USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts

ADMINIS STRATIVELAW

G General Prin nciples B BUSTONERA,C C. HON.EX XECUTIVESECRETARY,HO ON.SECRETA ARYOFTHEDEPARTMENT D TOFTRANSP PORTATIONAND A COMMUNICA ATIONS(DOT TC),COMMISS SIONEROFCU USTOMS,ASSI ISTANTSECR RETARY,LANDTRANSPOR RTATION OFFICE(LTO O),COLLECTO OROFCUSTO OMS,SUBICBAYFREEPOR RTZONE,AND DCHIEFOFLTO,SUBICBA AYFREE PORTZON NE,Petitioner rs,vs.SOUTH HWINGHEAVY YINDUSTRIE ES,INC.,repre esentedbyits sPresidentJO OSET. DIZON,UN NITEDAUCTI IONEERS,INC C.,represente edbyitsPresidentDOMIN NICSYTIN,andMICROVAN N,INC., re epresentedby yitsPresiden ntMARIANOC.SONON,Re espondents. G.R R.No.164171Februa ary20,2006 To be valid, an T n administrat tive issuance, such s as an ex xecutive order,, must comply y with the foll lowing requisi ites:(1) Its p promulgation must be auth horized by the e legislature;( (2) It must be e promulgated d in accordan nce with the prescribed p p procedure; (3)Itmustbewithin t thescopeoftheauthori itygivenbythe elegislature;and(4) a Itmustbereasonable e. Three separat T te actions were w filed by respondent business org ganizations against a petitioners questio oning the c constitutionali ityofArticle2 2,Section3.1o ofExecutiveO Order(EO)156whichimpo osesabanont theimportatio onofused m motorvehicles sanywherein nthecountry,includingthosemadeinsid detheFreepor rtZones.Thet trialcourtrule edintheir f favor and dec clared EO 156 6 repugnant to the Constitu ution. The ap ppellate court sustained the e findings of the lower c court.Henceth hispetition. ISSUE: W WhetherArtic cle2,Section3 3.1ofEO156i isvalid? HELD: H P PETITIONSAR REPARTIALLY YGRANTED. T Thesubjectm matterofthela awsauthorizin ngthePresidenttoregulat teorforbidim mportationof usedmotorv vehicles,is t domestic industry. the i EO 156, however r, exceeded th he scope of its s application by extending the prohibiti ion on the importationof fusedcarstotheFreeport,whichRA722 27,considerst tosomeexten nt,aforeignterritory. T proscripti The ion in the imp portation of used u motor ve ehicles should d be operativ ve only outsid de the Freepor rt and the inclusion of sa aid zone with hin the ambit of the prohib bition is an in nvalid modific cation of RA 7227. 7 Indeed, when the a applicati onof anadministra ativeissuance emodifiesexis stinglawsor exceedsthein ntendedscope e,asintheins stantcase, t theissuanceb ecomesvoid,notonlyforbeingultravire es,butalsofor rbeingunreas sonable. A Aslongasthe eusedmotorv vehiclesdono otenterthecu ustomsterrito ory,theinjury yorharmsou ughttobepre eventedor r remediedwill notarise.To applythepro oscriptiontot theFreeportw wouldnotser rvethepurposeoftheEO. Insteadof improvingthe egeneralecon nomyoftheco ountry,theap pplicationofth heimportationbanintheF Freeportwoul ldsubvert t avowed purpose of RA the A 7227 which is to create a a market that t would draw w investors an nd ultimately boost the n nationalecono omy. oOo A Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

1|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts LUPOL.LUPANGCO,RA AYMONDS.MANGKAL, M NO ORMANA.ME ESINA,ALEXA ANDERR.REG GUYAL,JOCEL LYNP. G,ENRICOV.REGALADO, R JE EROMEO.AR RCEGA,ERNES STOC.BLAS,JR., J ELPEDIOM.ALMAZAN N,KARL CATAPANG CAESAR C R.RIMANDO,peti itioner,vs.CO OURTOFAPP PEALSand ONALREGULA ATIONCOMM MISSION,respo ondent. PROFESSIO G. .R.No.77372 Apr ril29,1988

It is an axiom in administra I ative law that t administrativ ve authorities s should not act a arbitrarily and capriciou usly in the is ssuance of rul les and regula ations. To be valid, v such rule es and regulations must be reasonable an nd fairly adap pted to the e inview.If shown end s tobear rnoreasonabl lerelationtothe t purposesfor fo whichtheyareauthorize edtobeissued, d,thenthey m beheldto must obeinvalid. P Professional R Regulation Co ommission (P PRC) issued Resolution R No o. 105 as par rt of its "Add ditional Instru uctions to E Examiness," to o all those ap pplying for ad dmission to ta ake the licens sure examinat tions in accou untancy. The resolution r p prohibits exam minees from attending re eview classes, , lectures or conferences of similar na ature, includi ing taking r reviewers, notes or any re eview materia al of any kind three days prior to the examination day. Violators will be s sanctionedacc cordingtoSec c.8,Art.IIIoft theRulesandRegulationso oftheCommission. P Petitionerrev ieweesfileda acomplaintfo orinjunction, beforetheRe egionalTrialC Court(RTC)o ofManila,with haprayer w withtheissuan nceofawrito ofapreliminar ryinjunctiona againstrespon ndentPRCtorestrainthela atterfromenf forcingthe a abovemention nedresolution nandtodecla arethesameu unconstitution nal. P PRCmovedto odismissthec caseonthegr roundoflack ofjurisdictio on,butwasde enied.Howeve er,theCourto ofappeals ( (CA)reversed theRTCandg grantedthesa ame.Hencethispetition. ISSUE(s): 1. Canth heRTCreview wtheresolutio onsofthePRCdespitethest tatusofbeingcoequalbodies? 2. IsResolution105v s validandreaso onable? H HELD : P Petitionis GRA ANTED. R HasJuris RTC sdiction C Contrarytoth hepositionof theCA,thePR RC,asdirected dunderPresi identialDecre eeNo.223isa attachedtotheOfficeof t thePresidentf forgeneraldir rectionandco oordination.W Wellsettledinourjurisprud denceistheviewthatevenactsofthe O OfficeofthePr residentmaybereviewedb bythetheReg gionalTrialCo ourt.Asexplai inedinMedall lavsSayo,beingsubject t tojudicialrevi iewdoesnotm maketheExec cutiveinferior rtothecourts s,butbecause ethelawisab bovetheChief f Executive h himself,andth hecourtsseek konlytointerp pret,applyorimplementit. . A a general rule, As r the CA exercises e exclusive appella ate jurisdiction n over all fina al judgments, , decisions, re esolutions, o orders,orawa ardsofquasijudicialagenc cies,suchast thePRC.Howe ever,thereha astobeafina alorderorrul lingwhich r resultedfrom whereinthea administrative ebodyinvolve edexercisedi its quasijudic cial functions. Thisdoes proceedingsw n cover rule not es and regulat tions of gener ral applicabili ity issued by the administrative body to implement its purely a administrative epoliciesandfunctionslike eResolutionN No.105whichwasadoptedbytherespon ndentPRCasa ameasure t topreserveth licensureexam minations. eintegrityofl V Validity ofthe eResolutionA Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

2|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Itisanaxiom inadministra ativelawthat tadministrativ veauthorities sshouldnota actarbitrarily andcapriciou uslyinthe lesandregula ations.Tobev valid,suchrulesandregulat tionsmustbe ereasonableandfairlyadap ptedtothe issuanceofrul e endinview.If fshowntobea arnoreasona ablerelationto othepurpose esforwhichth heyareauthorizedtobeiss sued,then t theymustbeh heldtobeinva alid. Resolution No R o. 105 is not only unreasonable and arbitrary, a it also a infringes on the exam minees' right to liberty g guaranteedby ytheConstitution.Respond dentPRChasn noauthorityt todictateont thereviewees sastohowth heyshould p preparethems selvesforthelicensureexaminations.Th heycannotberestrainedfro omtakingallt thelawfulstepsneeded t toassurethef fulfillmentof theirambitiontobecome publicaccoun ntants.Theyh haveeveryrig ghttomakeus seoftheir f faculties in att taining success in their en ndeavors. The ey should be allowed a to en njoy their free edom to acqu uire useful k knowledgetha atwillpromot tetheirperson nalgrowth. oOo B BIAK NABAT TO MINING CO OMPANY, pet titioner, vs.HON. ARTURO O R. TANCO, JR., in his cap pacity as the Secretary S o Agriculture of eandNaturalResourcesand a BALATOC CLUBUAGAN NMINES,INC., ,respondents s. G.R.Nos.L3426768 8 J January25,19 991

Under the prin U nciples of adm ministrative law w in force in this jurisdictio on, decisions of o administrat tive officers sh hall not be d disturbed by th he courts, exce ept when the former fo have ac cted without or o in excess of their jurisdicti ion, or with gr rave abuse o discretion. Findings of F of ad dministrative officials o and ag gencies who have h acquired expertise beca ause their juri isdiction is c confined to sp pecific matters s are general lly accorded not n only respe ect but at tim mes even final lity if such fin ndings are s supported by substantial ev vidence and are a controlling g on the revi iewing author rities because of their ackn nowledged e expertise inthe efieldsofspec cializationtowhich w theyareassigned. P PetitionerBiak kNaBatoMin ningCo.filedw withtheBure eauofMines( (BM)theappli icationforlea aseandapetit tionforan o orderoflease surveyofits miningclaims s.However,it treceivedano oticeofthelet tteroftheDir rectorofMine esrefusing t toissuetheor rderofleasesurveybecause etheareasco overedbytheminingclaims swerealleged dlyinconflict withfour ( other grou (4) ups of mining g claims purp portedly own ned by private e respondent ts BalatocLub buagan Mines s, Inc. and M MountainMin es,Inc. Inlieuofthis, petitionercon ntestsanddis sputestherigh htofBalatocL LubuaganMin nes,Inc.toele even(11)miningclaims a and the right of Mountain n Mines, Inc. to another nine (9) minin ng claims. It also questio oned the reco onstitution p proceedingsin nMACCases Nos.V79and dV80byclai imingthatthe etwo(2)deedsofsaleove erthe88lode eclaimsin f favorofMoun nc.andtheoth hertwo(2)de eedsofsaleov ver52lodecla aimsofBalato ocLubuaganM Mines,Inc. tainMines,In w werefake,fict itiousormanu ufactured.Fin nally,whileits sprotestwasb beingheard,it tfiledwiththeBMamotion nclaiming t thatBalatocL ubuaganMine es,Inc.andM MountainMine es,Inc.'smen hadenteredt theareainco ontroversyby forceand h have been mo olesting, haras ssing and thr reatening peti itioner's supp posed worker rs in the area a. The Bureau u of Mines issueda restrainingorderd a directingbothpartiestodes sistfromperf forminganyfu urthermining gactivitiesint theareain c controversy. T TheBM orderedanocularin e nspectionoft theplace.Ittu urnedoutthat tpetitionersc claimofharass smentisfalseandlifted t therestraining gorder. theyear,the DirectorofMinesruledaga B Bytheendof ainstthepetit tioneranddec claredthatpr rivaterespond dentshave b better rights to t the 170 mining claims. On O appeal to the Secretary y of Agricultur re and Natura al Resources, petitioner q questioned the validity of the t first ocula ar inspection. The secretar ry granted its motion and ordered o anoth her ocular inspection.Ho owever,these econdinspecti ionteamconf firmedtherep portofthefirs stinspectiont teamandalso oreported t thatBiakNaB BatoMiningCo ompanydespi iteopportunit tyaffordedwa asnotabletos showitsexact tlocationinth hearea. A Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

