harbor pilots' right to exercise their profession and their right to due process of law and that the said administrative order was issued without prior notice and hearing. The PPA countered that the administrative order was valid as it was issued in the exercise of its administrative control and supervision over harbor pilots under PPA's legislative charter; and that in issuing the order as a rule or regulation, it was performing its executive or legislative, and not a quasi-judicial function. Due process of law is classified into two kinds, namely, procedural due process and substantive due process of law. Was there, or, was there no violation of the harbor pilots' right to exercise their profession and their right to due process of law? Suggested Answer: The right of the pilots to due process was violated. As held, in Corona vs. United Harbor Pilots Association of the Philippines, 283 SCRA 31 (1997), pilotage as a profession is a property right protected by the guarantee of due process. The pre-evaluation cancellation of the licenses of the harbor pilots every year is unreasonable and violated their right to substantive due process. The renewal is dependent on the evaluation after the licenses have been cancelled. The issuance of the administrative order also violated procedural due process, since no prior public hearing was conducted. As held in Commissioner r of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 237 (199 , when a regulation is being issued under the quasi-legislative authority of an administrative agency, the requirements of notice, hearing and publication must be observed. II TOPIC: JUDICIAL REVIEW Give the two (2) requisites for the judicial review of administrative decision/actions, that is, when is an administrative action ripe for judicial review? Suggested Answer: 1. The administrative action has already been fully completed and, therefore, is a final agency action; and 2. All administrative remedies have been exhausted. (Gonzales, Administrative Law, Rex Bookstore: Manila, p. 136 (1979). 2000 BAR EXAMINATION I TOPIC: QUASI-LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION (Necessity for Notice and Hearing) The Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) issued new rules and regulations governing pilotage services and fees and the conduct of pilots in Philippine ports. This it did without notice, hearing nor consultation with harbor pilots or their associations whose rights and activities are to be substantially affected. The harbor pilots then filed suit to have the new MARINA rules and regulations declared unconstitutional for having been issued without due process. Suggested Answer: The issuance of the new rules and regulations violated due process. Under Section 9, Chapter II, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987, as far as practicable, before adopting proposed rules, an administrative agency should publish or circulate notices of the proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their views; and in the fixing of rates, no rule shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least two weeks before the first hearing on them. In accordance with this provision, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 236 (1996), it was held that when an administrative rule substantially increases the burden of those directly affected, they should be accorded the chance to be heard before its issuance. Alternative Answer: Submission of the rule to the University of the Philippines Law Center for publication is mandatory. Unless this requirement is complied with, the rule cannot be enforced. II TOPIC: JUDICIAL REVIEW (Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies) A) Explain the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. B) Give at least three exceptions to its application. Suggested Answer: A) The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies means that when an adequate remedy is available within the Executive Department, a litigant must first exhaust this remedy before he can resort to the courts. The purpose of the doctrine is to enable the administrative agencies to correct themselves if they have committed an error. (Rosales vs. Court of Appeals, 165 SCRA 344 (198 . B) The following are the exceptions to the application of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. 1. The question involved is purely legal; 2. The administrative body is in estoppel; 3. The act complained of is patently illegal; 4. There is an urgent need for judicial intervention; 5. The claim involved is small; 6. Grave and irreparable injury will be suffered; 7. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; 8. Strong public interest is involved; 9. The subject of the controversy is private law; 10. The case involves a quo warranto proceeding (Sunville Timber Products, Inc. vs. Abad, 206 SCRA 482 (1992); 11. The party was denied due process (Samahang Magbubukid ng Kapdula, Inc. vs. Court Appeals, 305 SCRA 147 (1999); 12. The decision is that of a Department Secretary (Nazareno vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 131641, February 23, 2000); 13. Resort to administrative remedies would be futile (university of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Rasul, 200 SCRA 685 (1991) 14. There is unreasonable delay (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 301 SCRA 237 (1999) 15. The action involves recovery of physical possession of public land (Gabrito vs. Court of Appeals, 167 SCRA 771 (198 ; 16. The party is poor (Sabello vs. Department of Education, Culture and Sports, 180 SCRA 623 (1989); and 17. The law provides for immediate resort to the court (Rullan vs. Valdez, 12 SCRA 501 (1964). 