RA 8436 AMENDED BY RA 9639 B.

ELECTORAL BOARDS RA 10756

AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEM
TWO TYPES-SECTION 2 (7) AND (8) SECTION 3. Rendering of Election Service.
– The Electoral Boards to be constituted by
"7. Paper-based election system - a type the Commission shall be composed of a
of automated election system that use Chairperson and two (2) members, all of
paper ballots, records and counts votes, whom shall be public school teachers who
tabulates, consolidates/canvasses and are willing and available to render election
transmits electronically the results of the service.
vote count;"
Should there be a lack of public-school
"8. Direct recording electronic election teachers willing, available or qualified to
system - a type or automated election serve, the Commission may instead appoint
system that uses electronic ballots, records, the following persons in this order of
votes by means of a ballot display provided preference:
with mechanical or electro-optical
component that can be activated by the (a) Private school teachers;
voter, processes data by means of a
computer programs, record voting data and (b) National government employees:
ballot images, and transmits voting results
electronically; (1) DepED nonteaching personnel;

SOME REQUIREMENTS FOR THE USE (2) Other national government officials and
OF AES employees holding regular or permanent
positions, excluding uniformed personnel of
SECTION 11 the Department of National Defense and all
its attached agencies;
4. A certification that the source code is
kept in escrow with the Bangko Sentral ng (c) Members of the Commission-accredited
Pilipinas; citizen arms or other civil society
organizations and nongovernmental
5. A certification that the source code organizations duly accredited by the
reviewed is one and the same as that used Commission; and
by the equipment; and
(d) Any registered voter of the city or
SECTION 14 municipality of known integrity and
competence who is not connected with any
SEC. 15. Section 14 of Republic Act No. candidate or political party.
8436 is hereby amended to read as follows:
In cases where the peace and order
"SEC. 18. Procedure in voting. - The situation so require as determined by the
Commission shall prescribe the Commission and where there are no
manner and procedure of voting, qualified voters willing to serve, uniformed
which can be easily understood and personnel of the Philippine National Police
followed by the voters, taking into shall be deputized to render election service
consideration, among other things, as a last resort.
the secrecy of the voting."
DENIAL OF DUE COURSE verified petition by any interested party, and
after due notice and hearing, whereby all
Section 69. Nuisance candidates. - The interested parties are afforded equal
Commission may motu proprio or upon a opportunity to be heard, shall postpone the
verified petition of an interested party, election therein to a date which should be
refuse to give due course to or cancel a reasonably close to the date of the election
certificate of candidacy if it is shown that not held, suspended or which resulted in a
said certificate has been filed to put the failure to elect but not later than thirty days
election process in mockery or disrepute or after the cessation of the cause for such
to cause confusion among the voters by the postponement or suspension of the election
similarity of the names of the registered or failure to elect
candidates or by other circumstances or
acts which clearly demonstrate that the F. FAILURE OF ELECTION
candidate has no bona fide intention to run
for the office for which the certificate of Section 6 Failure of election. - If, on
candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a account of force majeure, violence,
faithful determination of the true will of the terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes
electorate. the election in any polling place has not
been held on the date fixed, or had been
REMEDIES BEFORE PROCLAMATION suspended before the hour fixed by law for
the closing of the voting, or after the voting
A. DENIAL OF DUE COURSE TO OR and during the preparation and the
CANCELLATION OF COC FOR FALSE transmission of the election returns or in the
REPRESENTATION custody or canvass thereof, such election
results in a failure to elect, and in any of
such cases the failure or suspension of
B. DECLARE A NUISANCE CANDIDATE election would affect the result of the
TO CANCEL HIS COC election, the Commission shall, on the basis
of a verified petition by any interested party
C. DISQUALIFICATION and after due notice and hearing, call for the
holding or continuation of the election not
D. SUSPENSION OF PROCLAMATION held, suspended or which resulted in a
(PENDING CASE FOR failure to elect on a date reasonably close to
DISQUALIFICATION OR CANCELLATION the date of the election not held, suspended
OF COC) or which resulted in a failure to elect but not
later than thirty days after the cessation of
E. POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTION the cause of such postponement or
suspension of the election or failure to elect.
Section 5 Postponement of election. -
When for any serious cause such as USMAN V COMELEC CASE,
violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of G.R.L-33325, DEC 29, 1971
election paraphernalia or records, force
majeure, and other analogous causes of FACTS:
such a nature that the holding of a free,
orderly and honest election should become Petitioners petitioned to COMELEC for
impossible in any political subdivision, the declaration of nullity of the election returns
Commission, motu proprio or upon a from 7 municipalities and municipal district
precincts. They alleged that that in the said Unlike section 17 (d) which empowers the
municipalities and barrios, no actual voting Comelec to postpone the election in any
took place because of "terrorism and other political division or subdivision
machinations," and that fictitious election whenever it finds that the holding of a free,
returns were prepared under duress, and orderly and honest election therein is
the influence of terrorism and/or bribery rendered impossible by reason of fraud,
wherein, it was made to appear that certain violence, coercion, terrorism, or any other
favored candidates obtained most, if not all serious cause or causes, section 17 (e)
the votes fictitiously cast therein, while excludes the situation where no voting has
petitioners were made to appear as having been held because of fraud. Furthermore,
obtained very few, if no votes at all. doubt exists whether or not the irregularities
They prayed for the holding of a special committed in Karomatan properly partake of
election in the municipalities and barrios violence or terrorism. This being the case,
concerned and, ad interim, the suspension we find that the first circumstance is not
of the canvass as well as the proclamation attendant. As to the second circumstance,
of the winning candidates until after hearing therefore, we find it unnecessary to indulge
and decision on the merits of the petition. in surmises