3|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts T TheSecretary gaveitsdecis sionadverset topetitioners statingthat:B BiakNaBatoM MiningCompa anysminingc claimsare tablelocated ,therefore,nu ullandvoid,a andthatithad dnolegalpersonalitytofiletheprotestin ntheBureauo ofMines. H Henceth ispetition. t ISSUE: A Arethefinding goffactsmadebytheSecre etaryandtheD DirectorofMi inessubjectto ojudicialrevie ew? H HELD : P Petitionishere ebyDISMISSE ED. U Undertheprin nciplesofadm ministrativelaw winforceint thisjurisdictio on,decisionso ofadministrat tiveofficerssh hallnotbe d disturbedbyt thecourts,exc ceptwhenthe eformerhave eactedwithoutorinexces ssoftheirjurisdiction,orw withgrave a abuse of discr retion. Findin ngs of admini istrative offici ials and agen ncies who hav ve acquired expertise e beca ause their ju urisdictionis confinedtos specificmattersaregenera allyaccorded notonlyresp pectbutattim mesevenfinalityifsuch f findings are supported s by substantial evidence e and are controllin ng on the rev viewing autho orities becaus se of their a acknowledged dexpertisein thefieldsofspecializationt towhichthey yareassigned.Eventhecou urtsofjustice, ,including t thisCourt,are eboundbysu uchfindingsin ntheabsence ofaclearsho owingofagra aveabuseofd discretion,wh hichisnot p presentinthis scaseatbar. oOo EUR ROMEDLABORATORIES,PHIL.,INC.,represented r by b LEONARDO OH.TORIBIO O,petitioner, v THEPROV vs. VINCEOFBAT TANGAS,repr resentedbyits i Governor,HON.HERMI ILANDOI.MA ANDANAS,res spondent. G.R.No.1481 106July17,2006 The doctrine of primary juri T isdiction holds s that if a case e is such that its i determinat tion requires the t expertise, specialized s t training and knowledge k of an a administrative body, reli ief must first be b obtained in n an administr rative proceed ding before r resort to the courts c is had even e if the ma atter may wel ll be within th heir proper jurisdiction. It applies a where a claim is o originally cogn nizable in the courts and co omes into play ay whenever enforcement e of f the claim re equires the res solution of is ssueswhich,under u aregulatoryscheme,have h beenplac cedwithinthespecialcompe etenceofanadministrativeagency.In s a case, th such he court in wh hich the claim is sought to be b enforced may suspend th he judicial pro ocess pending referral of s issues to the such t administra ative body forits view or, if the parties wo ould not be unf nfairly disadva antaged, dismis ss the case w without prejud dice Petitioner Eur P roMed Labs filed f a compla aint for sum of o money aga ainst responde ent Province of Batangas. The latter p purchasedvar riousIntraven nousFluids(IV VF)productsf fromtheforme er,withanun npaidbalanceo ofP487,662.8 80. D Duringthetria alandafterthepetitionerspresentationofevidence,r respondentfile edamotionto odismissontheground o oflackofjuris earedthatpeti itionersmone eyclaimmust tbelodgedbef foretheComm missionon dictionofthecourt.Itappe A Audit (COA). In addition, the t series of procurement t transactions s with the pr rovince, was governed by the Local G Government C Code provisio ons and COA A rules and regulations on supply and property management t in local g governments. The RTC fou und the petitio on meritoriou us and grante ed the dismiss sal of the cas se. Petitioners MR was s subsequentlyd denied,hence ethepetition. ISSUE: A Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

4|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts D DoestheCOAh havejurisdict tionoverthem moneyclaim? H HELD : P Petitionishere ebyDENIED. A Althoughthea amountofmo oneyclaimfal llswithinthe jurisdictiono oftheRTCitis sclearwithin nSec26ofthe eAuditing C CodeofthePh hilippinesthat t:Theauthori ityandpower rsoftheComm mission[onAu udit]shallexte endtoandcom mprehend a allmattersrel latingtoxxx xxtheexamin nation,audit, andsettlemen ntofalldebts sandclaimso ofanysortdu uefromor o owingtotheG Governmentor ranyofitssub bdivisions,age encies,andinstrumentalitie es. Thescopeofth T heCOAsauth horitytotake cognizanceof fclaimsiscirc cumscribed,ho owever,byan nunbrokenlin neofcases h holdingstatut esofsimilari importtomea anonly liquid datedclaims,o orthosedeter rminedorrea adilydetermin nablefrom v vouchers, invo oices, and such other papers within re each of accou unting officers s. Petitioners claim was fo or a fixed a amount andalthough respo ondenttook is ssue withthe eaccuracyof petitioners p su ummation of itsaccountab bilities, the a amountthereo ofwasreadily ydeterminablefromthereceipts,invoice esandotherd documents.Thus,theclaim mwaswell w withintheCOA Asjurisdiction nundertheGovernmentAu uditingCodeo ofthePhilippines. Futhermore,p F petitionersmo oneyclaimwa asfoundedon naseriesofp purchasesfort themedicalsuppliesofres spondents p publichospita ls.Bothpartie esagreedthat tthesetransac ctionswerego overnedbyth heLocalGover rnmentCodep provisions o onsupplyand propertyman nagementand dtheirimplem mentingrulesa andregulation nspromulgate edbytheCOA Apursuant t toSection383 3ofsaidCode.Petitioners claimtherefor reinvolvedco ompliancewit thapplicable auditinglawsandrules o onprocureme nt. Thecourtmay T yraisetheissu ueofprimary yjurisdiction sua s sponteand ditsinvocatio oncannotbew waivedbythe efailureof t thepartiesto argueitasthedoctrineexi istsfortheproperdistribut tionofpower rbetweenjudi icialandadmi inistrative b bodiesandnot tfortheconve enienceofthe eparties. oOo LOUIS"BA AROK"C.BIRA AOGO,Petitio oner,vs.THE EPHILIPPINE ETRUTHCOM MMISSIONOF2010,Respon ndent. G.R R.No.192935Decem mber7,2010 It should be str I ressed that the e purpose of allowing a ad ho oc investigatin ng bodies to ex xist is to allow w an inquiry into matters w which the Pres sident is entitl led to know so o that he can be properly advised and gu uided in the pe erformance of f his duties r relative to the execution and d enforcement t of the laws of o the land. Th here being no changes in the e government t structure, t Court is not the o inclined to declare d such ex xecutive powe er as nonexist tent just becau use the directio on of the polit tical winds h changed. have T This is a pro oduct of two consolidated d cases quest tioning the co onstitutionality of the defunct Philippine Truth C Commission ( (PTC). In his first official act a as Preside ent, Mr.Aquino signed Executive Order No. 1 which created a s special body to investigat te reported cases c of graf ft and corrup ption alleged dly committed d during the previous a administration n. ISSUE(S): denthavethe epowertocre eatethePhilip ppineTruthCo ommissionby yvirtueofSec c31ofthe 1. DoesthePresid nistrative Cod de, which gran nts him the power p to reo organize his office? Is the ere a valid Revised Admin elegationofpowerfromCo ongress,empoweringthePr residenttocre eateapublico office? deA Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

5|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts 2. Did the Execut tive Branch tr ransgressed the t budgeting powers of th he Legislative e by the creat tion of the TC? PT 3. DoesthePresid denthavethepowertocrea ateAdHocInv vestigatingCommittees? sthecreationofthePTCvio olativeofthee equalprotectio onclause? 4. Is H HELD : P Petitionsare G GRANTED . C Creation ofth hePTC Section31con S ntemplates"re eorganization"aslimitedby ythefollowin ngfunctionala andstructurallines:(1)rest tructuring t theinternalor rganizationof f theOfficeoft thePresidentProperbyabolishing,cons solidatingorm mergingunitsthereofor t transferringfu unctionsfromoneunittoanother;(2)transferringany yfunctionund dertheOfficeofthePresidenttoany o otherDepartm ment/Agencyo orviceversa;or(3)transfe erringanyage encyundertheOfficeofthe ePresidentto anyother D Department/A Agencyorvice eversa.Clearl ly,theprovisi ionreferstor reductionofp personnel,con nsolidationof offices,or a abolition there eof by reason n of economy or redundan ncy of function ns. These poin nt to situation ns where a body or an o office is already existent but b a modifica ation or alter ration thereof f has to be effected. The creation c of an n office is n nowherement tioned,muchl lessenvisione edinsaidprov vision. T TheOSGsreli iancetoP.D.1 1416,asamen ndedbyP.D.N No.1772ismi isplaced.The saidlawgave ethenPreside entMarcos t thepowertor reorganizethe eadministrativestructureo ofthenational lgovernmentincludingthe epowertocreateoffices a transfer appropriations and a s pursuant to o an impendin ng transition of o governmen nt to a parliam mentary form. . Such law w wasrepealedb bythe1987Constitution. NoTransgres N ssionofBudge etingPowersoftheLegisla ative O Onthecharge thatExecutiveOrderNo.1transgressesthepowerofCongresstoappropriatefundsfortheop perationof a apublicoffice, ,sufficeittosaythattherew willbenoapp propriationbu utonlyanallot tmentoralloc cationsofexistingfunds a already appro opriated. Accordingly, there e is no usurpa ation on the part p of the Ex xecutive of the e power of Co ongress to a appropriate fu unds. Further r, there is no o need to specify the amount to be earmarked e for r the operati ion of the c commissionbe ecause,inthewordsoftheSolicitorGene eral,"whateve erfundstheCo ongresshaspr rovidedforth heOfficeof t President will be the very source of the f the funds for the commis ssion." Moreov ver, since the amount that would be a allocatedtoth hePTCshallbe esubjecttoex xistingauditingrulesandre egulations,the ereisnoimpro oprietyinthefunding. P Power ofthePresident P tocreate c AdHoc cinvestigating gCommittee Indeed, the Ex xecutive is giv ven much leeway in ensur ring that our laws l are faith hfully execute ed. As stated above, a the p powers of the e President ar re not limited d to those spe ecific powers under the Co onstitution.53 One of the recognized r p powers of the e President granted pursu uant to this co onstitutionally ymandated duty d is the power to crea ate ad hoc c committees.T Thisflowsfrom mtheobvious sneedtoascertainfactsanddeterminei iflawshaveb beenfaithfully yexecuted. T Thus, in Department of Hea alth v. Campos sano, the auth hority of the President to issue Adminis strative Order r No. 298, c creating an in nvestigative committee c to look into th he administrative charges filed against the employe ees of the D Departmentof fHealthforth heanomalouspurchaseofmedicineswas m idcase,itwasruled: upheld.Insai The Chief Executives pow T wer to create e the Ad hoc c Investigatin ng Committee e cannot be doubted. Hav ving been c constitutionall lygrantedfull lcontrolofth heExecutiveD Department,to owhichrespo ondentsbelong,thePreside enthasthe o obligationtoe ensurethatallexecutiveoffi icialsandemp ployeesfaithfu ullycomplyw withthelaw.W WithAO298as smandate, theinvestigat t thelegalityof tionissustained.Suchvalid dityisnotaffec ctedbythefac ctthattheinv vestigatingtea amandtheA Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