1999 BAR EXAMINATION I TOPIC: RIGHT TO HEARING AND NOTICE A. Give examples of acts of the state which infringe the due process clause: 1. In its substantive aspect; and 2. In its procedural aspect B. On April 6, 1963. Police Officer Mario Gatdula was charged by the Mayor with Grave Misconduct and Violation of Law before the Municipal Board. The Board investigated Gatdula but before the case could be decided, the City charter was approved. The City Fiscal, citing Section 30 of the city charter, asserted that he was authorized thereunder to investigate city officers and employees. The case against Gatdula was then forwarded to him, and are-investigation was conducted. The office of the Fiscal subsequently recommended dismissal. On January 11, 1966, the City Mayor returned the records of the case to the City Fiscal for the submission of an appropriate resolution but no resolution was submitted. On March 3, 1968, the City Fiscal transmitted the records to the City Mayor recommending that final action thereon be made by the City Board of Investigators (CBI). Although the CBI did not conduct an investigation, the records show that both the Municipal Board and the Fiscal's Office exhaustively heard the case with both parties afforded ample opportunity to adduce their evidence and argue their cause. The Police Commission found Gatdula guilty on the basis of the records forwarded by the CBl. Gatdula challenged the adverse decision of the Police Commission theorizing that he was deprived of due process. Questions: Is the Police Commission bound by the findings of the City Fiscal? Is Gatdula's protestation of lack or nonobservance of due process well-grounded? Explain your answers. C. On November 7, 1990, nine lawyers of the Legal Department of Y Bank who were all under Fred Torre, sent a complaint to management accusing Torre of abusive conduct and mismanagement. Furnished with a copy of the complaint, Torre denied the charges. Two days later, the lawyers and Torre were called to a conference in the office of the Board Chairman to give their respective sides of the controversy. However, no agreement was reached thereat. Bank Director Romulo Moret was tasked to look further into the matter. He met with the lawyers together with Torre several times but to no avail. Moret then submitted a report sustaining the charges or the lawyers. The Board Chairman wrote Torre to inform him that the bank had chosen the compassionate option of "waiting" for Torre's resignation. Torre was asked, without being dismissed, to turn over the documents of all cases handled by him to another official of the bank but Torre refused to resign and requested for a "full hearing", Days later, he reiterated his request for a "full hearing", claiming that he had been "constructively dismissed", Moret assured Torre that he is "free to remain in the employ of the bank" even if he has no particular work assignment. After another request for a "full hearing" was ignored, Torre filed a complaint with the arbitration branch of NLRC for illegal dismissal. Reacting thereto, the bank terminated the services of Torre. Questions: (a) Was Torre "constructively dismissed" before he filed his complaint? (b) Given the multiple meetings held among the bank officials, the lawyers and Torre, is it correct for him to say that he was not given an opportunity to be heard? Explain your answers. SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. 1.) A law violates substantive due process when it is unreasonable or unduly oppressive. For example, Presidential Decree No. 1717, which cancelled all the mortgages and liens of a debtor, was considered unconstitutional for being oppressive. Likewise, as stated in Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila, 20 SCRA 849, a law which is vague so that men of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates substantive due process. As held in Tañada v. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446, due process requires that the law be published. 2.) In State Prosecutors v. Muro, 236 SCRA 505, it was held that the dismissal of a case without the benefit of a hearing and without any notice to the prosecution violated due process. Likewise, as held in People v. Court of Appeals, 262 SCRA 452, the lack of impartiality of the judge who will decide a case violates procedural due process. B. The Police Commission is not bound by the findings of the City Fiscal. In Mangubat v. de Castro, 163 SCRA 608, it was held that the Police Commission is not prohibited from making its own findings on the basis of its own evaluation of the records. Likewise, the protestation of lack of due process is not well-grounded, since the hearings before the Municipal Board and the City Fiscal offered Gatdula the chance to be heard. There is no denial of due process if the decision was rendered on the basis of evidence contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. C. a) Torre was constructively dismissed, as held in Equitable Banking Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 273 SCRA 352. Allowing an employee to report for work without being assigned any work constitutes constructive dismissal. b) Torre is correct in saying that he was not given the chance to be heard. The meetings in the nature of consultations and conferences cannot be considered as valid substitutes for the proper observance of notice and hearing. 1998 BAR EXAMINATION I TOPIC: EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES The Department of National Defense entered into contract with Raintree Corporation for the supply of ponchos to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), stipulating that, in the event of breach, action may be filed in the proper court in Manila. Suppose the AFP fails to pay for delivered ponchos where must Raintree Corporation file its claim? Why? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Raintree Corporation must file its claim with the Commission on Audit. Under Section 2(1) IX-D of the Constitution, the Commission on Audit has the authority to settle all accounts pertaining to expenditure of public funds. Raintree Corporation cannot file a case in court. The Republic of the Philippines did not waive its immunity from suit when it entered into the contract with Raintree Corporation for the supply of ponchos for the use of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The contract involves the defense of the Philippines and therefore relates to a sovereign function. In-United States vs. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487,492, the Supreme Court held: "The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs. Stated differently, a State may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts. It does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions. In this case the project are an integral part of the naval base which is devoted to the defense of both the United States and the Philippines, indisputably a function of the government of the highest order: they are not utilized for nor dedicated to commerce or business purposes" The provision for venue in the contract does not constitute a waiver of the State immunity from suit, because the express waiver of this immunity can only be made by a statute. In Republic vs. Purisima. 78 SCRA 470 474, the Supreme Court ruled: "Apparently respondent Judge was misled by the terms of the contract between the private respondent, plaintiff in his sala, and defendant Rice and Com Administration which, according to him, anticipated the case of a breach of contract between the parties and the suits that may thereafter arise. The consent, to be effective though, must come from the State acting through a duly enacted statute as pointed out by Justice Bengzon in Mobil." ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: In accordance with the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, Raintree Corporation should first file a claim with the Commission on Audit. If the claim is denied, it should file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. II Topic: Administrative rulings subject to final determination of the courts Andres Ang was born of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother in Sorsogon, Sorsogon, on January 20, 1973. In 1988, his father was naturalized as a Filipino citizen On May 11, 1998. Andres Ang was elected Representative of the First District of Sorsogon. Juan Bonto who received the second highest number of votes, filed a petition for Quo Warranto against Ang. The petition was filed with the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal (HRET). Bonto contends that Ang is not a natural born citizen of the Philippines and therefore is disqual1fied to be a member of the House. The HRET ruled in favor of Ang. Bonto filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court. The following issues are raised: 1. Whether the case is justiciable considering that Article VI. Section 17 of the Constitution declares the HRET to be the sole Judge- of all contests relating to the election returns and disqualifications of members of the House of Representatives. 2. Whether Ang is a natural born citizen of the Philippines. How should this case be decided? SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. The case is justiciable. As stated in Lazatin vs.House Electoral Tribunal. 168 SCRA 391, 404, since judicial power includes the duty to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government, the Supreme Court has the power to review the decisions of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal in case of grave abuse of discretion on its part. 2. Andres Ang should be considered a natural born citizen of the Philippines. He was born of a Filipino mother on January 20, 1973. This was after the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution on January 17, 1973. Under Section (I), Article III of the 1973 Constitution, those whose fathers or-mothers are citizens of the Philippines are citizens of the Philippines. Andres Ang remained a citizen of the Philippines after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution. Section 1. Article IV of the 1987 Constitution provides: "The following are citizens of the Philippines: "(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution:" III TOPIC: SELF INCRIMINATION Suppose Congress passed a law to implement the Constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust, by providing as follows: "No employee of the Civil Service shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing books, records, correspondence, documents or other evidence in any administrative investigation concerning the office in which he is employed on the ground that his testimony or the evidence required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture: but his testimony or any evidence produced by him shall not be used against him in criminal prosecution based on the transaction, matter or thing concerning which is compelled, after invoking his privilege against self- incrimination to testify or produce evidence. Provided, however, that such individual so testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in so testifying nor shall he be exempt from demotion or removal from office. Any employee who refuses to testify or produce any documents under this Act shall be dismissed from the service." Suppose further, that Ong, a member of the Professional Regulatory Board, is required to answer questions in an investigation regarding a LEAKAGE in a medical examination. 1. Can Ong refuse to answer questions on the ground that he would incriminate himself? 2. Suppose he refuses to answer, and for that reason, is dismissed from the service; can he pausibly argue that the Civil Commission has inferred his guilt from his refusal to answer in violation of the Constitution? 3. Suppose on the other hand, he answers the question and on the basis of his answers, he is found guilty and is dismissed. Can he pausibly assert that his dismissa1 is based on coerced confession? SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. No. Ong cannot refuse to answer the question on the ground that he would incriminate himself, since the Jaw grants him immunity and prohibits the use against him in a criminal prosecution of the testimony or evidence produced by him. As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Brown vs. Walker, 161 U.S.591, 597, what the constitutional prohibition against self-incrimination seeks to prevent is the conviction of the witness on the basis of testimony elicited from him. The rule is satisfied when he is granted immunity. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: 1. In accordance with Evangelista vs. Jarencio, 68 SCRA 99, 107-108, if Ong is being cited merely as a witness, he may not refuse to answer. However, if the question tends to violate his right against self-incrimination, he may object to it. On the other hand, under the ruling in Chavez vs. Court of Appeals. 24 SCRA 663, 680, if be is a respondent, Ong may refuse to answer any question because of his right against self-incrimination. SUGGESTED ANSWER: 2. No Ong cannot argue that the Civil Service Commission inferred his guilt from his refusal to answer. Be was not dismissed because of his involvement in the leakage in the medical examination but for his refusal to answer. This is a violation of the law. He could be compelled to answer the question on pain of being dismissed in case of his refusal, because he was granted immunity. In Lefkowitz vs. Turley, 414 U.S. 70,84, the United States Supreme Court said: "Furthermore, the accommodation between the interest of the State and the Fifth Amendment requires that the State have means at its disposal to secure testimony if immunity is supplied and testimony is still refused. This is recognized by the power of courts to compel testimony, after a grant of immunity, by use of civil contempt and coerced imprisonment. Shilitani vs. United States, 384 US 364, 16 L Ed 2d 622, 86 5 Ct 1531 (1966). Also, given adequate immunity the State may plainly insist that employees either answer questions under oath about the performance of their job or suffer the loss of employment." 3. Yes, Ong can argue that his dismissal was based on coerced confession. In Garrity vs. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 500, the United States Supreme Court held: "We now hold the protection of the individual under the Fourteenth Amendment against coerced statements prohibits use in subsequent criminal proceedings of statements obtained under threat of removal from office, and that it extends to all, whether they are policemen or other members of the body politic." IV TOPIC: LIMITATIONS OF POWER The police had suspicions that. Juan Samson, member of the subversive New-Proletarian Army, was using the mail for propaganda purposes in gaining new adherents to its cause. The Chief of Police of Bantolan., Lanao del Sur ordered the Postmaster of the town to intercept and open all mail addressed to and coming from Juan Samson in the interest of the national security. Was the order of the Chief of Police valid? SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the order of the Chief of Police is not valid, because there is no law which authorizes him to order the Postmaster to open the letters addressed to and coming from Juan Samson. An official in the Executive Department cannot interfere with the privacy of correspondence and communication in the absence of a law authorizing him to do so or a lawful order of the court. Section 3(1), Article III of the Constitution provides: "The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law." IV TOPIC: JURISDICITON Suppose a Commissioner of the COMELEC is charged before the Sandiganbayan for allegedly tolerating violation of the election laws against proliferation of prohibited billboards and election propaganda with the end in view of removing him from office. Will the action prosper? SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the action will not prosper. Under Section 8 Article Xl of the Constitution. the Commissioners of the Commission on Elections are removable by impeachment. As held in the case of In re Gonzales, 160 SCRA 771,774-775, a public officer who is removable by impeachment cannot be charged before the Sandiganbayan with an offense which carries with it the penalty of removal from office unless he is first impeached. Otherwise, he will be removed from office by a method other than impeachment. 1997 BAR EXAMINATION I TOPIC: ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Are the government-owned or controlled corporations within the scope and meaning of the "Government of the Philippines"? Suggested Answer: Section 2 of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987 defines the government of the Philippines as 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. Government-owned or controlled corporations are within the scope and meaning of the Government of the Philippines if they are performing governmental or political functions. II TOPIC: ADMINISTRATIVE CODE – FLAG CEREMONY Section 28, Title VI, Chapter 9, of the Administrative Code of 1987 requires all educational institutions to observe a simple and dignified flag ceremony, including the playing or singing of the Philippine National Anthem, pursuant to rules to be promulgated by the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports. The refusal of a teacher, student or pupil to attend or participate in the flag ceremony is a ground for dismissal after due investigation. The Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports issued a memorandum implementing said provision of law. As ordered, the flag ceremony would be held on Mondays at 7:30 a.m. during class days. A group of teachers, students and pupils requested the Secretary that they be exempted from attending the flag ceremony on the ground that attendance thereto was against their religious belief. The Secretary denied the request. The teachers, students and pupils concerned went to the Court to have the memorandum circular declared null and void. Decide the case. Suggested Answer: The teachers and the students should be exempted from the flag ceremony. As held in Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, 251 SCRA 569 , to compel them to participate in the flag ceremony will violate their freedom of religion. Freedom of religion cannot be impaired except upon the showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil which the State has a right to prevent. The refusal of the teachers and the students to participate in the flag ceremony does not pose a clear and present danger. 