ISSUE: PRINCIPLE/DOCTRINE:

WON a mandatory special election in the TWO CIRCUMSTANCES TO JUSTIFY

precincts concerned must be made. THE CALLING OF SPECIAL ELECTION
RULING: (1) no voting has been held in any precint
or precincts because of force majeure,
No. A reading of section 17 (e) of Republic violence or terrorism and
Act 6132 makes it apparent that Congress (2) that the votes not cast therein suffice to
has delegated to the Comelec the power to affect the results of the elections.
call for a special election — a power
essentially legislative in nature, being
PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSIES
merely an incident to or an extension or
modality of the power to fix the date of the
elections. However, in the proper exercise Sec. 243. Issues that may be raised in pre-
of the delegated power, Congress saw fit to proclamation controversy. - The following
require the Comelec ascertain that (1) no shall be proper issues that may be raised in
voting has been held in any precinct or a pre-proclamation controversy:
precincts because of force majeure,
violence or terrorism and (2) that the votes (a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the
not cast therein suffice to affect the results board of canvassers;
of the elections. The language of the
provision clearly requires the concurrence of (b) The canvassed election returns are
the two circumstances to justify the calling incomplete, contain material defects, appear
of a special election. to be tampered with or falsified, or contain
The Comelec concedes that what transpired discrepancies in the same returns or in other
in Karomatan constitutes "not merely a authentic copies thereof as mentioned in
simple case of irregularity in the voting but a Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of this Code;
case of no voting or no election at all.
However, the Comelec attributes this to (c) The election returns were prepared under
"massive fraud rather than to force majeure, duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or
violence or terrorism the — three causes they are obviously manufactured or not
explicitly enumerated by section 17 (e). authentic; and
(d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in pre-proclamation controversies which maybe
controverted polling places were canvassed, filed directly with the COMELEC en banc.
the results of which materially affected the
standing of the aggrieved candidate or The Supreme Court annulled the COMELEC
candidates. resolutions but directed COMELEC to
reconvene the MBC or if this is not feasible,
RAMIREZ V COMELEC to constitute a new MBC in Gipolos, Eastern
GR 112013, MARCH 26,1997 Samar and to order it to promptly revise the
Statement of Votes based on the election
FACT returns from all the precincts of the
Municipality and thereafter, proclaim the
The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) winning candidate.
of Gipolos, Eastern Samar proclaimed
Principle/ Doctrine:
petitioner Ramirez winner in the vice-
mayoralty race over another candidate,
private respondent Go based on the results Pre-proclamation controversies involving,
showing that Ramirez obtained more votes inter alia, manifest errors in the tabulation or
than Go. tallying of the results may be filed directly
with the COMELEC en banc.
Go petitioned COMELEC for correction of
manifest error claiming that owing to error in 2. REMEDIES AFTER PROCLAMATION
addition, he was credited with lesser votes.
The COMELEC en banc issued a Resolution A. ELECTION PROTEST
directing the MBC to reconvene and
recompute the votes in the Statement of Sec. 249. Jurisdiction of the Commission. -
Votes and proclaim the winning candidate. The Commission shall be the sole judge of all
Acting on separate motions filed by Ramirez contests relating to the elections, returns,
and Go, the COMELEC en banc affirmed its and qualifications of all Members of the
earlier resolution. Batasang Pambansa, elective regional,
provincial and city officials.
Ramirez petitioned the Supreme Court to
annul the 2 COMELEC en banc resolutions Sec. 250. Election contests for Batasang
and to reinstate his proclamation as the duly Pambansa, regional, provincial and city
elected vice-mayor. He alleged that the offices. - A sworn petition contesting the
COMELEC en banc had no jurisdiction over election of any Member of the Batasang
the controversy since it was not yet acted Pambansa or any regional, provincial or city
upon by a division of the COMELEC. official shall be filed with the Commission by
any candidate who has duly filed a certificate
Issue: of candidacy and has been voted for the
Whether the COMELEC en banc has same office, within ten days after the
jurisdiction to act directly on the petition for proclamation of the results of the election.
correction of manifest error filed by private
respondent Go? Sec. 251. Election contests for municipal
offices. - A sworn petition contesting the
Held: election of a municipal officer shall be filed
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, with the proper regional trial court by any
citing Rule 27, Section 5 of the 1993 candidate who has duly filed a certificate of
COMELEC Rules which provides correction candidacy and has been voted for the same
of manifest errors in the tabulation or tallying office, within ten days after proclamation of
of results during the canvassing as one of the the results of the election.
Sec. 252. Election contest for barangay
offices. - A sworn petition contesting the
election of a barangay officer shall be filed 1. ELECTION PROTEST V QUO
with the proper municipal or metropolitan trial WARRANTO
court by any candidate who has duly filed a
certificate of candidacy and has been voted LUISON V GARCIA
for the same office, within ten days after the 103 PHIL 453, APRIL 25,1958
proclamation of the results of the election.
The trial court shall decide the election FACTS:
protest within fifteen days after the filing
thereof. The decision of the municipal or Anacleto Luison and Fidel A.D Garcia were
metropolitan trial court may be appealed both candidates for the mayoralty position.
within ten days from receipt of a copy thereof The certificate of candidacy of Luison was
by the aggrieved party to the regional trial filed by the Nacionalista Party of the locality
court which shall decide the case within thirty duly signed by the chairman and secretary
days from its submission, and whose respectively, while the certificate of
decisions shall be final. candidacy of Garcia was filed by the local
branch of the Liberal Party but it was merely