6|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts P PCAGC had th he same comp position, or th hat the former r used the of ffices and facilities of the la atter in condu ucting the inquiry s that the purpose of o allowing ad hoc investig gating bodies s to exist is to o allow an inquiry into It should be stressed m matterswhich hthePresiden ntisentitledto oknowsotha athecanbep properlyadvisedandguided dintheperformanceof h hisdutiesrelat tivetotheexe ecutionanden nforcementof fthelawsofth heland.There ebeingnochangesinthego overnment s structure,the Courtisnoti inclinedtodeclaresuchexe ecutivepower rasnonexist tentjustbecau usethedirect tionofthe p politicalwinds shavechanged. V Violation ofth heEqualProt tectionClause e A Althoughthe purposeofth heTruthComm missionfallsw withintheinv vestigativepow werofthePresident,theC Courtfinds d difficultyinup pholdingthec constitutionali ityofExecutiv veOrderNo.1 1inviewofits sapparenttra ansgressionof ftheequal p protectionclau useenshrined dinSection1,ArticleIII(Bil llofRights)ofthe1987Con f nstitution. The clear man T ndate of the envisioned tr ruth commiss sion is to inv vestigate and find out the truth "conce erning the r reportedcases sofgraftandcorruptiondu uringtheprev viousadminist trationonly. Theintentto singleoutthe eprevious a administration nisplain,pate entandmanif fest.Mention ofithasbeen nmadeinatle eastthreepor rtionsoftheq questioned e executiveorde er. Inthisregard,itmustbeborneinmindth hattheArroyo oadministrati ionisbutjustamemberofa aclass,thatis s,aclassof p past administr rations. It is not n a class of f its own. Not t to include past administr rations similar rly situated constitutes c a arbitrariness which the equal e protect tion clause cannot c sancti ion. Such discriminating differentiatio on clearly r reverberatest tolabelthecom mmissionasa avehicleforvi indictivenessandselectiveretribution. oOo B BRILLANTES, C. MANILAINTERNATIO ONALAIRPOR RTAUTHORIT TY(MIAA),petitioner, e vs.CO OURTOFAPP PEALS,respon ndent. G G.R.No.15565 0 July20,2006 M is a gove MIAA ernment instr rumentality ve ested with corp porate powers s to perform efficiently e its governmental g functions. M islikean MIAA nyothergovern nmentinstrum mentality,theonly o difference eisthatMIAAisvestedwithcorporatepow wers. P Petitioner Man nila International Airport Authority (MIAA) operates s the Ninoy Aquino A Intern national Airpo ort (NAIA) C Complex in Pa araaque City y under Execu utive Order No o. 903, otherw wise known as a the Revised d Charter of the t Manila International Airport Autho ority (MIAA Charter). Executive E Order No. 903 was w issued on n 21 July 1983 by then P PresidentFerd dinandE.Marcos.Subseque ently,Executiv veOrderNos.909and298a amendedtheM MIAACharter r. A Asoperatorof ftheinternat tionalairport, MIAAadministerstheland d,improveme entsandequip pmentwithin ntheNAIA C Complex. The e MIAA Chart ter transferred d to MIAA ap pproximately 600 hectares of land, inclu uding the run nways and b buildings (Air rport Lands and a Buildings) then under r the Bureau of Air Transp portation. The e MIAA Chart ter further p providesthat noportionof f thelandtran nsferredtoMI IAAshallbed disposedofthr roughsaleor anyothermo odeunless s specificallyap ePresidentofthePhilippine es. provedbythe O On21March1 1997,theOffic ceoftheGovernmentCorpo orateCounsel(OGCC)issuedOpinionNo. .061.TheOGCCopined t thattheLocal GovernmentC Codeof1991withdrewthe eexemptionfr romrealestat tetaxgranted dtoMIAAund derSection

A Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

7|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts 2 21oftheMIAA ACharter.Th hus,MIAAnego otiatedwithr respondentCit tyofParaaquetopaythe realestatetax ximposed b bytheCity.M IAAthenpaid dsomeofther realestatetaxalreadydue. O 28 June 20 On 001, MIAA received Final Notices N of Re eal Estate Tax x Delinquency y from the Cit ty of Paraaqu ue for the t taxableyears1 1992to2001. . T TheCityofPar raaque,throu ughitsCityTr reasurer,issue ednoticesofl levyandwarrantsoflevyon ntheAirportLandsand B Buildings.Th eMayorofth heCityofPara aaquethreat tenedtosella atpublicauct tiontheAirpo ortLandsandBuildings s shouldMIAAf failtopaytherealestatetax xdelinquency.MIAAthusso oughtaclarificationofOGCCOpinionNo. .061. O OGCCissuedO OpinionNo.14 47clarifying OGCCOpinion nNo.061.Th heOGCCpoint tedoutthatS Section206of ftheLocal G GovernmentC Coderequires personsexem mptfromreal estatetaxto showproofo ofexemption. TheOGCCop pinedthat S Section21oft theMIAAChar rteristheproofthatMIAAi isexemptfrom mrealestatet tax. M MIAAfiledwit ththeCourto ofAppealsan originalpetit tionforprohib bitionandinjunction,with prayerforpr reliminary injunctionort temporaryres strainingorde er.Thepetitio onsoughttor restraintheC CityofParaaq quefromimp posingreal e estatetaxon,l levyingagains st,andauction ningforpublicsaletheAirp portLandsan ndBuildings.B Butthecourt dismissed t thepetitionbe ecauseMIAA fileditbeyondthe60day reglementary yperiod.Mean nwhile,theCityofParaaq queposted a andpublished ctionsale. noticesofauc A day before the A t public auc ction, or on 6 6 February 20 003, at 5:10 p.m., MIAA file ed before SC an a Urgent Ex Parte and R ReiteratoryMo otionfortheI IssuanceofaT TemporaryRe estrainingOrd der.Courtorderedrespondentstoceaseanddesist f fromsellingat tpublicauctio ontheAirportLandsandB Buildings.Res spondentsrec ceivedtheTROonthesamedaythat t theCourtissu edit.Howev ver,responden ntsreceivedth heTROonlya at1:25p.m.orthreehours safterthecon nclusionof t thepublicauct tion. ISSUE: W WhethertheA AirportLandsandBuildings sofMIAAaree exemptfromr realestatetax xunderexistin nglaws. H HELD: P Petition is GR RANTED. MIA AAs Airport Lands and Buildings B are exempt from m real estate tax imposed d by local g governments. M MIAAisnota governmentownedorcon ntrolledcorpo orationbutan ninstrumenta alityoftheNa ationalGovern nmentand t thus exempt from f local tax xation. A gove ernmentowne ed or controll led corporatio on must be o organized as a a stock or n nonstockcorp poration.MIA AAisnotorga anizedasastockornonst tockcorporati ion.MIAAisn notastockco orporation b because it ha as no capital stock divided d into shares s. MIAA has no stockhold ders or voting g shares. Sec c 3 of the C CorporationC whosecapita alstockisdivi idedintoshar resandxxxa authorized odedefinesastockcorporationasonew t todistributeto otheholders ofsuchshare esdividendsx xxx.MIAAha ascapitalbut itisnotdivid dedintoshare esofstock. M MIAA has no stockholders or voting sha ares. Hence, MIAA M is not a a stock corpor ration. MIAA is also not a nonstock c corporationbe ecauseithas nomembers. Anonstockc corporationis sonewhere nopartofits incomeisdis stributable a asdividendst toitsmember rs,trusteesor rofficers.An nonstockcorporationmus sthavememb bers.Evenifw weassume t that the Gover rnment is con nsidered as th he sole memb ber of MIAA, this t will not make m MIAA a nonstock corporation. N Nonstock cor rporations can nnot distribut te any part of their income to their me embers. Sec 11 1 of the MIA AA Charter m mandatesMIA AAtoremit20 0%ofitsannualgrossopera atingincomet totheNationa alTreasury.Th hispreventsM MIAAfrom q qualifyingasa anonstockcorporation. M MIAA is a go overnment in nstrumentality y vested with h corporate powers p to pe erform efficie ently its gove ernmental f functions. MI IAA is like an ny other government inst trumentality, the only diffe erence is tha at MIAA is ve ested with c corporatepow wers.A Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

8|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts W When the law w vests in a government g i instrumentalit ty corporate powers, the instrumentali ity does not become a c corporation. U Unless the gov vernment inst trumentality is i organized as a a stock or nonstock co orporation, it remains a g governmentin nstrumentality yexercisingn notonlygover rnmentalbuta alsocorporate epowers.Th hus,MIAAexe ercisesthe g governmental powersofem minentdomain n,policeautho orityandthele evyingoffeesandcharges.Atthesameti ime,MIAA e exercises allt the powers of acorporatio on under the CorporationL Law, insofara asthese powe ersare not inc consistent w with the provisions of th his Executive Order. Like ewise, when the law ma akes a gover rnment instru umentality o operationally autonomous, the instrume entality remains part of th he National Government G m machinery alth hough not integrated wit th the depart tment framew work. The MIAA M Charter expressly sta ates that tran nsforming MIAA into a separateand autonomousb bodywillma akeitsoperatio onmorefinanciallyviable. . T There is also no n reason for r local govern nments to tax national gove ernment instr rumentalities for rendering g essential p publicservices stoinhabitan ntsoflocalgov vernments.Th heonlyexceptioniswhent thelegislature eclearlyinten ndedtotax g government i instrumentalit ties for the delivery of essential pub blic services for sound and a compelli ing policy c considerations s. There mu ust be expre ess language in the law empowering e local governments to tax x national g governmentin nstrumentaliti ies.Anydoub btwhethersuc chpowerexis stsisresolvedagainstlocalgovernments. . T AirportLa The andsandBuil ldings of MIA AA arepropert ty of publicd dominion unde er the Civil Co ode, like roads, canals, r rivers,torrent ts,portsandri idgesconstruc ctedbytheSta ate,areowne edbytheState e.Thetermp poetsincludesseaports a andairports.A Aspropertieso ofpublicdom minion,theAirp portLandsan ndBuildingsar reoutsidethecommerceof fman. M MIAA is gover rnment instru umentality ves sted with corp porate power rs, the fact tha at it collects terminal t fees and other c chargesisofn nomoment,it doesnotrem movethechara acteroftheai irportlandsa andbuildingst toproperties forpublic u use.Therefore e,theyarepub blicdominionoutsidetheco ommerceofm man.MIAAisnotsubjecttor realpropertyt taxes. oOo GOVER RNMENTSERV VICEINSURA ANCESYSTEM M(GSIS)vs.CITYTREASUR REROFTHECITY C OFMANI ILA December23,2009 G.R.No.186242 m 9 G isaninstr GSIS rumentalityof ftheNationalGovernmentnot n aGOCC.AGOCC G shouldbe b acorporatio on.Itshouldhave h stocks d divided intoshares.GSIScap pitalisnotdivi idedintounitshared. s Also,it thasnomemb berstospeakof. o P PetitionerGSI Sownsoruse edtoowntwo oparcelsofla and,oneisthe eKatibakprop perty,andthe eothertheCo oncepsion A Arroceros pro operty. Title to the ConcepsionArrocero os property was w transferre ed to the Sup preme Court in in 2005 p pursuanttoPr roclamationN No.835datedA April27,2005 5.BoththeGSISandtheMe eTCofManilao occupytheCo oncepsion A Arrocerospro perty,whileth heKatibakpro opertywasun nderlease. T Thecontrover rsystartedwh hentheCityTr reasurerofManilaaddressedaletterto GSISPresiden ntandGenera alManager W WinstonGarci iainformingh himoftheunp paidrealprope ertytaxesdue eontheaforem mentionedpr ropertiesfory years1992 t 2002, brok to ken down as follows: (a) P54, 826,599 9.37 for the Katibak K prope erty; and (b) P48,498,91.0 01 for the C ConcepsionAr rrocerosprop perty.Thelette erwarnedoft theinclusionsofthesubject tpropertiesin ntheschedule edOctober 3 30,2002publ licauctionof alldelinquent tpropertiesin nManilashou uldtheunpaid dtaxesremai inunsettledb beforethat d date. T TheCityTreas surerofMani ilaissuedsepa arateNotices ofRealtyTax xDelinquency yforthesubje ectproperties s,withthe u usualwarning gofseizurean nd/orsale.OnOctober8,20 002,GSIS,thro oughitslegalcounsel,wrot tebackempha asizingthe G GSISexemptio onfromallkin ndsoftaxes,in ncludingrealty ytaxes,under rRA8291. T TheGSISlater ramendeditspetitiontoincludethefact tthat:(a)the Katibakprope ertyhas,since eNovember2 2001,been leasedtoando occupiedbyth heManilaHot telCorporatio on(MHC),whi ichhascontra actuallybound ditselftopayanyrealtyA Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