1996 BAR EXAMINATION I TOPIC: ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 1. Distinguish the doctrine of primary jurisdiction from the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. 2. Does the failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a case in court oust said court of jurisdiction to hear the case? Explain. Suggested Answer: 1. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction and the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies both deal with the proper relationships between the courts and administrative agencies. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies where a claim is cognizable in the first instance by an administrative agency alone. Judicial interference is withheld until the administrative process has been completed. As stated in Industrial Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 184 SCRA 426, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies where a case is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the court and an administrative agency but the determination of the case requires the technical expertise of the administrative agency. In such a case, although the matter is within the jurisdiction of the court, it must yield to the jurisdiction of the administrative case. 2. No, the failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a case in court does not oust the court of jurisdiction to hear the case. As held in Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, 211 SCRA 384, the failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of the court but results in the lack of a cause of action, because a condition precedent that must be satisfied before action can be filed was not fulfilled. 1995 BAR EXAMINATION I TOPIC: LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT VS. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY The Municipality of Binangonan, Rizal passed a resolution authorizing the operation of an open garbage dumpsite in a 9-hectare land in the Reyes Estate within the Municipality's territorial limits. Some concerned residents of Binangonan filed a complaint with the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) to stop the operation of the dumpsite due to its harmful effects on the health of the residents. The LLDA conducted an on-site investigation, monitoring, testing and water sampling and found that the dumpsite would contaminate Laguna de Bay and the surrounding areas of the Municipality. The LLDA also discovered that no environmental clearance was secured by the Municipality from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the LLDA as required by law. The LLDA therefore issued to the Binangonan Municipal Government a cease and desist order to stop the operation of the dumpsite. The Municipality of Binangonan filed a case to annul the order issued by the LLDA. 1. Can the Municipality of Binangonan invoke police power to prevent its residents and the LLDA from interfering with the operation of the dumpsite by the Municipality? Explain. 2. Can the LLDA justify its order by asserting that the health of the residents will be adversely affected? Explain. Suggested Answer: 1. No, the Municipality of Binangonan cannot invoke its police power. According to Laguna Lake Development Authority vs. Court of Appeals, 231 SCRA 292, under Republic Act No. 4850, the LLDA is mandated to promote the development of the Laguna Lake area, including the surrounding Province of Rizal, with due regard to the prevention of pollution. The LLDA is mandated to pass upon and approve or disapprove all projects proposed by local government offices within the region. 2. Yes, the LLDA can justify its order. Since it has been authorized by Executive Order No. 927 to make orders requiring the discontinuance of pollution, its power to issue the order can be inferred from this. Otherwise, it will be a toothless agency. Moreover, the LLDA is specifically authorized under its Charter to issue cease and desist orders. 1991 BAR EXAMINATION I TOPIC: ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES OR AGENCY On July 1991, the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB), in response to public clamor, issued a resolution approving and adopting a schedule for bringing down the prices of petroleum products over a period of one (1) year starting 15 August 1991, over the objection of the oil companies which claim that the period covered is too long to prejudge and foresee. Is the resolution valid? Suggested Answer: No, the resolution is not valid, since the Energy Regulatory Board issued the resolution without a hearing. The resolution here is not a provisional order and therefore it can only be issued after appropriate notice and hearing to affected parties. The ruling in Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation vs. Alcuaz, 180 SCRA 218, to the effect that an order provisionally reducing the rates which a public utility could charge, could be issued without previous notice and hearing, cannot apply. 1990 BAR EXAMINATION I TOPIC: EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 2, issued by President Corazon C. Aquino created the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and empowered it to sequester any property shown prima facie to be ill- gotten wealth of the late President Marcos, his relatives and cronies. Executive Order No. 14 vests on the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction to try hidden wealth cases. On April 14, 1986, after an investigation, the PCGG sequestered the assets of X Corporation, Inc. (1) X Corporation, Inc, claimed that President Aquino as President, could not lawfully issue Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2, 14, which have the force of law, on the ground that legislation is a function of Congress. Decide. (2) Said corporation also questioned the validity of the three executive orders on the ground that they are bills of attainder and, therefore, unconstitutional. Decide Suggested Answer: (1) The contention of X Corporation should be rejected. Executive orders Nos. 1, 2 and 14 were issued in 