Sec. 255. Judicial counting of votes in signed by one who was a candidate for vice
election contest. - Where allegations in a mayor. For this reason, the executive
protest or counter-protest so warrant, or secretary of the Nationalista Party
whenever in the opinion of the court the impugned the sufficiency of the certificate of
interests of justice so require, it shall candidacy filed in behalf of Garcia,
immediately order the book of voters, ballot whereupon the Commission on Elections,
boxes and their keys, ballots and other after making its own investigation, issued
documents used in the election be brought Resolution No. 23 declaring Garcia
before it and that the ballots be examined ineligible to run for the Office.
and the votes recounted.
Garcia filed different petitions but was all
B. QUO WARRANTO denied by the court because the issue is
within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC.
Sec. 253. Petition for quo warranto. - Any
voter contesting the election of any Member Notwithstanding the adverse ruling of the
of the Batasang Pambansa, regional, Commission on Elections, as well as the
provincial, or city officer on the ground of dismissal of the petition for prohibition sued
ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of out by Garcia, the latter continued with his
the Philippines shall file a sworn petition for candidacy and the question of his
quo warranto with the Commission within ten ineligibility became an
days after the proclamation of the results of issue in the campaign. And when the time
the election. came for the counting and appreciation of
the ballots, the board inspectors, in spite of
Any voter contesting the election of any the adverse ruling of the Commission on
municipal or barangay officer on the ground Elections, counted all the votes cast for
of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic Garcia as valid and credited him with them
of the Philippines shall file a sworn petition in the election returns with the result that he
for quo warranto with the regional trial court garnered 869 votes as against 675 of his
or metropolitan or municipal trial court, opponent Luison.
respectively, within ten days after the Consequently, the municipal board of
proclamation of the results of the election. canvassers proclaimed Garcia as the mayor
elect of Tubay, Agusan.
Believing that Garcia is ineligible to hold votes. In the first case, while the protestee
office, Luison filed a petition of quo warranto may be ousted the protestant will not be
in the proper court of first instance for the seated; in the second case, the protestant
purpose of disputing his ineligibility and may assume office after protestee is
securing his consequent ouster from office, unseated. The first case is brought to court
but the petition was dismissed for lack of by a petition of quo warranto, while the
merit on a motion filed by respondent. After second by instituting an election protest.
the reception of the evidence, the court Thus, the Supreme Court, in defining these
found for protestee holding that the two remedies, said: All election disputes
certificate of candidacy filed by the latter may be divided into two distinct classes: (1)
was in substantial compliance with the law those which pertain to the casting and
and that the Commission on Elections erred counting of the ballots; and (2) those which
in declaring him legally insufficient. It pertain to the eligibility of the candidates. If
therefore dismissed the protest with costs there be cases incapable of being so
against protestant. Hence the present classified, they have not been suggested.
appeal. Considering the fundamental difference
existing between the nature of a petition for
ISSUE: quo warranto and that of an election protest,
it may be said that a candidate who files a
WON the protestee being ineligible and protest against one who has been
protestant having obtained the next highest proclaimed as having received the highest
number of votes, the latter can be declared number of votes basing his protest cannot
entitled to hold the office to be vacated by disguise his action so as to make his protest
the former. a justification to be seated in office. In other
words, he cannot convert an action for quo
HELD: warranto into an election protest. This is
because these two cases are fundamentally
The court held in the negative. As this Court different in nature and in purpose. In quo
has held, "The general rule is that the fact a warranto, "there is not, strictly speaking, a
plurality or a majority of the votes are cast contest, and the wreath of victory cannot be
for an ineligible candidate at a popular transferred from an ineligible candidate to
election does not entitle the candidate any other candidate", while in a protest, "the
receiving the next highest number of votes question is as to who received a plurality of
to be declared elected. the legally cast (Topacio vs. Paredes,
In such case the electors have failed to supra). The present action therefore,
make a choice and the election is a nullity" partakes of the nature of quo warranto and
(Llamoso vs. Ferrer, et al., 84 Phil., 490). In as such has no reason to exist.
a subsequent case, this Court also said that
where the winning candidate has been Wherefore, the decision appealed is
declared ineligible, the person who obtained reversed. The Court declares that neither
second place in the election cannot be protestee nor protestant has been validly
declared elected since our law not only elected and so none is entitled to the
does not contain an express provision position of mayor of Tubay, Agusan. No
authorizing such declaration but apparently pronouncement as to costs.
seems to prohibit it.
Moreover, a protest to disqualify a protestee
on the ground of ineligibility is different from
that a protest based on frauds and
irregularities where it may be shown that
protestant was the one really elected for
having obtained a plurality of the legal
 Code. The ultimate purpose was to prevent
C. ANNULMENT OF ELECTION AND Frivaldo from continuing as governor, his
PROCLAMATION candidacy and election being null and void
ab initio because of his alienage.
FRIVALDO V COMELEC Speaking for the public respondent, the
G.R. No. 87193 June 23, 1989 Solicitor General supported the contention
that Frivaldo was not a citizen of the
FACTS Philippines and had not repatriated himself
after his naturalization as an American
Petitioner Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed citizen. As an alien, he was disqualified from