9|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts t taxesthatmay ybeimposed onthesubjec ctproperty;an nd(b)theCon ncepsionArro ocerospropert tyispartlyoc ccupiedby G GSISandpartl ytheMeTCofManila. yoccupiedby T TheRTCdismi issedthepetit tionofGSIS.T Thus,theinstantpetitionfor rreviewonpu urequestiono oflaw. ISSUE: W WhetherGSIS isexemptfrom mrealproper rtytax? H HELD: P Petitionis GRA ANTED. G GSISwasestab blishedundertheCommonw wealthAct18 86,asanonst tockcorporati ionmanagedb byaboardoft trustees,a s statusthathas sremainedun nchangedevenwhenitope eratedunderP PD1146,whi ichprovidedf foranewtax treatment f forGSIS,andR RA8291,alaw wwhichreen nactedtheful lltaxexempti ionprivilegeo ofGSISinPD1 1146.GSISis notinthe c context of Sec c 139 of LGC which w provid des for a gene eral provision on withdraw wal of tax exem mption privile ege, and a s specialprovisi iononwithdra awalofexemp ptionfrompay ymentofrealpropertytaxe esinallGOCCinSec234. G GSISisaninst trumentalityo oftheNationa alGovernmen ntnotaGOCC C.AGOCCsho ouldbeacorp poration.Itsh houldhave s stocksdivided dintoshares. GSIScapital isnotdivided dintounitsha ared.Also,ith hasnomemberstospeako of.Andby m members,the tothosewhom makeupthen nonstockcorporation,and dnotthecomp pulsorymemb bersofthe referenceist s system who are a governmen nt employees s. Its managem ment is entrusted to a Boa ard of Trustee es whose mem mbers are a appointedbyt thePresident. T Thesubjectpr ropertiesunde ertheGSISnamearelikew wiseownedby ytheRepublic c.TheGSISis butmeretrus steeofthe s subject proper rties which have h either be een ceded to it i by the Government or acquired a for th he enhancement of the s system. This particular p pro operty arrangement is clea arly shown by y the fact that t the disposal l or conveyan nce of said s subjectproper rtiesareeithe erdonebyort thrutheautho orityofthePresident.Speci ifically,inthecaseoftheCo oncepsion A Arrocerospro perty,itwast transferred,co onveyed,andc cededtotheS SCthroughaP PresidentialPr roclamation. G GSIS manages s the funds fo or the life insurance, retire ement, surviv vorship, and disability d bene efits of all go overnment e employeesand dtheirbeneficiaries.Thisu undertaking,t tobesure,con nstitutesane essentialandv vitalfunction whichthe g government,th hruoneofitsagenciesorin nstrumentaliti ies,oughttop perform. U UndertheDoc ctrineofBene eficialUse,the eRepublicis allowedtogr rantbeneficialuseofitspr ropertytoan agencyor instrumentalit tyofthenatio onalgovernment.Suchgran ntdoesnotn necessarilyres sultinthelos ssofthetax exemption. e T Thetaxexemp ptiontheprop pertyoftheRe epublicoritsinstrumentalit tycarriesceas sesonlyif,be eneficialuseth hereofhas b been granted, for considera ation or other rwise, to a tax xable person. . GSIS, as a government g in nstrumentality y, is not a t taxable juridic cal person ho owever, it was s lost in a sen nse that statu us with respec ct to the Kati igbak propert ty when it c contracted its s beneficial use to MHC, a a taxable person. The real l estate taxt of that property is valid. But such c corresponding g liability for the payment thereof devo olves on the taxable t benefi icial user. The e City of Man nila has to s satisfyitstaxc claimbyservi ingtheaccrue edrealtytaxa assessmenton nMHC,asata axablebenefic cialuserofthe eKatigbak p property. oOo INTHE EMATTEROF FTHEBREWR RINGCONTRO OVERSIESINTHEELECTIO ON INTHE EINTEGRATE EDBAROFTH HEPHILIPPIN NES A.M.No.0952SC 2010 December14,2 A Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

10 0|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts T Court in an The a en banc Resolution dated June 2, 20 009 created a Special Inves stigation Com mmittee to look into the brewing cont troversies in the IBP elect tions, specifically in the elections of Vic ce President for the Great ter Manila R RegionandEx xecutiveVice Presidentoft theIBPitself andanyother relectioncon ntroversyinvo olvingotherch haptersof t theIBP,ifany ,thatincludesasweltheel lectionoftheGovernorsfor rWesternMin ndanaoandW WesternVisaya as. theSpecial Committeecal C Consequently, C lled the IBPo officers involv ved toa prelim minaryconfer rence on June 10,2009. W With respect thereto, Atty. Vinluan then submitted a Preliminary y Conference brief on the same day. During D the c conferenceitw wasdetermine edthattheinv vestigationwo ouldfocusonthefollowingissuesorcont troversies: T Thecommittee ethendisclos sedthattheco ontroversiesin nvolvedherei inandshould beresolveda arethefollowi ing:1)the d disputeconcer rningaddition naldelegates oftheQCCha aptertotheH HouseofDeleg gates;2)thee electionofGov vernorfor t theGreaterMa anilaRegion( (GMR);3)theelectionofGo overnorforW WesternVisaya asRegion;4)t theelectionof fGovernor f Western Mindanao for M Reg gion; 5) the re esolution of th he election pr rotests; 6) the election of the IBP Execu utive Vide P Presidentfort the20092011 1term;and,7 7)theadminist trativecompla aintagainstEV VPVinluan. ntroversies,th hecommitteea arrivedatthefollowingfind dingsandconclusions: Inaddressingtheabovecon 1. Thesi ilenceofsec3 31,ArtVofIB BPbylawson nwhomaybe eelectedasad dditionaldelegatesandalte ernatesby there emainingmem mbersoftheBo oardofOfficersoftheChap pterwhentheChapterisen ntitledtomore ethantwo delega atestotheHouseofDelegates,istherootcauseoftheconflictingre esolutionsofth heBautistaan ndVinluan faction ns onthe pro oper interpret tationofthe saidprovision s n of the bylaw ws. xxx It found the Vinlua an Groups interp pretation of sec31,ArtVof e fIBPbylaws inRes.No.XV VIII2009tobeinerrorand ddevoidofrationaland histor ricalbases. 2. Attys. Victoria Loan nzon and Mar rite Laqui we ere properly recognized r as delegates of the QC Chapt ter by the dingOfficer,G GMRGovMarc cialMagsino,d duringtheelec ctionon2009oftheGovoftheGMR,inaccordance Presid witht theguidelinesinRes.No.XV VIII2009. 3. Atty. Manuel M Maram mba was valid dly elected as s GMR Gov for 20092011 term. Howev ver, the electio on of Atty. Sorian nointhespeci ialelectionthatwaspreside edoverbyEV VPVinluanonMay2009wasanullity. 4. Atty. Erwin E Fortun nato of the Ro omblon Chapter was duly elected e as Gov v of the West tern Visayas Region R for 2009 2011. 5. Neithe er Atty. Nass ser Marohoms salic nor Atty y. Benjamin Lanto L is qualified to be el lected Vov of f Western Minda anaoRegion. 6. Theel lectionsforth heIBPExecutiveVicePresid dentseparatel lyheldonMay y9.2009byth heBautistaan ndVinluan Group pswerenullan ndoidforlack kofquorum. 7. Thead dministrativecomplaintagainstEVPVinluanandhisG GroupofGovsismeritorious. ISSUE: W Whetherthefi indingsandco onclusionsoft theCommitteearecorrect. H HELD: P Petitionis PAR RTIALLYGRA ANTED. swiththerec T eCourtcompletelyagree Th m commendation nsoftheSpeci ialCommittee ewithrespecttothefollowi ing 1 DeclaringA 1. Atty.Marimbaasthedulyel lectedGovernoroftheGMR Rfor2009201 11. 2 DeclaringA 2. Atty.Fortunate easthedulye electedGovof ftheWesternV VisayasRegio onfor200920 011term. D Duringtheele ection,itwasA Atty.Marimba awhogarnere edthehighestnumberofvo otesamongth hedelegatecom mparedto A Atty.Soriano. However,inst teadofaccept tingthesaidd defeat,Atty.Sorianothenfi iledanelectio onprotestclai imingthatA Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

11|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts t said electi the ion was void because ther re were nond delegates who o were allowe ed to vote. Th his then resulted in the a anomalousele ectionofAtty.SorianoasGo ovofGMRlastMay4,2009. fAtty.Soriano T Theelectiono ointhespecia alelectionwas sanullitybec cause:1)Atty.Sorianohadl lostalreadyon nApril25, 2 2009; 2) the election cond ducted by the e Vinluan Group was illega al because it was not calle ed nor presid ded by the r regionalGoc;3 3)Atty.Sorian noisdisqualifi fiedbecausehiselectionwo ouldviolateth herotationrulewhichtheSCrequires t be strictly implemented. to i . Hence, Atty. Soriano cann not be voted as a well as IBP P Executive Vi ice President for 2009 2 2011. W Withrespectt toAtty.Fortun nate,hiselect tionasGovfor rtheWestern nVisayasRegionwasupheldsinceheobtainedthe h highestnumbe erofvotesam mongthethree ecandidates,a andbecauseu undertherotai ionrule,itisn nowRomblon nChapters t turntoreprese ent. O the nullific On cation of the election of Atty. A Marohom mslic as Gov for f Western Mindanao M Reg gion, the Cour rt rules to u upholdtheele ection.Atty.M Marohomslicw wonoverhis rivalAtty.Lan ntoandwasd dulyproclaim med.Atty.Lant tofiledan e electionprotes standimmediately,thegro oupofVinluan nissuedaReso olutionproclaimingAtty.La antoasdulyel lectedGov w withoutafford dingAtty.Maro ohomslicdueprocess. A Accordingly, a special elect a tion shall be held by the present ninem man IBP Board of Govs to o elect the EV VP for the r remainder of the term of 20092011, 2 w which shall be e presided oer r and conduc cted by IBP OfficerinChar O rge Justice S SantiagoKapu unan. oOo

Q Quasi Legisl lativePower rs

C CONGRESSMA ANJAMESL.CHIONGBIAN C ,petitioner,vs.HON.OSCAR RM.ORBOS,respondent. r June22,1995 G.R.No.96754 n

