Section 3 of R.A. No.

6939 points out the powers, functions, and

responsibilities of the CDA, if it is to be considered an Authority which shall
mediate and conciliate disputes with a cooperative or between cooperatives.
However, being an administrative agency, the CDAs authority is only to
discharge purely administrative functions consisting of policy-making,
registration, fiscal and technical assistance to cooperatives and the
implementation of cooperative laws. CDAs authority to adjudicate
cooperative disputes was not, in any way, mentioned in the said law.
Petitioner CDA, insisted that its authority to conduct hearings or
inquiries and the express grant to it is mentioned under Section 3 of R.A. No.
6939, paragraphs (g) and (o) which states that an Authority orders the
cancellation after due notice and hearing of the cooperatives certificate of
registration for non-compliance with administrative requirements and in
cases of voluntary dissolution, and exercises other functions necessary in
implementing the provisions of the cooperative laws, and that the Authority
may punish for direct contempt any person guilty of misconduct can be fined
of not more than five hundred pesos or imprisonment of not more than ten
days, or both, respectively vest upon the CDA quasi-judicial authority to
adjudicate cooperative disputes.
During the house deliberations on the House Bill No. 10787, both
chambers of the Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate,
clearly explained that the CDA is not vested with quasi-judicial authority to
adjudicate cooperative disputes. In terms of the dissolution of cooperatives
stated in paragraph (g) in Section 3 of R.A. No. 6939, the adjudication of
cooperative disputes will have to be left to the courts of law because the
Authority only administers once the cooperative has been dissolved. Also,
the CDAs role is to only recommend or initiate the filing of legal charges
after a preliminary investigation done by the provincial fiscal.
If the cooperatives officers are liable of wrongdoing such as violating
any provisions of the said Act, withdrawal of Authority assistance, suspension
of operation or cancellation of accreditation may be done as a punishment
for the misconduct only if the cooperative as a whole violated the provisions
of the said Act and the existing laws because it would be unfair to the
majority for the Authority to withdraw its assistance just because of the
officers who are the ones liable for the wrongdoing.
In the same manner, the deliberations on Senate Bill No. 485, yield the
same legislative intent not to grant the CDA as a quasi-judicial authority
because if the agency is empowered to conduct inquiries, studies, hearings
and investigations, it might interfere in the autonomous character of
cooperatives, a policy of the government to grant autonomous power to the
cooperatives for it to develop self-reliance.