governor-elect of the province of Sorsogon. public office in the Philippines. His election
On October 27, 1988, the League of did not cure this defect because the
Municipalities, Sorsogon Chapter electorate of Sorsogon could not amend the
represented by its President, Salvador Constitution, the Local Government Code,
Estuye, who was also suing in his personal and the Omnibus Election Code. He also
capacity, filed with the Commission on joined in the private respondent's argument
Elections a petition for the annulment of that Section 253 of the Omnibus Election
Frivaldo; election and proclamation on the Code was not applicable because what the
ground that he was not a Filipino citizen, League and Estuye were seeking was not
having been naturalized in the United States only the annulment of the proclamation and
on January 20, 1983. In his answer Frivaldo election of Frivaldo. He agreed that they
admitted that he was naturalized in the were also asking for the termination of
United States as alleged but pleaded the Frivaldo's incumbency as governor of
special and affirmative defenses that he had Sorsogon on the ground that he was not a
sought American citizenship only to protect Filipino.
himself against President Marcos. His
naturalization, he said, was "merely forced ISSUE
upon himself as a means of survival against
the unrelenting persecution by the Martial Whether or not Frivaldo is a citizen of the
Law Dictator's agents abroad." He added Philippines under our own laws, regardless
that he had returned to the Philippines after of other nationality laws.
the EDSA revolution to help in the
restoration of democracy. He also argued HELD
that the challenge to his title should be
dismissed, being in reality a quo warranto No. We can decide this question alone as
petition that should have been filed within sovereign of our own territory, conformably
ten days from his proclamation, in to Section 1 of the said Convention
accordance with Section 253 of the providing that "it is for each State to
Omnibus Election Code. The League, determine under its law who are its
moreover, was not a proper party because it nationals."
was not a voter and so could not sue under If he really wanted to disavow his American
the said section. The private respondents citizenship and reacquire Philippine
reiterated their assertion that Frivaldo was a citizenship, the petitioner should have done
naturalized American citizen and had not so in accordance with the laws of our
reacquired Philippine citizenship on the day country. Under CA No. 63 as amended by
of the election on January 18, 1988. He was CA No. 473 and PD No. 725, Philippine
therefore not qualified to run for and be citizenship may be reacquired by direct act
elected governor. They also argued that of Congress, by naturalization, or by
their petition in the Commission on repatriation. While Frivaldo does not either
Elections was not really for quo warranto of the first two methods, he nevertheless
under Section 253 of the Omnibus Election claims he has reacquired Philippine
citizenship by virtue of a valid repatriation.
He claims that by actively participating in ADMIN LAW
the elections in this country, he
automatically forfeited American citizenship 1. GEN PRINCIPLES
under the laws of the United States. Such
laws do not concern us here. The alleged A. DEFINITION
forfeiture is between him and the United
States as his adopted country. It should be That branch of public law which fixes the
obvious that even if he did lose his organization and determines the
naturalized American citizenship, such competence of administrative authorities
forfeiture did not and could not have the and indicates to the individual remedies for
effect of automatically restoring his the violation of his rights.
citizenship in the Philippines that he had
earlier renounced. At best, what might have B. KINDS
happened as a result of the loss of his
naturalized citizenship was that he became a. statutes setting up administrative
a stateless individual. authorities
The fact that he was elected by the people b. rules, regulations or orders of such
of Sorsogon does not excuse this patent administrative authorities promulgated
violation of the salutary rule limiting public pursuant to the purposes for which they are
office and employment only to the citizens created.
of this country. The qualifications prescribed c. determinations, decisions and orders of
for elective office cannot be erased by the such administrative authorities made in the
electorate alone. The will of the people as settlement of controversies arising in their
expressed through the ballot cannot cure particular fields.
the vice of ineligibility, especially if they d. Body of doctrines and decisions dealing
mistakenly believed, as in this case, that the with the creation, operation and effect of
candidate was qualified. Obviously, this rule determinations and regulations of such
requires strict application when the administrative authorities.
deficiency is lack of citizenship. If a person
seeks to serve in the Republic of the II. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
Philippines, he must owe his total loyalty to
this country only, abjuring and renouncing A. MANNER OF CREATION
all fealty and fidelity to any other state.
a. constitutional provision
PRINCIPLE b. legislative enactment
c. authority of law
1. Vice of ineligibility cannot be cured by the
will of the people as expressed through the B. KINDS OR TYPES
ballot.
2. Qualifications for the public office are A. bodies set up to function in situations
continuing requirements which must be where the government is offering some
possessed not only at the time of gratuity, grant or special privileges
appointment or election or assumption of b. bodies set up to function in situations
office, but also during the entire tenure. wherein the government is seeking to carry
3. Mere filing of certificate of candidacy is on certain of the actual business
not a sufficient act of repatriation. government
c. bodies set up to function in situations
wherein the government is performing some
business service for the public.
d. bodies set up to functions in situations Issues:
wherein the government is seeking to
regulate business affected with public (a) Whether or not said controversy is
interest. outside the scope of Judicial Review;
e. bodies set up to function in situations
wherein the government is seeking to adjust (b) Whether or not petitioners were deprived
individual controversies because of a strong of substantial and procedural due process of
policy divided. law;