T divisionof The fthecountryin ntoregionsisintendedtofa acilitatenoton nlytheadminis strationofloc calgovernmentsbutalso t directionof the fexecutivedep partmentswhi ichthelawrequires q shouldhave h regionaloffices. P Pursuant to Art. A X, Sec. 18 of the 198 87 Constitutio on, Congress passed R.A. No. 6734, th he Organic Ac ct for the A Autonomous R Region in Mu uslim Mindana ao, calling for r a plebiscite to be held in n the province es of Basilan, Cotabato, D Davao del Sur r, Lanao del Su ur, Maguindan nao, Palawan, South Cotab bato, Sultan Ku udarat, Sulu, TawiTawi, T Za amboanga d Norte, Zam del mboanga del Sur and the cities c Cotabat to, Dapitan, Dipolog, D Gener ral Santos, Ilig gan, Marawi, Pagadian, P PuertoPrinces saandZambo oanga.Inthee ensuingplebis sciteheldonN November16,1989,fourp provincesvote edinfavor o creating an autonomous region. These of e are the prov vinces of Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, M S Sulu and Taw wiTawi. In a accordancewi iththeconstitutionalprovis sion,thesepro ovincesbecam metheAutonomousRegioninMuslimMin ndanao. O Ontheotherh hand,withrespecttoprovin ncesandcities snotvotingin nfavoroftheA AutonomousR Region,Art.X XIX,Sec.13 o ofR.A.No.673 34provides, Thatonlythe eprovincesan ndcitiesvoting gfavorablyin nsuchplebisci itesshallbein ncludedin t the Autonomo ous Region in n Muslim Min ndanao. The provinces and cities whic ch in the pleb biscite do not t vote for inclusioninth heAutonomou usRegionshallremaininth heexistingad dministrative regions:Prov vided,howeve er,thatthe P Presidentmay y,byadministr rativedetermination,mergetheexistingregions. P Pres.Aquinois ssuedEO429Providingfo ortheReorgan nizationoftheAdministrativ veRegionsinMindanao. T petitioner The rs contended that there is no law which h authorizes the t President to pick certa ain provinces and cities w withintheexis stingregions,someofwhich hdidnoteven ntakepartint theplebecite.Theysubmitt thatwhilethe eauthority o ofthePresiden ntnecessarily yincludesthe authoritytom merge,theauthoritytomergedoesnoti includetheau uthoritytoA Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

12|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts r reorganize.Th herefore,theP President'sau uthorityunder rRANo.6734 4to"mergeex xistingregion ns"cannotbe construed t toincludethe authoritytor reorganizethe em.Todosow willviolatethe erulesofstatu utoryconstruc ction. A Also,theycont tendthatArtX XIX,Sec13ofRA6734isbe ecause(1)itu undulydelegat teslegislativepowertothePresident b authorizing by g him to "me erge [by admi inistrative det termination] the existing regions" r or at any rate pr rovides no s standar dfortheexerciseof h thepowerde elegatedand(2 2)thepowerg grantedisnot texpressedinthetitleofthelaw. Issues: 1. Wheth herthepower rto"merge"a administrative eregionsisleg gislativeinch haracter,orwhetheritisex xecutivein character,and,ina any event,whe etherArt.XIX X,Sec13isinv validbecause itcontainsno ostandardtoguidethe dent'sdiscreti ion; Presid 2. Wheth her Congress has provided d a sufficient standard in conferring on n the Presiden nt the power to merge admin nistrativeregions. H HELD: P ionisDISMISSED Petit S . 1. Powerto"merge"administrativ a veregions T The creation and subsequent reorganiz zation of adm ministrative regions have been by the President pu ursuant to a authority granted to him by law. In conferring on o the President the pow wer "to mer rge (by admi inistrative d determination n)theexisting gregions"follo owingtheesta ablishmentof ftheARMM,C Congressmere elyfollowedth hepattern s setinpreviou slegislationd datingbackto otheinitialor rganizationof administrativ veregionsin 1972.Thecho oiceofthe P Presidentasd delegateislog gicalbecauset thedivisiono ofthecountry yintoregions isintendedto ofacilitateno otonlythe a administration noflocalgove ernmentsbut talsothedire ectionofexecu utivedepartm mentswhicht thelawrequir resshould h have regional offices. It ha as been held that, "while the power to o merge adm ministrative re egions is not expressly p providedforin ntheConstitu ution,itisapo owerwhichh hastraditional llybeenlodge edwiththePr residenttofac cilitatethe e exerciseofthe epowerofgen neralsupervis sionoverloca algovernment ts."Theregion nsthemselves sarenotterri itorialand p politicaldivisi onslikeprovi inces,cities,m municipalitiesa andbarangay ysbutare"mer regroupingso ofcontiguousprovinces f fora dministrativepurposes a s." 2. Suffic cientstandard d d,alegislative standardnee ednotbeexpr ressed,itmay ysimplybega atheredorim mplied.Nor Inthequestionofstandard n needitbefoun ndinthelawc challengedbe ecauseitmayb beembodiedi inotherstatutesonthesam mesubjectast thatofthe c challengedleg gislation. W While Art. XIX X, Sec 13 prov vides that "Th he provinces and cities wh hich do not vo ote for inclusi ion in the Autonomous R Region shall remain r in the e existing adm ministrative re egions," this provision p is subject s to the e qualification n that "the P President may y by administ trative determ mination merg ge the existin ng regions." This T means th hat while non assenting p provincesand citiesaretor remaininther regionsasdes signatedupon nthecreationoftheAutono omousRegion, ,theymay n nevertheless b regrouped with contiguous provinces be s forming oth her regions as the exigency y of administration may r require. The regrouping r is s done only on o paper. It involves i no more m than a redefinition of o the lines separating s a administrative eregionsfort thepurposeoffacilitatingt theadministra ativesupervis sionoflocalgo overnmentun nitsbythe P Presidentand insuringthee efficientdelive eryofessentia alservices. T Thereorganiz ationofthere egionsinE.O. No.429isba asedonreleva antcriteria,to owit:(1)contiguityandgeo ographical f features; (a) transportation t n and commu unication facil lities; (3) cult tural and language groupings; (4) land d area and p population;(5 5)existingreg gionalcentersadoptedbys severalagenci ies;(6)socio economicdev velopmentpr rogramsin t theregionsan d(7)numberofprovincesandcities.A Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

13|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts W With respect to t the change e of regional center c from Zamboanga Z Ci ity to Pagadia an City, petitioner contend ds that the d determination nofprovincialcapitalshasa alwaysbeenb byactofCongr ress.Administ trativeregionsaremeregro oupingsof c contiguous provinces for ad dministrative purposes. Th hey are notte erritorial and political subd divisions like provinces, p c cities, municip palities and barangays. The ere is, therefo ore, no basis for contendin ng that only Congress C can change or d determinereg gionalcenters.Thepowert toreorganize administrativ veregionscar rrieswithitthepowertod determine t theregionalce enter. oOo ENZOM.TANA ADA,petitione er,vs.HON.JUAN U C.TUVER RA,respondent. LORE G. .R.No.L6391 15 Apr ril24,1985 A statutes, including those of local appli All ication and pr rivate laws, sh hall be published as a condition for their effectivity, w which shallbeg ginfifteenday ysafterpublica ationunlessadifferent d effectivitydateisfixed fi bytheleg gislature. people'sright tobeinforme edonmatters sofpubliccon ncern,aright recognizedin nSection6,Ar rticleIVof Invokingthep t the1973Phili tution,1aswe ellastheprinc ciplethatlawstobevalida andenforceab blemustbepu ublishedin ppineConstit t theOfficialGa zetteorother rwiseeffective elypromulgat ted,petitioner rsseekawrit ofmandamus stocompelre espondent p publicofficials stopublish,an ndorcauseth hepublication nintheOfficia alGazetteofva ariouspreside entialdecrees s,lettersof instructions,g generalorders s,proclamations,executiveo n orders,letterofimplementationandadm ministrativeor rders. T The responde ents, through the Solicitor r General, wo ould have th his case dism missed outrigh ht on the gro ound that p petitioners ha ave no legal personality p or r standing to bring the ins stant petition n. The view is s submitted th hat in the a absence of an ny showing th hat petitioner rs are person nally and dire ectly affected or prejudice ed by the alle eged non p publicationof f thepresidentialissuancesinquestion2 2saidpetition nersarewitho outtherequis sitelegalpers sonalityto institutethism mandamuspro oceeding,they yarenotbeing g"aggrievedp parties"within nthemeaning gofSection3,Rule65of t theRulesofCo ourt. rhand,petitio U Upontheothe onersmaintainthatsinceth hesubjectoft thepetitionco oncernsapubl licrightandit tsobjectis t tocompelthe performanceofapublicdu uty,theyneed notshowany yspecificinter restfortheirp petitiontobegivendue c course. Issues: 1. Whetherthepe W etitionershavelegalstandin ng. 2. Whetherpublic W cationintheO OfficialGazette eisrequired. H HELD: 1. Petiti ionershaveLe egalStanding g C Clearly, the ri ight sought to t be enforce ed by petition ners herein is s a public rig ght recognize ed by no less s than the f fundamentalla awoftheland d.Ifpetitioner rswerenotall lowedtoinstit tutethisproce eeding,itwou uldindeedbed difficultto c conceive of an ny other pers son to initiate e the same, considering c th hat the Solicit tor General, the t governme ent officer g generallyemp oweredtorep presentthepe eople,hasente eredhisappea aranceforrespondentsinth hiscase. 2. Public cationintheOfficialGazet tteisrequired d A Article2ofthe eCivilCode: A Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

