ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 24 Semester SY 2018-2019 DEAN SALVADOR T. CARLO! DEAN TA I-A PROF. MICHAEL T. TIU, JR. u-D * I HISTORICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS A. Development of Administrative Law as a distinct field of public law. |. Factors responsible for the emergence of administrative agencies 2. The doctrine of separation of powers and the constitutional position of administr agencies. B. Definition of Terms - Administrative Law and Administrative Agency; Types of Agencies C. Cases: ~ Pangasinan, Transportation Co., Inc., v. The Public Service Commission 70 Phil. 221 (1940) ~ Manila Electric Co., v. Pasay Transportation Co., 57 Phil. 600 (1932) - Noblejas v. Teehankee, 23 SCRA 405 (1968) ~ Garcia v. Macaraig, 39 SCRA 106 (1972) - In Re: Rodolfo v. Manzano, 166 SCRA 246 (1988) - Puyat v. De Guzman Jr., 113 SCRA 31 (1982) - Chiongbian v. Orbos, 245 SCRA 253 (1995) - Funa v, Duque III, 766 SCRA 742 (2014) - Efraim C. Genuino, Erwin F. Genuino and Sheryl G. See v. Hon. Leila M. De Lima - G.R. No. 197930, April 17, 2018 n CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION A. Administrative agencies and the executive power of the President ~ Art, VII, Ses. 1, 17, Const B. Congressional Oversight Power = Macalintal v. Comelee 405 SCRA 693-733 (concurring and dis - Abakads Guro Party List, et. al. v. Purisima, et.al. cnting opinion of Justice Puno) R. No, 166715, August 14, 2008. istrative Decision-making. C. Carlota, Legislative and Judicial Control of Adaand visibility amidst bureaucratic abuse ¢ Ombudsman: Its effectivity Phil. L. J. 12 (1990) D. Carlota, Th and irregular me ~ Concerned-Officials of the MWSS v. Vasquez, 240 SCRA 502 (1995) i 2 995) = Lastimosa v. Vasquez, 243 SCRA 497 (1 oo * bin Ofhce ofthe Ombudsman, G.R. No. | 15103, April 11, 2002 089 - Office of the Ombudsman v. ENOC, et. al., G.R. Nos. 145957-08, January 25, 2002 «Fuentes v, Office of the Ombudsman - Mindanao - G.R. No. 124295, October 23, 2001 = Ledesman v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No, 161629, July 29, 2005 - Estarija v. Ranada, 492 SCRA 652 (2006) - Office of the Ombudsman vs. Masing - 452 SCRA 253 (2008) ~ Samson vs. Restrivera, 646 SCRA 481 (2011) Wm POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES A. Legislative Funetion 1. Non delegation doctrine Cases: * Compania General de Tabacco v. Board of Public Utility Commission, 34 Phil. 136 (1916) - U.S. v. Ang Tang Ho 43 Phil. 1 (1922) - People v. Vera, 65 Phil 56 (1937) ~ Pelacz v. Auditor General G.R. No. 23825, Dec. 24, 1965, 15 SCRA 569 - Edu v. Ericta 35 SCRA 481 (1970) ~ Agustin v. Edu, No. L-49112, Feb. 2, 1979; 88 SCRA 195 _ Free Telephone Workers Union v. Minister of Labor and Employment, 108 SCRA 757 (1981) ~ Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation, v. Aleuaz, 190 SCRA 218 (1980) ~ Santiago v. COMELEC - 270 SCRA 106 (1997) (Read only the part concerning the non delegation issue.) ~ Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935) - Abakada Guro Party List, etc, et al. v. v - Federal Energy Administration v. Al Gonquin SNG, Inc., 426 U.S. S48, 40 L, Ed, 2d 49 94 96 SCT 2295 (1976) - White v. Roughton, $30 F2d 750 (CA 71976) 2. Permissible Delegation a. Ascertainment of Fact~ Panama Refining Co. Ryan, supra - Lovina v. Moreno G.R. No. L178221, Nov. 29, 1963; 9 SCRA 557 (1963) b. Filing in of details, = Alegre v. Collector of Customs, $3 Phil. 394 (1920) ¢. Administrative Rulemaking 1. Book VII, Administrative Procedure, Secs. 1-9, Administrative Code of 1987 1. Limits on Rule-Making Power - Olsen & Co., Inc. v, Aldanese, 43 Phil. 259 (1922) ~ Syman v. Jacinto, 93 Phil 1093 (1953) - People v. Maceren, No. L-32166, Oct. 18, 1977; 79 SCRA 450 - Toledo v. Civil Service Commission, 202 SCRA 507 (1991) - Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 240 SCRA 368 (1995) + Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 249 SCRA 149 (1995) - GMCR, Ine, v, Bell Telecommunications Phil., Inc.,-271 SCRA 790 (1997) - Association of Phil. Coconut Desiccators vs. Phil. Coconut Authority-286 SCRA 109 (1998) - Ople vs. Torres - 293 SCRA 141 (1998) - Phil, Bank of Communications v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 302 SCRA 241 (1999) - China Banking Corp., v. Members of the Board of Trustees, Home Development Mutual fund - 307 SCRA 443 (1999) - GMA Network, Inc. v, COMELEC, G.R. No. 205357, September 2, 2014. - Maxima Realty Management and Development Corp. v. Parkway Real Estate Development Corp. - 442 SCRA 572 (2004) = Lokin, Jr. v. COMELEG, 621 SCRA 385 (2010) - Bartolome v. Social Security System, 78 SCRA 740 (2014) 2. Put ation and affectivity - People v. Que Po Lay, 94, Phil. 640 «Philippine Blooming Mills v. SSS, G.R. No. 21223, August 31, 1966, 17 SCR L077 - Tafiada v. Tuvera 146 SCRA 446 Phil, Association of Service Exporters, Ine, v. Torres, 212 SCRA 298 (1992) = De Jesus vs. Commission on Audit - 294 SCRA 152 (1998) = Republic of the Philippines v, EXPRESS Telecommunications Co., (2002) - National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms (NASECORE) vs. ERO, 481 SCRA 480 (2006) - GMA Network, Inc, vs. MPRCB - 514 SCRA 191 (2007) ; = Republic vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation - 550 SCRA 680 2008) = The Board of Trustees of the GSIS v. Velasco, O41 SCRA 372 COLD) - Book VII, Secs. 3-8, Adininistrative Code of 1987 S73 SCRA S10