POWERS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE Held/Doctrines:

BODIES
It is quite fascinating that the Supreme Court
A. QUASI-LEGISLATIVE OR RULE again reminded us the two fundamental
MAKING POWER
powers of an administrative body, in the
words of the Honorable Court:
Quasi-legislative power, otherwise known
as the power of subordinate legislation, has
“The powers of an administrative body are
been defined as the authority delegated by
classified into two fundamental
the lawmaking body to the administrative
powers: quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial.
body to adopt rules and regulations
Quasi-legislative power, otherwise known
intended to carry out the provisions of law
as the power of subordinate legislation, has
and implement legislative policy.
been defined as the authority delegated by
the lawmaking body to the administrative
ALLIANCE FOR THE FAMILY
body to adopt rules and regulations intended
FOUNDATION V GARIN
to carry out the provisions of law and
G.R. NO. 217872, APRIL 26,2017
implement legislative policy. A legislative rule
is in the nature of subordinate legislation
FACTS:
designed to implement a primary legislation
by providing the details thereof. The exercise
Petitioners opposed the unilateral act of the by the administrative body of its quasi-
Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) on re- legislative power through the promulgation of
certifying the contraceptive drugs named regulations of general application does not,
Implanon and Implanon NXT; the basis of as a rule, require notice and hearing. The
their opposition hinges on the fact that these only exception being where the Legislature
drugs are abortifacients. Thus, according to itself requires it and mandates that the
them, they should have been given notice of regulation shall be based on certain facts as
the certification proceedings, and a chance determined at an appropriate investigation.
to present evidence that indeed such drugs
are abortifacients.
Quasi-judicial power, on the other hand, is
known as the power of the administrative
Respondents, on the other hand, alleged that agency to determine questions of fact to
petitioners are not entitled to notice and which the legislative policy is to apply, in
hearing because the said proceedings are accordance with the standards laid down by
done in the exercise of its regulatory power, the law itself. As it involves the exercise of
not quasi-judicial power; also, they alleged discretion in determining the rights and
that the Honorable Supreme Court is liabilities of the parties, the proper exercise of
incompetent to rule on the instant quasi-judicial power requires the
controversy due to the same reason. concurrence of two elements: one,
jurisdiction which must be acquired by the
administrative body and two, the
observance of the requirements of due statute, in conformity with the standard of fair
process, that is, the right to notice and play and without arbitrariness on the part of
hearing.” those who are called upon to administer it.
xxx
To answer (a) above, the Supreme Court has
this to say, viz: xxx To conclude that product registration,
recertification, procurement, and distribution
“On the argument that the certification of the questioned contraceptive drugs and
proceedings were conducted by the FDA in devices by the FDA in the exercise of its
the exercise of its “regulatory powers” and, regulatory power need not comply with the
therefore, beyond judicial review, the Court requirements of due process would render
holds that it has the power to review all acts the issuance of notices to concerned MAHs
and decisions where there is a commission and the posting of a list of contraceptives for
of grave abuse of discretion. No less than the public comment a meaningless exercise.
Constitution decrees that the Court must Concerned MAHs and the public in general
exercise its duty to ensure that no grave will be deprived of any significant
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or participation if what they will submit will not
excess of jurisdiction is committed by any be considered.
branch or instrumentality of the Government.
Such is committed when there is a violation Section 7.04, Rule 7 of the IRR of the RH
of the constitutional mandate that “no person Law (RH-IRR), relied upon by the
is deprived of life, liberty, and property respondents in support of their claims,
without due process of law.” The Court’s expressly allows the consideration of
power cannot be curtailed by the FDA’s conflicting evidence, such as that supplied
invocation of its regulatory power.” by the petitioners in support of their
opposition to the approval of certain
With regard to (b), the Supreme Court ruled contraceptive drugs and devices. In fact, the
that petitioners were deprived of their Right said provision mandated that the FDA utilize
to Due Process. Perusal of the law and rules the “best evidence available” to ensure that
of procedure of the instant agency reveals no abortifacient is approved as family
the need of an issuance of notice to all planning drug or device. It bears mentioning
concerned MAHs and a posting of the that the same provision even allows an
contraceptive products for public independent evidence review group (ERG)
comments. These, respondents failed to do. to ensure that evidence for or against the
certification of a contraceptive drug or device
This was thoroughly explained by the is duly considered.”
Court, to wit:
1. Notice and Hearing
“Due process of law has two aspects:
substantive and procedural. In order that a The exercise by the administrative body of