14 4|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts " "ART.2.Laws sshalltakeef ffectafterfifte eendaysfollow wingthecom mpletionofthe eirpublication nintheOfficia alGazette, unlessit tisotherwiseprovided.Thi isCodeshallt takeeffectone eyearaftersu uchpublication n." T interpreta The ation given by y respondent is in accord with this Cou urt's construc ction of said article. a In a lo ong line of d decisions,this Courthasrul ledthatpublic cationintheO OfficialGazett teisnecessary yinthosecase eswherethel legislation it tselfdoesnot tprovidefori itseffectivity dateforthenthedateof publicationis smaterialfor determining itsdateof e effectivity,wh ichisthefifte eenthdayfollo owingitspubl licationbutn notwhenthelawitselfprov videsforthed datewhen it tgoesintoeff fect.Responde ents'argumen nt,however,islogicallycorr rectonlyinsof farasitequate estheeffectivityoflaws w withthefacto ofpublication. .Consideredi inthelightof otherstatutesapplicableto otheissueat hand,thecon nclusionis e easilyreached dthatsaidArt ticle2doesno otprecludeth herequiremen ntofpublicati ionintheOffi icialGazette,e evenifthe la awitselfprov videsfortheda ateofitseffec ctivity. T Theclearobje ctofthelawi istogivetheg generalpublic cadequatenot ticeofthevar riouslawswhi icharetoregu ulatetheir a actionsandco onductascitizens.Withouts suchnoticean ndpublication n,therewould dbenobasisfo ortheapplicat tionofthe m maxim" ignora antialegisnon nexcusat."Itw wouldbetheh heightofinjust ticetopunishorotherwiseburdenacitiz zenforthe t transgression ofalawofwh hichhehadno onoticewhats soever,noteve enaconstruct tiveone. T TheCourther rebyordersre espondentsto opublishinth heOfficialGaz zetteallunpub blishedpresid dentialissuan nceswhich a areofgeneral application,a andunlesssop published,the eyshallhaven nobindingforc ceandeffect. G.R.No.L63915 Decem mber29,1986 6 W When alawta akeseffect T Thesubjectof f contentionisArticle2ofth heCivilCodep providingasfo ollows: " "ART.2.Laws sshalltakeef ffectafterfifte eendaysfollow wingthecom mpletionofthe eirpublication nintheOfficia alGazette, unless sitisotherwis seprovided.T ThisCodeshal lltakeeffecto oneyearaftersuchpublicati ion." T Theclause" un nless it is othe erwise provide ed"referstoth hedateofeffe ectivityandn nottotherequ uirementofp publication it tself,whichca annotinanye eventbeomitt ted.Thisclaus sedoesnotme eanthatthele egislaturemay ymakethelaw weffective immediatelyu uponapproval l,oronanyoth herdate,with houtitspreviouspublication n. P Publicationis indispensable eineverycas se,butthelegislaturemayi initsdiscretio onprovideth hattheusualf fifteenday p periodshallbe eshortenedo orextended.A Anexampleis theCivilCode ewhichdidno otbecomeeff fectiveafterfif fteendays f fromitspublic cationintheO OfficialGazette ebut"oneyea araftersuchpu ublication."Th hegeneralruledidnotappl lybecause it twas"otherw wiseprovided." L Laws whichmust m besubjec ctedtopublic cation T Court holds that all statutes, The s inclu uding those of local applic cation and pr rivate laws, shall be published as a c conditionfort theireffectivit ty,whichshall lbeginfifteen ndaysafterpu ublicationunle essadifferent teffectivityda ateisfixed b bythelegislatu ure. C Covered by th his rule are pr residential decrees and exe ecutive orders spromulgated dby the President in the exercise e of legislativepow werswheneve erthesamear revalidlydelegatedbythel legislatureor, ,atpresent,di irectlyconferr redbythe C Constitution.A Administrative erulesandre egulationsmustalsobepub blishediftheir rpurposeisto oenforceorimplement e existinglawpu ursuantalsotoavaliddeleg gation. m intern nal in nature, , that is, reg gulating only the personn nel of the Interpretative regulations and those merely a administrative e agency and not the publ lic, need not be published. Neither is publication p required of the e socalledA Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

15|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts lettersofinstr ructionsissue edbyadminis strativesuperiorsconcernin ngtheruleso or guidelines tobefollowedbytheir s subordinatesi intheperform manceoftheirduties. A Accordingly, e even the charter of a city must m be publ lished notwith hstanding tha at it applies to o only a port tion of the n nationalterrit tory anddirec ctly affects on nly the inhabit tantsof that place. p All pres sidentialdecr rees must be published, p includingeven n,say,thosena amingapublicplaceaftera afavoredindiv vidualorexem mptinghimfro omcertainpr rohibitions o requiremen or nts. The circu ulars issued by b the Moneta ary Board mu ust be publish hed if they ar re meant not merely to interpretbutt to"fillinthede etails"oftheC CentralBankA Actwhichthat tbodyissupposedtoenforc ce. H However, no publication p is s required of the instructio ons issued by y, say, the Min nister of Soci ial Welfare on n the case s studies to be made in peti itions for ado option or the rules laid do own by the he ead of a gove ernment agen ncy on the a assignmentso orworkloadof fhispersonne elortheweari ingofofficeun niforms.Parenthetically,m municipalordin nancesare n notcoveredby ythisrulebut tbytheLocalG GovernmentC Code. T Thepublicatio onmustbein fulloritisno opublicationa atallsinceitspurposeisto oinformthep publicofthecontentsof t thelaws.Asco orrectlypoint tedoutbythe epetitioners,t themeremen ntionofthenu umberofthep presidentiald decree,the t title of such decree, d its whe ereabouts (e.g g., "with Secre etary Tuvera" "), the suppos sed date of eff fectivity, and in a mere s supplementof ftheOfficialG Gazettecannot tsatisfythepu ublicationrequ uirement. oOo P PAGUIO,A. SMA ARTCOMMUNICATIONS,Inc. I (SMART) ),petitioner,vs s.NATIONAL MUNICATIONS SCOMMISSIO ON(NTC),respondent p . TELECOMM G. .R.No.151908 8&152063/4 408SCRA679 12Au ugust2003 I questioning the validity or In o constitution nality of a rule e or regulation n issued by an n administrati ive agency, a party p need n exhaustad not dministrativeremedies r befor regoingtocou urt.Thisprinci ipleapplieson nlywheretheact a oftheadm ministrative a agency concer rned was perfo ormed pursuan nt to its quasi ijudicial funct tion, and not when w the assa ailed act perta ained to its r makingor rule rquasilegislativepower. P Pursuant to it ts rulemakin ng and regula atory powers, the National l Telecommun nications Com mmission (NT TC) issued M Memorandum m Circular No. 1362000 (the ( Billing Ci ircular), prom mulgating rule es and regula ations on the billing of t telecommunic es.Thesaidci ircularprovid dedfor,amon ngothers,the verificationo oftheidentific cationand ationsservice a addressofeac chpurchasero ofprepaidSIM Mcardsandth heforthelengthofvalidity yofprepaidcallcardsand SIMcards w whichshallbe eforatleasttw wo(2)yearsfr romthedateo offirstuse. L Later,theNTC CissuedanotherMemorand dumdatedOct tober6,2000w whichreads: Thisistorem mindyouthat thevalidityo ofallprepaidc cardssoldon 07October2 2000andbeyo ondshallbev validforat leasttwo(2)y yearsfromdat teoffirstusep pursuanttoM MC1362000. ll CMTS opera ators are rem minded that al ll SIM packs used by subscribers of pre epaid cards sold on 07 In addition, al O October2000 andbeyonds shallbevalid foratleasttw wo(2)yearsfr romdateoffi irstuse.Also, thebillingun nitshallbe o onasix(6)sec condspulseef ffective07Oct tober2000. F Forstrictcomp pliance. P Petitionersfile edbeforetheR RegionalTrial lCourt(RTC)anactionfordeclarationof fnullityofthe eMemorandum mCircular N No.1362000 0CircularandtheNTCMem morandumdat tedOctober6,2000,allegin ngthattheNT TChasnojuris sdictiontoA Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

16 6|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts r regulatethesa aleofconsum mergoodssuch hastheprepa aidcallcards sincesuchjur risdictionbelo ongstotheDe epartment o ofTradeandIn ndustryunder rtheConsume erActoftheP Philippines. R Respondent N NTC and its co odefendants filed a motio on to dismiss the case on the t ground of petitioners' failure to e exhaustadmin nistrativerem medies.TheRT TCgrantedthe eplaintiffs'ap pplicationfor theissuanceo ofawritofpr reliminary injunction.Def fendantsfiledamotionforreconsideration,whichwas sdenied. a special civi R Respondent N NTCthusfiled il action forcertiorari and prohibition with w theCourt tof Appeals which w was g granted and annulled a and set aside th he previous ruling r of RTC C. Petitioners' ' motions for r reconsideration were s subsequentlyd denied.HTP. ISSUE: W Whether the RTC R has jurisdiction in cas ses of nullifica ation of a pur rely administr rative regulat tion promulga ated by an a agencyinthee exerciseofitsrulemakingp powers. H HELD: T Thepetitionsa areGRANTED D. A Administrative e agencies possess p quasilegislative or o rulemakin ng powers an nd quasijudi icial or admi inistrative a adjudicatoryp powers.Quasi legislativeor rrulemakingpoweristhep powertomak kerulesandre egulationswhi ichresults in delegated le egislation tha at is within th he confines of f the granting g statute and the t doctrine of o nondelega ability and s separabilityof fpowers. N Nottobeconf fusedwiththe equasilegislativeorrulem makingpower ofanadminis strativeagenc cyisitsquasijudicialor a administrative eadjudicatory ypower.This isthepower tohearandd determineque estionsoffact towhichthe legislative p policy is to ap pply and to decide d in acc cordance with h the standards laid down n by the law itself in enfo orcing and a administering thesamelaw w.Theadminis strativebody exercisesitsq quasijudicial powerwhen itperformsin najudicial m manneranact twhichisesse entiallyofane executiveora administrative enature,wher rethepowert toactinsuchmanneris incidentaltoo orreasonably necessaryfor rtheperform manceoftheex xecutiveorad dministrative dutyentruste edtoit.In c carrying out their t quasijud dicial function ns, the administrative offic cers or bodies s are required d to investigat te facts or a ascertain the existence of facts, f hold hearings, weigh h evidence, an nd draw concl lusions from them as basis s for their o officialactiona andexerciseo ofdiscretionin najudicialna ature. gthevalidityo orconstitution nalityofarule eorregulation nissuedbyan nadministrati iveagency,ap partyneed Inquestioning n exhaust administrative not a e remedies before b going to court. Th his principle applies only where the act a of the a administrative eagencyconce ernedwasper rformedpursu uanttoitsqua asijudicialfun nction,andno otwhentheas ssailedact p pertainedtoit tsrulemaking gorquasilegi islativepower r. r,thedoctrine eofprimaryjurisdictionap ppliesonlywh heretheadministrativeage encyexercises sitsquasi Inlikemanner udicialoradju udicatoryfunc ction.Thus,in ncasesinvolvi ingspecialized ddisputes,thepracticehas sbeentorefer rthesame ju t toanadminist trativeagency yofspecialco ompetencepu ursuanttothe edoctrineofp primaryjurisd diction.Theob bjectiveof t doctrine of the o primary jur risdiction isto o guidea cour rt in determin ning whether it should refr rain from exe ercising its ju urisdiction un ntil after an administrative a e agency has determined some s question or some as spect of some e question a arisinginthep proceedingbe eforethecour rt.Itappliesw wheretheclaim misoriginally ycognizableinthecourtsa andcomes intoplaywhen neverenforce ementofthec claimrequires stheresolutio onofissueswh hich,undera regulatorysc cheme,has b beenplacedw withinthespec cialcompeten nceofanadmi inistrativebody;insuchca ase,thejudicia alprocessiss suspended p pendingreferr ralofsuchissu uestotheadm ministrativebo odyforitsview w. H However,whe erewhatisass sailedistheva alidityorcons stitutionalityo ofaruleorreg gulationissue edbytheadmi inistrative a agencyinthep performanceo ofitsquasileg gislativefunct tion,theregul larcourtshav vejurisdiction ntopassuponthesame.A Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