1986. At that time President Corazon Aquino exercised legislative power Section 1, Article II of the Provisional Constitution established by Proclamation No. 3, provided: "Until a legislature is elected and convened under a new constitution, the President shall continue to exercise legislative power." In case of Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalan ng Pilipinas, Inc. vs. Tan, 163 SCRA 371, the Supreme Court ruled that the Provisional Constitution and the 1987 Constitution, both recognized the power of the President to exercise legislative powers until the first Congress created under the 1987 Constitution was convened on June 27, 1987. (2) Executive Orders Nos. 1,2 and 14 are not bill of attainder. A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. On the contrary, the expressly provide that any judgment that the property sequestered is ill-gotten wealth is to be made by a court (the Sandiganbayan) only after trial. II TOPIC: LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS A. After 2 February 1987, the Philippine National bank (PNB) grants a loan to congressman X. Is the loan violative of the Constitution? Suppose the loan had instead been granted before 2 February 1987, but was outstanding on that date with a remaining balance on the principal in the amount of P50,000, can the PNB validly give Congressman X an extension of time after said date to stele the obligation? B. For being notoriously undesirable and recidivist, Jose Tapulan, an employee in the first level of the career service in the Office of the Provincial Governor of Masbate, was dismissed by the Governor without formal investigation pursuant to Section 40 of the Civil Service Decree (P.D. No. 807) which authorizes summary proceedings in such cases. As a lawyer of Jose what steps, if any, would you take to protect his rights? Suggested Answer: A. whether or not the loan is violative of the 1987 Constitution depends upon its purpose, if it was obtained for a business purpose, it is violative of the Constitution. If it was obtained for some other purpose, e.g. for housing, it is not violative of the Constitution because under Section 16, Article XI, Members of Congress are prohibited from obtaining loans from government-owned banks only if it is for a business purpose. If the loan was granted before the effectivity of the Constitution on February 2, 1987, the Philippine National Bank cannot extend its maturity after February 2, 1987, if the loan was obtained for a business purpose. In such case the extension is a financial accommodation which is also prohibited by the Constitution. B. Section 40 of the Civil Service Decree has been repealed by republic Act No. 6654. As a lawyer of Jose Tapulan, I will file a petition for mandamus to compel his reinstatement. In accordance with the ruling in Mangubat vs. Osmeña, G.R. No. L-12837, April 30, 1959, there is no need to exhaust all administrative remedies by appealing to Civil Service Commission, since the act of the governor is patently illegal. 1989 BAR EXAMINATION I TOPIC: LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS An existing law grants government employees the option to retire upon reaching the age of 57 years and completion of at least 30 years of total, government service. As a fiscal retrenchment measure, the Office of the President later issued a Memorandum Circular requiring physical incapacity as an additional condition for optional retirement age of 65 years. A government employee, whose application for optional retirement was denied because he was below 65 years of age and was not physically incapacitated, filed an action in court questioning the disapproval of his application claiming that the Memorandum Circular is void. Is the contention of the employee correct? Explain. Suggested Answer: Yes, the contention of the employee is correct. In Marasigan vs. Cruz, SCRA , it was held that such memorandum circular is void. By introducing physical capacity as additional condition for optional retirement, the memorandum circular tried to amend the law. Such power is lodged with the legislative branch and not with the executive branch. II TOPIC: LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS In 1986, F, then the officer-in-charge of Botolan, Zambales, was accused of having violated the ANTI-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act before the Sandigan Bayan. Before he could be arraigned, he was elected Governor of Zambales. After his arraignment, he put under preventive suspension by the Sandiganbayan " for the duration of the trial". (1) Can F successfully challenge the legality of his preventive suspension on the ground that the criminal case against him involved acts committed during his term as officer-in-charge and not during his term as Governor? (2) Can F validly object to the aforestated duration of his suspension? Suggested Answer: (1) No, F cannot successfully challenge the legality of his preventive suspension on the ground that the criminal case against him involve acts committed during his term as OIC and not during his term as governor because suspension from office under Republic Act 3019 refers to any office that the respondent is presently holding and not necessarily to the one which he hold when he committed the crime with which he is charged. This was the ruling in Deloso vs. Sandiganbayan, 173 SCRA 409 (2) Yes, F Can validly object to the duration of the suspension. In Deloso vs. Sandiganbayan, 173 SCRA 409, it was held that the imposition of preventive suspension for an indefinite period of time is unreasonable and violates the right of the accused to due process. The people who elected the governor to office would be deprived of his services for an indefinite period, and his right to hold office would be nullified. Moreover, since under Section 42 of the Civil Service Decree the duration of preventive suspension should be limited to ninety (90) days, equal protection demands that the duration of preventive suspension under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act be also limited to ninety (90) days only.