particular act may not be impugned as its quasi-legislative power through the
violative of the due process clause, there promulgation of regulations of general
must be compliance with both the application does not, as a rule, require
substantive and procedural requirements notice and hearing. The only exception
thereof. Substantive due process refers to being where the Legislature itself requires it
the intrinsic validity of a law that interferes and mandates that the regulation shall be
with the rights of a person to his property. based on certain facts as determined at an
Procedural due process, on the other hand, appropriate investigation.
means compliance with the procedures or
steps, even periods, prescribed by the
Although the FDA is not strictly bound by B. QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS
the technical rules on evidence, as stated in
the Rules of Court, or it cannot be bound by A. Adjudicatory powers
the principle of stare decisis or res judicata, 1. Requisite of admin due process
it is not excused from complying with the
requirements of due process. To reiterate The Cardinal Rights of Parties in
for emphasis, due process does not require Administrative Proceedings as
that the FDA conduct trial type hearing to laid down in Ang Tibay v. CIR
satisfy its requirements. All that the
Constitution requires is that the FDA afford 1) The right to a hearing, which includes the
the people their right to due process of law right to present one's case and submit
and decide on the applications submitted by evidence in support thereof;
the MAHs after affording the oppositor, like 2) The tribunal must consider the evidence
the petitioners, a genuine opportunity to presented;
present their science-based evidence. 3) The decision must have something to
support itself;
2. KINDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES 4) The evidence must be substantial;
OR REGULATIONS 5) The decision must be rendered on the
evidence presented at the hearing, or at
1. Supplementary or detailed least contained in the record and disclosed
legislations- rules and regulations “to fix to the parties affected;
details” in the execution and enforcement of 6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges
a policy set out in the law. must act on its or his own independent
consideration of the law and facts of the
2. Interpretative legislation- rules and controversy and not simply accept the views
regulations construing or interpreting the of a subordinate in arriving at a decision;
provisions of a statute to be enforced. 7) The board or body should, in all
controversial questions, render its decision
3. Contingent legislation- rules and in such a manner that the parties to the
regulations made by administrative authority proceeding can know the various issues
on the existence of certain facts or things involved, and the reason for the decision
upon which the enforcement of the law rendered.
depends.
2. Right against self-incrimination
3. REQUISITES FOR VALIDITY
PASCUAL v BME
1. Issued under the authority of law- G.R. NO. L-25018, MAY 26, 1969
there must be a valid law which delegates
legislative powers to the admin agency Facts:
Petitioner Arsenio Pascual, Jr. filed an
2. Within the scope and purview of law action for prohibition against the Board of
Limited to what is provided for in the Medical Examiners. It was alleged therein
legislative act. that at the initial hearing of an administrative
case for alleged immorality, counsel for
3. Reasonable complainants announced that he would
present as his first witness the petitioner.
4. Publication in the Official Gazette or in Thereupon, petitioner, through counsel,
a newspaper of general circulation. – made of record his objection, relying on the
Publication must be in full constitutional right to be exempt from being
a witness against himself. Petitioner then
alleged that to compel him to take the
witness stand, the Board of Examiners was right to silence: "The accused has a perfect
guilty, at the very least, of grave abuse of right to remain silent and his silence cannot
discretion for failure to respect the be used as a presumption of his guilt." It is
constitutional right against self-incrimination. the right of a defendant "to forego
testimony, to remain silent, unless he
The answer of respondent Board, while chooses to take the witness stand — with
admitting the facts stressed that it could call undiluted, unfettered exercise of his own
petitioner to the witness stand and free genuine will."
interrogate him, the right against self-
incrimination being available only when a The reason for this constitutional guarantee,
question calling for an incriminating answer along with other rights granted an accused,
is asked of a witness. They likewise alleged stands for a belief that while crime should
that the right against self-incrimination not go unpunished and that the truth must
cannot be availed of in an administrative be revealed, such desirable objectives
hearing. should not be accomplished according to
means or methods offensive to the high
Petitioner was sustained by the lower court sense of respect accorded the human
in his plea that he could not be compelled to personality. More and more in line with the
be the first witness of the complainants, he democratic creed, the deference accorded
being the party proceeded against in an an individual even those suspected of the
administrative charge for malpractice. most heinous crimes is given due weight.
Hence, this appeal by respondent Board. The constitutional foundation underlying
the privilege is the respect a government
... must accord to the dignity and
Issue: integrity of its citizens.