17|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts T Thedetermina ationofwheth heraspecificr ruleorsetofr rulesissuedby yanadminist trativeagency ycontravenesthelawor t theconstitutio oniswithinth hejurisdictionoftheregular rcourts. t bar, the issu uance by the NTC of Memorandum Circ cular No. 1362000 and its Memorand dum dated In the case at O October 6, 2000 was pursu uant to its qu uasilegislative e or rulemak king power. As A such, petitioners were ju ustified in invokingtheju udicialpoweroftheRegionalTrialCourttoassailthec constitutionali ityandvalidit tyofthesaidissuances. oOo EASTERNSHIPPING S LIN NES,petitioner r,vs.COURTOF O APPEALSand a DAVAOPILOTS P ASSOC CIATION,resp pondent. 6 29June1998 G G.R.No.11635 W determin What nes whether an a act is a law w or an administrative issua ance is not its form but its nature. n Here as a we have a already said, the t power to fix f the rates of f charges for services, s includ ding pilotage service, has always a been re egarded as le egislativeinch haracter. P Private respon ndent Davao Pilots Associa ation (DPA) elevated e a com mplaint again nst petitioner Eastern Ship pping Line ( (petitioner)fo orsumofmoneyandattorney'sfeesalleg gingthatthefo ormerhadren nderedpilotag geservicestopetitioner b between Janu uary 14, 1987 7 to July 22, 1989 with to otal unpaid fees f of P703,290.18. Desp pite repeated demands, p petitioner faile ed to pay. Pet titioner assail led the consti itutionality of f the Executive e Order (EO) 1088 upon which w DPA b basesitsclaim ms. T TheRegionalT TrialCourt(R RTC)grantedt thepetitionof ftheprivatere espondentwh hichrulingwa asaffirmedby ytheCourt o ofAppeals(CA A).HTP. ISSUE: W WhetherEO1 stitutional. 088isuncons H HELD: T Thepetitionis sDENIED. P Petitionerinsi iststhatitsho ouldpaypilot tagefeesinac ccordancewit thandonthebasisofthem memorandum mcirculars issuedbythe PPA,theadm ministrativebo odyvestedun nderPD857w withthepowe ertoregulate eandprescrib bepilotage f fees. In assaili ing the constitutionality of f EO 1088, the e petitioner re epeatedly ask ks: "Is the priv vate responde ent vested w hpowertointerpretExe wit ecutiveOrderNo.1088?" n Shi ipping Associa ation of the Ph hilippines vs. Court C of Appeals,the Supre eme Court, th hrough Mr. InPhilippine Interisland eV.Mendoza, ,upheldthev validityandco onstitutionalit tyofExecutiv veOrder1088 8innouncert tainterms. JusticeVicente W Weaptlyitera teourpronou uncementinsaidcase, a viz.: y that E.O. No o. 1088 shoul ld not be con nsidered a sta atute because e that would imply the It is not an answer to say w withdrawalof fpowerfromt thePPA.Wha atdetermines whetherana actisalawor anadministrativeissuance eisnotits f formbutitsna ature.Hereas swehavealre eadysaid,thepowertofixt theratesofch hargesforserv vices,includin ngpilotage s service,hasalw waysbeenreg gardedaslegis slativeinchar racter. x xxxxxxxxx onotethatE.O O.NO.1088pr rovidesforad djustedpilotag geservicerate eswithoutwit thdrawingthe epowerof Itisworthyto t thePPAtoim pose,prescrib be,increaseordecreaserat tes,chargeso orfees.There easonisbecau useE.O.No.1088isnotA Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

18 8|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts m meant simply to fix new pilotage p rates. Its legislativ ve purpose is s the "rationa alization of pi ilotage service e charges, t throughtheim mpositionofun niformandad djustedratesf forforeignand dcoastwiseve esselsinallPh hilippineports s. x xxxxxxxxx W Weconcludet thatE.O.No.1 1088isavalid dstatuteand thatthePPA Aisdutyboun ndtocomplyw withitsprovisions.The P PPAmayincre easetheratesbutitmaynot tdecreasethe embelowthos semandatedb byE.O.No.108 88..... W Weseenorea asontodepart tfromthisrul ling.TheCour rt'sholdingcle earlydebunks spetitioner's insistenceon payingits p pilotagefeesb basedonmem morandumcirc cularsissuedb bythePPA.B BecausethePP PAcircularsareinconsisten ntwithEO 1 1088,theyare evoidandineffective."Adm ministrativeor rexecutiveact ts,ordersand dregulationss shallbevalido onlywhen t theyarenotco ontrarytothe elawsortheC Constitution." Asstatedby thisCourtinLand L Bank of the Philippine es vs. Court o Appeals,[t] of ]heconclusive eeffectofadm ministrativeconstructionis snotabsolute e.Actionofan nadministrati iveagency m maybedisturb bedorsetasidebythejudi icialdepartme entifthereis anerrorofla aw,agraveab buseofpower rorlackof ju urisdiction,or rgraveabuse eofdiscretion nclearlyconflictingwitheit thertheletter rorspiritoft thelaw."Itis axiomatic t that an admin nistrative agen ncy, like the PPA, P has no discretion d whether to impl lement the law w or not. Its duty is to e enforce it. Una arguably, ther refore, if ther re is any confl lict between the t PPA circu ular and a law w, such as EO 1088, the la atterprevails. oOo ICEEXPORTE ERS,INC.,petit tioner,vs.HON N.RUBEND.TORRES T ,resp pondent. PHILIPPINEASSOCIATIONOFSERVI G.R.No.101279/212SCRA2996 August1992 A Administrative e rules and re egulations mus st also be pub blished if their purpose is to t enforce or implement ex xisting law p pursuant toavalid v delegatio on.Interpretat tiveregulation nsandthosemerely m internal linnature,tha atis,regulatin ngonlythe p personnel of th he administrat tive agency an nd not the pub blic, need not be published. Neither is pub blication required of the s called letter so rs of instructio ons issued by administrativ ve superiors co oncerning the rules of guidelines to be fo ollowed by t their subordinates in the pe erformance of f their duties. For lack of proper p publica ation, the adm ministrative ci irculars in q question maynot n beenforced dandimpleme ented. P Philippine Association of Service Impo orters (PASEI I, for short) is the larges st national organization o o private of e employment a and recruitm ment agencies duly license ed and autho orized by the e Philippine Overseas Em mployment A Administration n(POEA)toe engageinthe businessofobtainingover rseasemploym mentforFilipi inolandbased dworkers, includingdom mestichelpers. O OnJune1,199 91,Departmen ntofLaboran ndEmployment(DOLE)Sec cretaryissued dDepartment tOrderNo.16 6,Seriesof 1 1991,tempora arilysuspendi ingtherecruit tmentbypriv vateemploymentag e enciesofFilipinodo o omestichelper rsgoingto H HongKong.T TheDOLEitsel lf,throughthe ePOEAtookov verthebusine essofdeployin ngsuchHongKongboundw workers. P Pursuant to th he above DOLE circular, the t POEA issu ued Memoran ndum Circular No. 30, Ser ries of 1991, providing G GUIDELINES o the Govern on nment proces ssing and dep ployment of Filipino F dome estic helpers to Hong Kon ng and the a accreditationo ofHongKongrecruitmenta agenciesinten ndingtohireF Filipinodomes stichelpers.Thiswasfollow wedbythe issuance of Memorandum Circular C No. 37, 3 Series of 1991, 1 on the processing of f employment t contracts of f domestic w workersinHo ngKong.HTP Pforprohibitio ontoannulth heaforementio onedDOLEan ndPOEAcircul lars. ISSUE: W Whether the Department D Order O and Mem morandum Ci irculars are void v for noncompliance wi ith the requir rements of p publicationan ndfilingwitht theOfficeofth heNationalAd dministrativeRegister H HELD: A Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

19|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts T Thepetitionis sGRANTED. thy that the assailed a circu ulars do not prohibit p the petitioner p from engaging in i the recruit tment and It is notewort d deployment o Filipino la of andbased wo orkers for overseas depl loyment. A careful c readi ing of the challenged c a administrative eissuancesdisclosesthatthesamefallw withinthead dministrative andpolicingp powersexpre esslyorby n necessaryimp plicationconfe erreduponth herespondent ts. A Asaptlyobser rvedbytheSolicitorGenera al, xxxThealleg gedtakeover[ [ofthebusines ssofrecruitin ngandplacing gFilipinodom mestichelpersinHongkong] ]ismerely a remedial me a easure, and expires e after its i purpose sh hall have been attained. Th his is evident t from the ten nor of the A Administrative eOrderNo.16 6thatrecruitm mentofFilipin nodomestich helpersgoing toHongkong byprivateem mployment a agenciesareh erebytempor rarilysuspend dedeffectiveJu uly1,1991. xxxThejust ificationforthetakeovero oftheprocess singanddeplo oyingofdome estichelpers forHongkong gresulting f from the restr riction of the scope of peti itioners busin ness is confin ned solely to the t unscrupul lous practice of private e employment a agencies victim mizing applicants for empl loyment as do omestic helpe ers for Hongk kong and not the whole r recruitmentbu usinessinthePhilippines. H However,desp pitetheadmin nistrativecircularsbeinga validexercise eofthepolice epowerasdel legatedtotheexecutive b branchofGov vernment,they yareneverthelessinvalid, defectiveand dunenforceab bleforlackof properpublic cationand f filingintheOf fficeoftheNa ationalAdmin nistrativeRegister.Thisreq quirementisp providedforb byArticle2o oftheCivil C Code,Article5 5oftheLaborCodeandSect tions3(1)and d4,Chapter2, ,BookVIIofth heAdministra ativeCodeof1 1987. F Further,asenu unciatedinTa anadavs.Tuve era,146SCRA A446, xxxAdminist trativerulesa andregulation nsmustalsob bepublishedif ftheirpurpos seistoenforce eorimplemen ntexisting la awpursuant toavaliddele egation.Interpretativeregu ulationsandt thosemerely internalinna ature,thatis, regulating o only the perso onnel of the administrative a e agency and not the publ lic, need not be published. . Neither is publication p r requiredofth esocalledlet ttersofinstru uctionsissuedbyadministr rativesuperiorsconcerning gtherulesofg guidelines t tobefollowed dbytheirsubo ordinatesinth heperformanc ceoftheirduti ies. W Weagreethat tpublicationm mustbeinful llofitisnopublicationat allsinceitspurposeistoinformthepublicofthe c contentofthe laws. F Forlackofpro operpublicatio on,theadministrativecircu ularsinquestionmaynotbe eenforcedand dimplemented. oOo CORO ONA,petitioner r,vs.UNITEDHARBORPIL LOTSASSOCIA ATIONOFTH HEPHILIPPIN NES,responden nt. G.R.No.1119 953/283SCRA A31 12Decemb ber1997 A a general rule, As r notice an nd hearing, as s the fundame ental requirem ments of proce edural due pro ocess, are esse ential only w when an adm ministrative bo ody exercises itsquasijudic cialfunction. In I the perform mance of its executive or legislative f functions, such h as issuing rul les and regula ations, an adm ministrative bod dy need not co omply with the e requirement ts of notice a hearing. and P Pursuanttoits spowerofcon ntrol,regulation,andsuper rvisionofpilot tsandthepilo otageprofessi ion,thePhilipp pinePorts A Authority(PPA A)promulgate edPPAAO03 385whichem mbodiedthe"R RulesandRegulationsGove erningPilotage eServices, t theConducto fPilotsandPilotageFeesin nPhilippineP Ports."Theser rulesmandate e,inter alia,th hataspiringp pilotsmust b holders of pilot licenses be sand must tra ain as probat tionary pilots in outports for f three mon nths and in th he Port ofA Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