Whether or Not compelling petitioner to be 3. Applicability of Res Judicata

the first witness of the complainants violates
the Self-Incrimination Clause. Decisions and orders of administrative
agencies, rendered pursuant to their quasi-
judicial authority, have upon their finality,
Held: the force and binding effect of a final
judgement within the purview of the doctrine
The Supreme Court held that in an fo res judicata.
administrative hearing against a medical
practitioner for alleged malpractice, NHA v PASCUAL
respondent Board of Medical Examiners G.R. NO. 158364 : November 28, 2007
cannot, consistently with the self-
incrimination clause, compel the person FACTS:
proceeded against to take the witness
stand without his consent. The Court NHA awarded Lot 3, Block 12 of the Tatalon
found for the petitioner in accordance with Estate Urban Bliss Project (TEUBP),
the well-settled principle that "the accused containing an area of 65 square meters, to
in a criminal case may refuse, not only to Dolores Maranan. Later on, Maranan sold
answer incriminatory questions, but, the lot to Perlita Canedo.
also, to take the witness stand." If
petitioner would be compelled to testify Respondent Pascual however, assailed the
against himself, he could suffer not the award of the subject lot to Maranan by filing
forfeiture of property but the revocation a letter-complaint on February 14, 1983
of his license as a medical practitioner. before the General Manager of NHA,
The constitutional guarantee protects the alleging that she is the rightful beneficiary of
the said lot. The letter complaint reached 2. Determinative Powers (Alliance v
the Office of the President wherein it was Garin)
found out that Maranan is an absentee
awardee but then no ruling was made as to 1. Directing Powers
the disqualification of Maranan as an
absentee awardee. Includes dispensing, the examining, and
the summary powers
Pascual then filed a Complaint for
declaration of nullity, reconveyance, and Dispensing- to exempt from general
damages before the RTC against petitioner prohibition or relieve an individual or
NHA, Maranan, Canedo, and the Register corporation from an affirmative duty.
of Deeds of Quezon City.
Examining- investigatory power
RTC - dismissed respondent’s complaint
for declaration of nullity, reconveyance, and Summary Power- power to apply
damages. compulsion or force against persons or
property to effectuate a legal purpose with a
CA – reversed; declared the award of the lot judicial warrant to authorize such action.
subject matter of this case to Dolores
Sabella Maranan as null and void and 2. Enabling Powers
ordered NHA to reconvey the subject lot to
plaintiff-appellant Soledad Pascual. The enabling powers are those that permit
the doing of an act which the law
ISSUE: undertakes to regulate, and which would be
unlawful with government approval.
WON the award of the subject lot to Dolores
Due process of law has two aspects:
Maranan can still be nullified and set aside
substantive and procedural. In order that a
by the courts?
particular act may not be impugned as
violative of the due process clause, there
HELD: must be compliance with both the
substantive and the procedural
YES. It is well-established in our requirements thereof.
jurisprudence that the decisions and orders
of administrative agencies, rendered 4. JUDICIAL RECOURSE AND REVIEW
pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority,
have upon their finality, the force and A. DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF
binding effect of a final judgment within ADMIN REMEDIES
the purview of the doctrine of res
judicata. In the case at bar, since 1. Department of Finance v Dela Cruz
petitioner’s decision was seasonably G.R. No. 209331, April 24, 2015
appealed by respondent, the same has not
attained finality and the principle of res FACTS
judicata does not apply. (When respondent
found out that the lot was awarded to The case stemmed from the issuance of
Maranan, she instantly filed her letter- Executive Order No. 140 (EO 140) on 2
complaint and timely aired her claim over September 2013, which created the
the subject lot) Customs Policy Research Office (CPRO) in
the Department of Finance (DOF). EO 140
states that the CPRO "shall be responsible
for reviewing the customs administration
policies, rules and procedures, and ISSUES
thereafter providing sound
recommendations for the improvement of WON respondents failed to exhaust
the same. administrative remedies in filing the
EO 140 was published in Manila Bulletin action before the RTC.
and Philippine Star on 17 September 2013.
On the same day of the publication of EO HELD
140, Bureau of Customs (BOC)
Commissioner Rozzano Rufino B. Biazon Petitioners allege that respondents failed to
(Commissioner Biazon) issued Customs exhaust their administrative remedies
Personnel Order No. B-189-2013 (CPO before filing the case with the RTC. The
189-2013) detailing 27 BOC personnel doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
holding the positions of Collector of remedies allows administrative agencies to
Customs V and VI, including respondents in carry out their functions and discharge their
this case, to CPRO "effective immediately responsibilities within the specialized areas
and valid until sooner revoked." of their respective competence. The
Respondents filed an action for Declaratory doctrine entails lesser expenses and
Relief with Application for Temporary provides for the speedier resolution of
Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary controversies. Therefore, direct recourse to
Injunction before the Regional Trial Court the trial court, when administrative remedies
(RTC) of Manila. are available, is a ground for dismissal of
Petitioners alleged that the case involves the action.
personnel action affecting public officers The doctrine, however, is not without
which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of exceptions. Among the exceptions are:
the Civil Service Commission (CSC). (1) where there is estoppel on the part of
Petitioners also alleged that respondents the party invoking the doctrine;
failed to exhaust all administrative remedies (2) where the challenged administrative act
available to them before filing the petition is patently illegal, amounting to lack of