20 0|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts M Manilaforfou rmonths.Itis sonlyafterthe eyhaveachiev vedsatisfacto oryperforman ncethattheyaregivenperm manentand r regular appoin ntmentsbythe ePPAitselftoexerciseharbo orpilotageuntiltheyreachtheageof70,unlesssooner rremoved b byreasonofm mentalorphys sicalunfitnessbythePPAGeneralManager. g S Subsequently, PPA issued PPAAO No. 0492provid ding that "all existing regu ular appointm ments which have h been p previously issu ued either by the Bureau of Customs C or the PPA shall re emain valid up p to 31 December 1992 only y"andthat "all appointme ents to harbor r pilot position ns in all pilota age districts sh hall, hencefort th, be only for r a term of on ne (1) year f from date of ef ffectivity subje ect to yearly renewal r or can ncellation by the t Authority after conduct t of a rigid eva aluation of p performance ." R Respondents q questioned th he implement tation of PPA AAO No. 049 92 before the Department of Transport tation and C Communicatio on(DOTC)for rPPAsnonco ompliancewiththerequire ementofpublichearingbu utthenDOTC Secretary G Garciainsisted dthatthemat tterwaswithin nthejurisdict tionoftheBoa ardofDirecto orsofthePPA. .Respondents sappealed t thisrulingtot theOfficeofth hePresident(O OP). T TheOPissued danorderdire ectingthePPA Atoholdinab beyancetheim mplementation nofPPAAON No.0492.Init tsanswer, t the PPA coun ntered that sa aid administr rative order was w issued in n the exercise of its administrative co ontrol and s supervisionov verharborpil lotsunderSection6a(viii i),ArticleIVo ofP.D.No.857,asamended,andit,alon ngwithits implementingguidelines,w wasintendedto orestoreorde erintheportsandtoimprovethequality yofportservic ces. T TheOP,throug ghthenAssist tantExecutive eSecretaryfo orLegalAffairsRenatoC.Co orona,dismissedtheappea al/petition a and opined th hat PPAAO No. 0492doe es not forbid,, but merely regulates, the e exercise by y harbor pilot ts of their p profession inP PPA'sjurisdictionalarea. A regards the alleged "absence of amp As ple prior cons sultation" befo ore the issuan nce of the ad dministrative order, the S Secretary cited Section 26 of P.D. No. 857, 8 which merely requires the PPA to consult with "relevant Go overnment a agencies." He concluded that the law has been sufficiently com mplied with by b the PPA in i issuing the e assailed a administrative eordersincet thePPABoard dofDirectors siscomposed oftheSecreta ariesoftheDO OTC,theDepa artmentof P PublicWorks andHighways s,theDepartm mentofFinanc ce,andtheDe epartmentofE Environment andNaturalR Resources, a well as the as e DirectorGen neral of the National N Econo omic Develop pment Agency y, the Adminis strator of the e Maritime IndustryAutho ority(MARINA A),andthepr rivatesectorre epresentative e. R Respondents f filed a petitio on forcertiora ari, prohibition and injunct tion with pray yer for the is ssuance of a temporary t r restrainingord deranddamagesbeforethe eRegionalTrialCourt(RTC C)whichgrant tedthesame.H HTP. ISSUE: W WhetherPPA olatingdueprocessoflaw. AONo.0492isvoidforvio H HELD: T Thepetitionis sDENIED. R Respondents a argue that du ue process wa as not observed in the ado option of PPA AAO No. 0492 allegedly because no h hearing was conducted c wh hereby "relev vant governme ent agencies" " and the pilo ots themselve es could ventilate their v views.Theyar reobviouslyr referringtoth heprocedural aspectofthe enactment.Fo ortunately,th heCourthasm maintained a aclearpositio ninthisregar rd,astanceithasstressedintherecentcaseofLumiq qued v.Hon.Ex xevea,wherei itdeclared t that"(a)slong gasapartyw wasgiventheo opportunityt todefendhisi interestsindu uecourse,he cannotbesaidtohave b beendeniedd dueprocessof flaw,forthisopportunity tobeheardistheveryess senceofduep process.More eover,this c constitutional mandateisde eemedsatisfie edifapersonisgrantedan nopportunitytoseekrecon nsiderationoftheaction o orrulingcomp plainedof." A Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

21|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts W Whilerespond dentsemphasi izethatthePh hilippineCoas stGuard,"whi ichissuesthelicensesofpilotsafteradm ministering t thepilots'exa minations,"w wasnotconsul lted,thefactsshowthattheMARINA,whichtookove erthelicensingfunction o ofthePhilippi ineCoastGuard,wasdulyr representedin ntheBoardo ofDirectorsof fthePPA.Thu us,petitioners scorrectly a argued that, there t being no n matters of f naval defen nse involved in i the issuan nce of the adm ministrative order, o the P PhilippineCoa astGuardneed dnotbeconsu ulted. N Neitherdoest thefactthatth hepilotsthem mselvesweren notconsulted inanywayta aintthevalidit tyoftheadmi inistrative o order.Asagen neralrule,not ticeandhearin ng,asthefund damentalrequ uirementsofp proceduraldu ueprocess,are eessential o only when an n administrat tive body exercises itsqu uasijudicialfu unction. In th he performance of its exe ecutive or legislative fun nctions, such as issuing ru ules and reg gulations, an administrativ ve body need d not comply with the r requirements ofnoticeandhearing. H However, the license of a harbor h pilot is i granted in the form of an a appointme ent which allo ows them to engage in p pilotageuntilt theyretireatt theage70yea ars.Thisisav vestedright. T Therefore, it is i readily app parent that PP PAAO No. 04 492 unduly restricts r the right r of harbo or pilots to enjoy their p profession bef fore their com mpulsory retir rement. In the past, they enjoyed e a mea asure of security knowing that after p passing five ex xaminations and a undergoin ng years of on nthejob train ning, they wo ould have a lic cense which they t could u useuntiltheir retirement,u unlesssoonerr revokedbyth hePPAformen ntalorphysicalunfitness.U Underthenew wissuance, t theyhavetoco ontendwitha anannualcanc cellationoftheirlicensewh hichcanbetem mporaryorpe ermanentdep pendingon t theoutcomeo oftheirperfor rmanceevalua ation.Veteran npilotsandne eophytesalike earesuddenl lyconfronted withone y year terms wh hichipso facto oexpire at the e end of that period. Renew wal of their li icense is now w dependent on o a "rigid e evaluationofp performance"whichiscond ductedonlyaf fterthelicensehasalreadybeencancelle ed.Hence,theuseofthe t term "renewal." It is this preevaluation p n cancellation n which prima arily makes PPAAO P No. 04 492 unreasonable and c constitutionall lyinfirm.Inarealsense,iti isadeprivatio onofproperty ywithoutdueprocessoflaw w. oOo C COMMISSION EROFINTER RNALREVENU UE,petitioner,vs.COURTOF FAPPEALS,re espondent. G.R.No.119761/261SC CRA237 29Augus st1996 W When an adm ministrative rule is merely in nterpretative in nature, its s applicability needs nothin ng further tha an its bare is ssuance for it t gives no real l consequence more than what w the law it tself has alrea ady prescribed d. When, upon n the other h hand, theadmi inistrativerule egoesbeyond dmerelyprovid dingforthemeansthatcanfacilitate f orre enderleastcumbersome t implement the tationofthela awbutsubstan ntiallyaddstoorincreasesth heburdenofthose t governed d,itbehoovesthe t agency t accord at le to east to those directly d affecte ed a chance to be heard, an nd thereafter to be duly inf formed, before e that new is ssuanceisgive entheforcean ndeffectoflaw w. F FortuneTobac ccoCorporatio on("FortuneT Tobacco")ise engagedinthe emanufactureofdifferentb brandsofcigar rettes T The Philippin ne Patent Off fice issued to t the corporation separa ate certificate es of tradem mark registra ation over " "Champion," " "Hope," and "More" cigar rettes. The in nitial position n of the Com mmission of Internal I Reve enue (CIR, h hereafter)was stoclassify'Champion,''Ho ope,'and'More'asforeignb brandssinceth heywereliste edintheWorldTobacco D Directory as belonging to o foreign com mpanies. How wever, Fortu une Tobacco changed the e names of 'Hope' to 'H HopeLuxury'and 'More' to o 'PremiumMo ore,' thereby removing the e said brands from the fore eign brand ca ategory.Ad v valorem taxeswereimposed donthesebra andsatthefoll lowingrate: ADVA BRAND ALOREM TAX RATE E.O.22and a RA695 56 E.O.273 HopeL LuxuryM.100 0's 40% 45%A Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

22|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Sec.14 42,(c),(2) HopeL LuxuryM.Kin ng 40% 45% Sec.14 42,(c),(2) MoreP PremiumM. 45% 100's 40% 42,(c),(2) Sec.14 MoreP Premium 40% 45% Intern national Sec.14 42,(c),(2) Champ pionInt'l.M. 40% 45% 100's 42,(c),(2) Sec.14 Champ pionM.100's 40% 45% Sec.14 42,(c),(2) 15% Champ pionM.King 20% Sec.14 42,(c),lastpa ar. 15% Champ pionLights 20% Sec.14 42,(c),lastpa ar. L Later on, Rep public Act ("R RA") No. 7654 4was enacted d and became e effective on n 03 July 199 93. It amende ed Section 1 142(c)(1)ofth heNationalIn nternalRevenu ueCode("NIR RC")toread;as sfollows: S Sec.142.Cigars sandCigarett tes. x xxxxxxxxx ( (c)Cigarettes packedbyma achine.The ereshallbele evied,assessed dandcollecte edoncigarette espackedbym machinea t tax at the ra ates prescribed below ba ased on the constructive manufacture er's wholesale price or the t actual m manufacturer' 'swholesalep price,whicheverishigher: ( On locally (1) y manufacture ed cigarettes which arecu urrently classi ified and taxe ed at fiftyfive e percent (55 5%)or the e exportationof fwhichisnotauthorizedby ycontractoro otherwise,fift tyfive(55%) providedthat ttheminimum mtaxshall n notbelesstha anFivePesos( (P5.00)perpa ack. ( (2)On other lo ocally manufactured cigaret ttes, fortyfive percent (45% %)providedth hattheminimu umtaxshalln notbeless t thanThreePes sos(P3.00)pe erpack. x xxxxxxxxx T Two daysbefo orethe effecti ivity of RA 76 654, CIR issued Revenue Memorandum M m Circular No. 3793 ("RMC 3793") d declaringthat xxxSinceth hereisnoshow wingwhoamo ongtheabove elistedmanuf facturersofth hecigarettesbearingthe s saidbrandsar retherealown ner/sthereof, f,thenitfollow wsthatthesam meshallbeco onsideredfore eignbrandfor rpurposes o determining thead valoremtax pursu of uant to Sectio on 142 of the e National Int ternal Revenu ue Code. In effect, the a aforesaid bran nds of cigare ettes,viz: "HO OPE," "MORE" and "CHAMPION" being manufactured by Fortune e Tobacco C Corporationw weresubjected dtothe55%ad a valoremtax xoncigarettes sbeingconsid deredlocallym manufacturedcigarettes b bearingaforei ignbrand. O On30July199 93,theCIRassessedFortun neTobaccoforad valoremtaxdeficiency t yamountingto oP9,598,334.00forcing F FortuneTobac ccotofileap petitionforrev viewwiththe eCourtofTax xAppeals(CT TA)whichdec claredRMC37 793tobe d defective, inva alid and unen nforceable for the noncom mpliance with publication and a prior hear ring requirem ments. The C CourtofAppea als(CA)affirm medthedecisio onofCTAina allrespects.HT TP. ISSUE: A Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas 23|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts W Whether the publication of o RMC 3793 3, filing of co opies thereof with the UP Law Center and prior he earing are n necessaryfori itsvalidity,eff fectivityande enforceability. . H HELD: P Petition DENIED. RMC 3793 is invalid, defective and d unenforceab ble due to no onpublication n and for lack k of public h hearing. Itshouldbeun nderstandable ethatwhenan nadministrati iveruleismer relyinterpreta ativeinnature e,itsapplicabi ilityneeds n nothing furthe er than its ba are issuance for f it gives no o real consequ uence more than t