before the RTC. jurisdiction;
Petitioners also alleged that CPO 189-2013 (3) where there is unreasonable delay or
is an internal personnel order with official inaction that will irretrievably
application that is limited to and only within prejudice the complainant;
BOC and as such, it cannot be the subject (4) where the amount involved is relatively
of an action for declaratory relief. In their so small as to make the rule impractical and
Comment, respondents alleged that the oppressive;
case involves the validity and (5) where the question involved is purely
constitutionality of CPO 189-2013, and thus, legal and will ultimately have to be decided
it is beyond the jurisdiction of the CSC. by the courts of justice;
Respondents further alleged that EO 140 (6) where judicial intervention is urgent;
violated Article 2 of the Civil Code when it (7) where the application of the doctrine
became effective immediately after its may cause great and irreparable damage;
publication. In their Reply, petitioners (8) where the controverted acts violate due
alleged that respondents only assailed the process;
validity of EO 140 to justify their filing of an (9) where the issue of non-exhaustion of
action for declaratory relief. As regards its administrative remedies had been rendered
effectivity, petitioners alleged that EO 140 moot;
states that it shall "take effect immediately (10) where there is no other plain, speedy
upon publication in two (2) newspapers of and adequate remedy;
general circulation." (11) where strong public interest is involved;
and
(12) in quo warranto proceedings.
In this case, respondents allege that CPO (a) the mortgage between JOS Managing
189-2013 is contrary to law and Builders and United Overseas Bank be
unconstitutional. Respondents assail CPO declared null and void;
189-2013 as patently illegal, arbitrary, and (b)JOS Managing Builders and United
oppressive. This case clearly falls within the Overseas Bank be compelled to cause the
exceptions where exhaustion of issuance and release of the Condominium
administrative remedies need not be Certificate of Title; and
resorted to by respondents. (c) JOS Managing Builders be ordered to
provide emergency power
2. UNITED OVERSEAS BANK V BOARD facilities, to refund the monthly telephone
OF COMMISSIONERS-HLURB carrier charges, and to permanently cease
G.R. No. 182133, June 23, 2015 and desist from further collecting such
charges.
FACTS
ISSUE:
Respondent J.O.S. Managing Builders, Inc.
(JOS Managing Builders) is the registered WON the petitioner failed to exhaust
owner and developer of the condominium administrative remedies.
project Aurora Milestone Tower. On
December 16, 1997, JOS Managing HELD
Builders and respondent EDUPLAN
Philippines, Inc. (EDUPLAN) entered into a The petition is meritorious. The doctrine of
Contract to Sell covering Condominium Unit exhaustion of administrative remedies is a
E, 10th Floor of the Aurora Milestone Tower cornerstone of our judicial system. The
with an area of 149.72 square meters, thrust of the rule is that courts must allow
more or less. In August 1998, EDUPLAN administrative agencies to carry out their
effected full payment, and in December functions and discharge their responsibilities
1998, JOS Managing Builders and within the specialized areas of their
EDUPLAN executed a Deed of Absolute respective competence. It has been held,
Sale over the condominium unit. however, that the doctrine of exhaustion of
Notwithstanding the execution of the deed administrative remedies and the doctrine of
of sale in favor of EDUPLAN, JOS primary jurisdiction are not iron-clad rules.
Managing Builders failed to cause the
issuance of a Condominium Certificate of The final decision on the matter rests not
Title over the condominium unit in the name with them but with the courts of justice.
of EDUPLAN. EDUPLAN learned that the Exhaustion of administrative. Remedies do
lots on which the condominium building not apply, because nothing of an
project Aurora Milestone Tower was erected administrative nature is to be or can be
had been mortgaged by JOS Managing done. The issue does not require technical
Builders to petitioner United Overseas Bank knowledge and experience, but one that
of the Philippines (United Overseas Bank) would involve the interpretation and
without the prior written approval of the application of law. There is, thus, no need to
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board exhaust administrative remedies, under the
(HLURB). Due to the inability of JOS premises
Managing Builders to deliver the
condominium certificate of title covering the 3. Doctrine of primary administrative
unit purchased by EDUPLAN, the latter filed jurisdiction
a complaint for specific performance and
damages against JOS Managing Builders It precludes the courts from resolving a
and United Overseas Bank before the controversy over which jurisdiction was
HLURB praying that:
initially lodged with an administrative body
of special competence.

[Link] TO THE DOCTRINES

(a) where there is estoppel on the part of

the party invoking the doctrine;
(b) where the challenged administrative act
is patently illegal, amounting to lack of
jurisdiction;
(c) where there is unreasonable delay or
official inaction that will irretrievably
prejudice the complainant;
(d) where the amount involved is relatively
so small as to make the rule impractical and
oppressive;
(e) where the question involved is purely
legal and will ultimately have to be decided
by the courts of justice;
(f) where judicial intervention is urgent;
(g) where the application of the doctrine
may cause great and irreparable damage;
(h) where the controverted acts violate due
process;
(i) where the issue of non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies has been rendered
moot;
(j) where there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy;
(k) where strong public interest is involved;
and
(1) in quo warranto proceedings

5. DOCTRINE OF FINALITY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

6. IS JUDICIAL REVIEW A TRIAL DE

NOVO?

No, it is merely an ascertainment of whether

the findings of the administrative agency are
consistent with law, free from fraud or
imposition and supported by evidence.